Opinion ID: 2384041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Pollution Plus

Text: Against the backdrop of this evidence of pervasive wrongdoing, there were subcategories of Stars and Stripes circulators who had other disqualifying factors. Circulators Who Submitted False Declarations Of Residence Addresses And Were Unavailable To Testify Some individuals attested in the circulator affidavit that they resided at a particular address that turned out to be a non-existent address or premises that were vacant or abandoned. [24] In addition to the general taint from the pollution of the system, these individuals executed false circulator affidavits, which by itself is sufficient to invalidate the signatures ( see Williams v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, 804 A.2d 316, 319 (D.C.App.2002) (citing Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453, 675 P.2d 713, 715 (1984), which provides that the filing of a false affidavit by a circulator is a much more serious matter involving more than a technicality. The legislature has sought to protect the process by providing for some safeguards in the way nomination signatures are obtained and verified. Fraud in the certification destroys the safeguards unless there are strong sanctions for such conduct such as voiding of petitions with false certifications.); BOEE Ex. 69 at 13-16), and were also unavailable to testify because they could not be located, another ground for invalidating the signatures. See Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 196, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999). The lack of a valid address also casts doubt on whether the person is, in fact, a resident of the District of Columbia. ( See also D.C.Code § 1-1001.16(h)(1)(circulator affidavit must contain the residence address of the circulator); Attachment A at Section A.) Circulators Who Participated In Alteration Of Circulator Affidavits And Were Unavailable to Testify The signatures of some individuals appeared on circulator affidavits in which the signature or printed name of the original signer was crossed out and the individual's name was replaced. In addition to the general taint from the pollution of the system, this alteration raised questions as to the identity of the actual circulator and the likelihood, given other evidence presented, that the D.C. resident signer was executing a false affidavit on a petition sheet that was circulated by another individual, including a non-resident. The evidence of wrongdoing with respect to the altered affidavits casts doubt on the veracity of other petition sheets circulated by these individuals. In addition these individuals were unavailable to testify because they either failