Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/84726587/CA-Noonan-et-al-v-Bowen-et-al-2012-02-16-Obama-Demurrer-Memo-of-Points-Authorities
Timestamp: 2016-08-29 21:52:09
Document Index: 700325422

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§ 453', '§ 15', '§ 900', '§ 903', '§ 305', '§ 350', '§ 18500', '§ 20200', '§ 20203', '§413', '§430', '§430', '§ 1085', '§1085', '§ 9', '§ 350', '§ 430', '§ 1085', '§ 350', '§ 18203', '§ 12172', '§ 9', '§ 430', '§ 431', '§ 9001', '§ 9031', '§ 453']

D. WOOCHER (SBN 96689) T. PEl (SBN 274957) STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 576-1233 Facsimile: (310) 319-0156 E-mail: fwoocher@strumwooch.com
A ttorneys for Respondents President Barack Obama and Obama for America
SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
CASE NO. 34-2012-80001048 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND OBAMA FOR AMERICA TO PETITION FOR PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: April 20,2012 9:00 a.m. 31 Hon. Michael P. Kenny
DEBRA BOWEN, individually and officially 17 as The California Secretary of State at 1500 11 th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; 18 BARAeK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; OBAMA 19 FORAMERlCA CALIFORNIA at Northem California HQ, 3225 Adeline Street, Berkeley, 20 CA 94703; JOHN and JANE DOES and XYZ 21 ENTITIES,
MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT OBAMA'S DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT
THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS, AND IT CANNOT DO SO AS A MATTER OF
LAW ···········
THE PETITION DOES NOT AND CANNOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PRESIDENT OSAMA THE PETITION DOES NOT AND CANNOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OBAMA FOR AMERICA CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE THE PETITION DOES NOT AND CANNOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE
8T ATE COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE QUALIFICA nONS OF CANDIOATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THEIR FEDERAL FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES. .............................
01' MANDATE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Cleaver v. Jordan (1968) 393 U.S. 810 Hollander v. McCain (D. N.H. 2008) 566 F.Supp.2d 63 '9 ,4
Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 U.S. 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Robinson v. Bowen (N.D. Cal. 2008) 567 F.Supp.2d 1144 Schneider v. Rusk (1964) 377 U.S. 163 US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649 State Cases
Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 CaJ.3d 311
1, 10 '4 3
,8 8 1,2, 7, 8,9, 10 ,4 ,6 ,4 ,4 Other State Cases
Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Ca1.3d 432 Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Ca1.4th 911
Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.AppAth 647
14 IS '16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 859 Mosesian v. Parker (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 544
People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado (1971) 5 Ca1.3d 480 Routh v. QUinn (1942) 20 Cal.2d 488
Ankeny v. Governor a/State of Indiana (Ind. App. 2009) 9] 6 N.E.2d 678 Federal Statutes 2 U.S.C., § 431
§ 453 (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
3 U.S.c., § 15 26 U.S.C.,
§ 900 1 § 903l .,.............................................................
11 MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
OBAMA'S DEMURRER
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
2 3 4 Cal. Elec. Code, § 305 § 350 (b) , , ,
• • ~ • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 ~ • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
,............. ,......,.........
§ 18500 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6 § 20200 § 20203 , ,................. 3,5 5
Code of Civ. Proe.,
§413.10 §430.IO(a) §430.IO(e) § 1085 §1085(a) Stats. 2010, ch. 190, § 9 , .. , , 2 4,9 4 4 4,8 ,7
III MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT OBAMA'S DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Three years ago, this Court sustained a demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate in Keyes
v. Bowen (Sacto.
Respondent then-candidate
Ct. Case No. 34-2008-80000096),
inter alia, sought to bar
for the ballot the name of without first verifying that
Seeretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying candidate"
Barack Obama or ~f "any future presidential
the candidate is a "natural born citizen" of the United States and, hence, is eligible to hold the office of President. This Court's ruling was suhsequently affirmed
in a published opinion by the Third
District Court of Appeal, which unanimously
held that Keyes' writ petition failed to state a cause of statutes do not impose a clear, present, and determine whether a presidential
action against Secretary of State Bowen because California or ministerial duty on the Secretary of State to investigate
candidate meets the eligibility criteria ofthe United States Constitution. Cal.App.4th candidate's legislative 647, 658-660.) qualifications
(Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189
The Court of Appeal further noted that a challenge for office "is committed under the Constitution if any -
to the electors and the should occur only after
branch, at least in the first instance. processes
the electoral and Congressional
have run their course." 1144, 1147].)
(Id. at p. 661 [quoting Robinson
v. Bowen (N.D. Cal. 2008) 567 F.Supp.2d The Petition for Prerogative
Writ of Mandate in the present case is virtually identical to the Petitioners allege that President
petition in Keyes v. Bowen, and it suffers from the same fatal defects. Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President -
of the United States (POTUS)
not because he was not born in the United States, but because his father was not a U.S. citizenObama ballot
and they seek a writ of mandate to compel Secretary of State Bowen to "bar Respondent access in California
along whir those similarly situated from the 2012 Election cycle from forming (Petition for Prerogative Writ of Mandate restraining
an elector slate for the office of POT US for California." and Restraint of Fund Raising ("Petition"), order" barring President
~ 18.) The Petition also seeks a "permanent from fundraising
Obama or his campaign committee
(Id., ~~ 33~34.)
President Obama is, of course, a "natural born citizen," born in the United States to a mother who was an American citizen, and is thus fully qualified to be President under the U.S. Constitution.
DEMURRER·tO
(See, e,g.,Ankeny v. Governor a/State a/Indiana (Ind. App. 2009) 916 N. E.2d 678,684-689 [persons 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens," as required for qualification to be President of the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents].) However, this fact is immaterial to the proper disposition of this case, which iike its predecessor, Keyes v. Bowen -
can and must be dismissed as a matter of law because there is no duty on the part of the Secretary of State to determine whether President Obama or any other presidential candidate meets the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners' claims becausefederallaw establishes the procedures for election of the President, and the exclusive means
of challenging the qualifications of a presidential candidate is to present an objection before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S,c. section 15. Because Petitioners cannot amend their Petition to state a valid cause of action, Respondents' demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend,
On January 6, 2012, seven in pro per petitioners Edward C. Noonan, Pamela Barnett,
Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott (collectively, "Petitioners") filed the instant "Petition for a Prerogative Writ of Mandate and Resiraint of Fund
Raising" against Respondents California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, President Barack Obama, and President Obama's campaign organization in California, Obama for America California.' Petitioner Noonan alleges that he is a declared presidential candidate for the American Independent Party (Petition, ~ 1); the remaining Petitioners allege that they are "natural person[s] resident in California and registered to vote in the 2012 Election cycle." (Id., ~~ 2-7 Y
'There is no legal entity entitled "Obama for America California." President Obama's principal campaign committee, as registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), is "Obama for America," which is headquartered and has its only office in Chicago, lllinois. President Obarna's re-election campaign makes use of a number of local offices throughout the country, one of which is located in the City of Berkeley, but these offices have no independent legal standing. Although the Petition was never properly served on Respondent Obarrra in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq., Respondents Obama and Obama for America have agreed to waive the defect in service and to deem the Petition to have been served on them on January 17, 2012.
MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTOF'R};;SPONDENT OBAMA"'S DEMURRER TO PETIT10N FOR WRIT OFMANDATE
The gravamen of the Petition seeks a writ against Respondent Bowen to bar President Obama 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ]3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from the ballot in the 2012 election cycle. The Petition alleges that President Obama is "a known ineligible declared candidate" for the office of President, in that President Obama has admitted that his father "was a British subject" while.married to his U.S. citizen mother. (Jd., ~ 19.) According to Petitioners, under the U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 U.S. 162, this allegedly means that Respondent Obama "is not a natural-born Citizen eligible to be
mandated by the U. S. Constitution," and he "must be barred from ballot access by Respondent Bowen as SOS starting no later than January 9, 2012." (Id., ~ 25.) Petitioners allege that they would suffer irreparable harm if an ineligible candidate were to appear on the ballot, and they therefore "demand by prerogative writ of mandate ... ther Respondent Bowen, SOS with authority to do so, bar
Respondent Obama ballot access in California along with those similarly situated from the 2012 Election cycle from forming an elector slate for the office of POT US for California." (Id, ~ 18.) In addition, the Petition alleges that "Respondent Obama is prohihited from fund raising as defined in CaL Elec. Code § 350(b) 'Candidate,' as used in Article 1 (commencing with Section 20200),"3 and it demands "a permanent restraining order to bar Respondent Obama and or his agents associated with Respondent Obama for America California be barred [sic] from fund raising or soliciting funds under the guise of the elections cycle as must apply for all those similarly situated who are ineligible to be a candidate for office of POTUS." (Petition, ~~ 33-34.) ARGUMENT As noted above, the legal theory on which the entire Petition is based that, despite being
born in the United States, President Obama is not a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President because his father was not a U.S. citizen - is manifestly incorrect. (See, e.g., U.S v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649, 654-658 [noting that the meaning of the term "natural-born citizen of the United States" must be interpreted in light of English common law principles, under which "any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural born British
"The Petition cites to California Elections Code section 350, but presumably intends to refer to section 305. Section 305 defines the term "candidate" for various purposes in which the word is used in the Elections Code; section 350, by contrast, defines the term "school measure." 3
MEMO OF POINTS
subject"]; Schneider v. Rusk (1964) 377 U.S. 163, 165 [equating a "natural born citizen" who is eligible to be President to a native-born, as opposed to a naturalized, citizen]; Hollander v. McCain (D. N.H. 2008) 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 ["Those born 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since tile time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency. "]; Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, supra, 916 N.E.2d at 684-689 [rejecting argument that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the office of PresIdent because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom].) Even
leaving its flawed premise aside, however, the Petition does not and cannot state a cause of action against any of the named Respondents, for the simple reason that none of them has neglected to perform any dnty imposed upon them by law. Moreover, the subjeet of Petitioners' claims are outside the jurisdiction of this or any other state court, and the Petition must be dismissed on that ground, as well. Because amendment would serve no useful purpose, Respondents' Demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend. (Code Civ, Proc., § 430.10, subds. (a) & (e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 CaL3d 311, 3 J 8 [demurrer should be sustained when complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action]; Routh v. Quinn (1942) 20 CaL2d 488, 493 [where "there are no circumstances under which an amendment would serve any useful purpose," dismissal without leave to amend is proper].) I. THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS, AND IT CANNOT DO SO AS A MATTER OF LAW Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, a writ of mandate will lie only "to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded." (Code Civ, Proc., § 1085,
subd. (a).) Two essential requirements must therefore be met in order for a writ to issue: "(1) A clear, present and usually ministerial duty upon the part of the respondent; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty." (Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 863 [quoting People ex reI. Younger v. County of El Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, 491].)
Here, Petitioners cannot make the requisite showing to justify issuance of a peremptory writ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 because they have failed to cite any legal duties that Respondents have allegedly neglected to perform. Neither President Obama nor his campaign committee have any legal obligation to provide proof of the President's qualifications as a "natural born citizen" to the Secretary of State in order to establish his eligibility to appear on the ballot as a presidential candidate, much less for him to be able to engage in fundraising activities in California. Similarly, the Secretary of State has no ministerial duty to determine presidential eandidates' constitutional eligibility for office before placing their names on the primary or general election ballot. Because these pleading failures cannot be cured by
amendment, Respondents' Demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend, and the action should be dismissed as to all Respondents.
THE PETITION ACAJNST
DOES NOT AND CANNOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION OBAMA
Although the Petition devotes a significant amount of attention to presenting the "forensic proof' of President Obama's supposed ineligibility for office (Petition, 'j[19), the only relief sought by the Petition that is actually directed to the President himself is the demand that a permanent restraining order bar him or his agents "from fund raising or soliciting funds under the guise of the elections cycle." (fd., 'l'j[ 33-34; see also id., Prayer for Relief, ~ 2.) Nowhere, however, does the Petition identify any statutory or other legal basis that gives rise to a duty on the part of the President to cease his fundraising activities in California, or to a correlative beneficial right on the part of Petitioners to the performance of any such obligation. Petitioners embellish their demand with
citations to two sections of the California Elections Code, but neither of them lends any coherence to their claim. (Id., 'j[34 [citing Elec. Code, §§ 350, subd. (b) & 20200 et seq.j.)" The Petition also quotes elsewhere from two other Elections Code provisions setting forth criminal penalties for the perpetration of election fraud (Petition,
'l~ [citing Elec. Code, §§ 18203 & 18500]), but again, 28-29
4As noted above, Ejections Code section 305, subdivision (b) (erroneously cited as section 350 throughout the Petition) simply defines the term "candidate" as it is used in Elections Code sections 20200 through 20203. Those sections, in turn, prohibit a person from using the name of a candidate or a committee in the sol icitation of campaign funds unless the person has received the candidate's or committee's prior authorization to do so. Plainly, neither section provides any support for the restraining order sought by Petitioners in this case.
AUTHOR1T!ES
IN SUPPOR'r OF RESPONDENT
neither statute sets forth any ministerial duty required to be undertaken by the President, much less one that creates a private right of action for its enforcement, nor is either section remotely related to a candidate's fundraising activities." In short, the Petition tails to set forth any conceivable legal basis for this Court to issue an order barring President Obama from fund raising in California. "It is the general rule applicable to the issuance of a writ of mandamus to furnish any basis for the relief sought, that the petitioner show that respondents are under some duty to do what the petition asks that they be required to do."
iMosesian v.Parker (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 544, 548.) Petitioners' allegations as to President Obama
fall far short of this minimal standard and, as such, they must be dismissed. B.
'THE PETITrON AGAINST DOES NOT AND CANNOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AMERICA CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE THE OBAMA
As with President Obama, the only relief sought by the Petition with respect te Respondent Obama for America is the demand for a restraining order barring its agents from engaging in any further fundraising in California. (Petition,' 33 & Prayer for Relief, , 2.) The Petition makes no
attempt to identify any dirty owed by the campaign committee that would justify the relief sought, however, aside from citing to the same irrelevant Elections Code provisions referred to above, For the same reasons that are discussed in the previous section, these statutes do nothing to cure the pleading's fatal deficiencies, and the demurrer must be granted as to Respondent Obama for America without leave to amend.
THE PETITION AGAINST
DOES NOT AND CANNOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION OF STATE
Finally, the Petition fails to state a cause of action against Respondent Bowen, as well, because it does not establish that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to determine the constitutional eligi bi Iity of President 0 bama or of any other presidential candidate before pi acing his or her name on the election ballot. Indeed, no such showing could be made by Petitioners as a matter of law, for the statutory scheme and the case law firmly establish that the Secretary of State does not
27 SElections Code section 18203 makes it a crime for a candidate to knowingly file a false nomination paper or declaration of candidacy, and section 18500 makes it a felony to fraudulently cast a vote or to aid or abet another in fraudulently voting. 6
MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUI'I'ORT Of RESPONDENT OSAMA'S DEMURRER TO PETlTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
have the duty to do so. 2 3 4 5 As noted in the Introduction, the Court of Appeal's decision in Keyes v, Bowen is directly on point with respect to this issue, and it is therefore worth quoting at length from the pertinent portion of that opinion: "The trial court also ruled that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against Secretary of Stale Bowen because they .did not establish that she had a ministerial duty to investigate and determine President Obama's eligibility for the office of President. Again, plaintiffs fail to establish error. The Secretary of State is charged with ensuring 'that elections are efficiently conducted and that state election laws are enforced .... ' (Gov. Code, § 12172.5.) With respect to primary elections, section 604l directs the Secretary of State to 'place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States .... [-r] ... After the 63rd day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State may add candidates to the selection, but he or she may not delete any presidential candidate whose name appears on the announced list except as provided in Section 6043 [concerning a selected candidate's unqualified affidavit that he or she is not a candidate].' Section 6901, which governs general elections, states: 'Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578, or 7843 [none of which concern constitutional eligibility], submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of Slate shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties 10 be placed upon the ballot jar the ensuing general election.' (Italics added [by Gourt].) The aforementioned statutes do not impose a clear, present, or ministerial duty on the Secretary of State to determine whether the presidential candidate meets the eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution. Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot, which is governed by section 6901. With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates." (Keyes v. Bowen, supra, 189 Cal.App.eth at pp. 658-660 [footnotes omittedj.)"
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27
6The final paragraph of Elections Code section 6041 was amended slightly subsequent to the court's opinion in Keyes v. Bowen. (See Stats. 2010, ch. 190, § 9.) The section now provides, in its entirety: "The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as 7
MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT 013AMA'S DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
The Keyes decision thus unequivocally holds that the Secretary of State is under no duty to 2 3 4 5 independently screen presidential candidates for eligibility before placing their names on the state's ballot. To the contrary, under Elections Code section 6041, Respondent Bowen has an affirmative duty to place the candidate's name on the primary ballot whenever she determines that "rhe candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking
6 the nomination of the Democratic Party for President ofthe United States." Secretary of State Bowen
7 8 9 10 ]I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
has fully performed her duty under section 6041 by publicly announcing and distributing to the news media a list of the candidates that she has determined meet the statute's criteria and that she intends to place on the ballot for the June 5, 2012, presidential primary election. (See "Generally Recognized Presidential Candidates, June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election," Exh. A to Respondents' Request for Judicial Notice.) President Obama 's name is rightly on the Secretary of State's published list of generally recognized presidential candidates. While section 6041 may be said to "give[] the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot" (Keyes v. Bowen, supra, 189 CaLApp.4th at p. 651), that discretion has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether the candidate is constitutionally eligible for office, bur relates solely to whether he or she is generally recognized as "actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party." Moreover, it is well established that traditional mandamus does not lie to control an official's exercise of discretion, but only to compel an official to perform a ministerial act withirr:lhe meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, subdivision (a). (See, e.g., Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Ca1.3d 432, 442; Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 916 ["A
actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended. Between the 150th day and the 68rh day preceding a presidential primary . election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential primary election." 8
MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT OSAMA
ministerial 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lObe 11 12 13 14 15 16 II. obedience concerning
act is an act that a public officer is required to the mandate of legal authority and without
in a prescribed
regard to his own judgment
such act's propriety or impropriety,
when a given state of facts exist."}.)
the instant case, even her discretion
Petitioners presumably weuld concede that Respondent
that President Obama "is generally advocated Party nomination for President.
Bowen did not abuse
for or recognized ... as of State
actively seeking"
Indeed, the Secretary
would have abused her discretion
were she to have reached any other conclusion.' the Secretary of State or any of the
In sum, the Petition fails to establish any duty requiring other Respondents
to take the actions demanded of them by Petitioners.
The demurrer must therefore in its entirety.
sustained withont leave to amend, and the Petition must be dismissed
STATE COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE QUAbIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF 'EHE UNITED ST A TES OR THEIR FEDERAL FUNDRAISING ACTI VITIES
The demurrer must also be sustained because "[t]he eourt has no jdrisdiction of the subject
of the cause of action alleged in the pleading." simply do not havejurisdiction for the office of President
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).) State courts eligibility under the U.S. Constitution noted, "[t]he
over the subject ofa candidate's of the United
States. As the Keyes v. Bowen riecision
19 20 7The Petition's "Background Facts" section mentions two "historical examples" in which it is alleged that "California Secretaries of State have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents" in order to verify a presidential candidate's eligibility for office. (Petition, ~ 13.) Only the Eldridge Cleaver reference is supported by any citation to authority, however. (See id., ~ 31 [citing Cleaver v. Jordan (1968) 393 U.S. 810].) More importantly, as the court explained in Keyes v. Bowen, the Cleaver case does not show that the Secretary of State has a duty to investigate a presidential candidate's qualifications and remove him or her from the ballot if the qualifications are found lacking: "The citation provided by plaintiffs merely reflects that the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari; it states nothing about the facts of the case. As we explained earlier, appellants' arguments must be supported by authority, and we are not obligated to search for it. Besides, the fact that former Secretary of State Jordan excluded a candidate, who indisputably did not meet the eligibility requirements, does not demonstrate that the Secretary of State has a clear and present ministerial duty to investigate and determine if candidates are qualified before following the statutory mandate to place their names on the general election ballot." (189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 659·660.)
presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states' election officials independently 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results." (189 Cal.AppAth at p. 660.) Rather, federal law sets forth the exclusive procedure by which objections to the qualifications of a presidential candidate may be registered and resolved. "[Mjechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.c. § IS for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and
[J the Twentieth
Amendment provides guidance regarding how
to proceed if a president elect shan have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process." (189 Cal.AppAth at p. 661 [quoting Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147].) Therefore, any challenge to President Obama's eligibility to serve as President "is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance" (ibid.) not to the California Secretary of State or this Court.
Likewise, the California state courts have no jurisdiction over the fundraising activities of presidential candidates. Those activities are governed by the F.ederal Election Campaign Act (2
U.S.c. § 431 et seq.), the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (26 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq.), and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (26 U.S. C. § 9031 et seq.). None of these statutes provides any authorization fer the state courts to interpret, implement, or enforce its provisions. To the contrary, the Federal Election Campaign Act expressly declares that "the
provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office." (2 U.S.C. § 453, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) The state courts simply lack jurisdiction over any aspect of the fundraising activities of candidates for federal office, especially candidates for President of the United States. CONCLUSION Barack Obama has served as this country's President for more than three years. This lawsuit is only the latest in a never-ending parade of frivolous "birther" actions challenging President Obama's eligibility for office, all ofwhieh have been swiftly and decisively rejeeted by the courts. This Petition, like its predecessors, has no basis in law, and the relief it seeks cannot be granted by this Court. For the reasons and upon the authorities cited above, Respondents respectfully request that the Demurrer be sustained without leave to amend, and the action promptly be dismissed. 10
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT OSAMA'S
DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRITOF
STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER Fredric D. Woocher Patricia T. Pei
BY?f~
]4 15 16 17 18
MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHOR ITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT OBAMA' S DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE
CA - Noonan et al v Bowen et al - 2012-02-16 - Obama Demurrer Memo of Points & Authorities by Jack Ryan11 viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedCA - 2012-04-25 - NOONAN - Memo of Points & Authorities to Demurrer to 1st Amended Writby Jack RyanNoonan v Bowen APPEAL - Reply Brief of Appellant Barnett 131202by Jack RyanComplaint Against Judge Micheal p Kennyby Edward C Noonan2012-05-17 CA - NOONAN - Opposition to Demurrer - Kreep Declarationby Jack RyanNoonan v Bowen - Request for Continuance of Oral Argumentby Jack Ryan2012-05-17 CA - NOONAN - Opposition to Demurrerby Jack RyanBarnett Response Mar15_12by AnitaMariaS2012-04-05 CA - NOONAN v Bowen - SoS Bowen Response to Notice of Related Casesby Jack RyanCA - 2012-07-05 NOONAN - Final Order Sustaining Demurrerby Jack RyanCA -2012-04-25 - NOONAN - Notice of Demurrer to First Amended Prerogative Writby Jack RyanNoonan v Bowen APPEAL - Brief of Respondent Debra Bowen 130918by Jack RyanNoonan v Bowen - Petition for Rehearing of Appellant Barnettby Jack Ryan2012 05 18 - CA - NOONAN - Reply Memo of Obama in Support of Demurrer to First Prerogative Writ...by Jack RyanBarnett MinuteOrder 2 Mar16_12by AnitaMariaSDOJ Demurrerby Edward C NoonanSCOCA - 2014-10-06 - Noonan v Bowen - Barnett Petition for Review 141006by Jack RyanCA - 2012-08-13 - NvB - NOONAN Notice of Appealby Jack Ryan2012-03-26 - Noonan v Bowen - Notice of Related Casesby Jack RyanBarnett Memo Mar15_12by AnitaMariaSCA - Noonan et al v Bowen et al - 2012-02-16 - Obama Demurrerby Jack RyanBarnett MinuteOrder 1 Mar16_12by AnitaMariaSCA - 2012-04-24 - NOONAN, et al. v BOWEN, et al. - Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of SoS Demurer to 1st Amendedby Jack RyanBarnett Declaration Mar15_12by AnitaMariaSCalifornia Amended Obama Ballot Challenge, Not just about Obamaby Pamela Barnett2012-03-23 - CA - NOONAN, et al. v Bowen, et al - Order Vacating Hearing on 3-23-2012by Jack Ryan2012-05-17 CA - NOONAN - Substitution of Counsel (KREEP)by Jack RyanCalifornia Writ to Keep Obama Off Ballot, Stop Fund Raisingby Pamela BarnettCA-2012-04-25 - NOONAN - Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to First Amendedby Jack RyanSimilar to CA - Noonan et al v Bowen et al - 2012-02-16 - Obama Demurrer Memo of Points & AuthoritiesCA - 2012-04-25 - NOONAN - Memo of Points & Authorities to Demurrer to 1st Amended WritNoonan v Bowen APPEAL - Reply Brief of Appellant Barnett 131202Complaint Against Judge Micheal p Kenny2012-05-17 CA - NOONAN - Opposition to Demurrer - Kreep DeclarationNoonan v Bowen - Request for Continuance of Oral Argument2012-05-17 CA - NOONAN - Opposition to DemurrerBarnett Response Mar15_122012-04-05 CA - NOONAN v Bowen - SoS Bowen Response to Notice of Related CasesCA - 2012-07-05 NOONAN - Final Order Sustaining DemurrerCA -2012-04-25 - NOONAN - Notice of Demurrer to First Amended Prerogative WritNoonan v Bowen APPEAL - Brief of Respondent Debra Bowen 130918Noonan v Bowen - Petition for Rehearing of Appellant Barnett2012 05 18 - CA - NOONAN - Reply Memo of Obama in Support of Demurrer to First Prerogative Writ...Barnett MinuteOrder 2 Mar16_12DOJ DemurrerSCOCA - 2014-10-06 - Noonan v Bowen - Barnett Petition for Review 141006CA - 2012-08-13 - NvB - NOONAN Notice of Appeal2012-03-26 - Noonan v Bowen - Notice of Related CasesBarnett Memo Mar15_12CA - Noonan et al v Bowen et al - 2012-02-16 - Obama DemurrerBarnett MinuteOrder 1 Mar16_12CA - 2012-04-24 - NOONAN, et al. v BOWEN, et al. - Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of SoS Demurer to 1st AmendedBarnett Declaration Mar15_12California Amended Obama Ballot Challenge, Not just about Obama2012-03-23 - CA - NOONAN, et al. v Bowen, et al - Order Vacating Hearing on 3-23-20122012-05-17 CA - NOONAN - Substitution of Counsel (KREEP)California Writ to Keep Obama Off Ballot, Stop Fund RaisingCA-2012-04-25 - NOONAN - Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to First AmendedCA - NOONAN - 2012-07-05 Judgment Awarding CostsNoonan v Bowen - Petition for Rehearing of Appellant Barnett - Notice of Errata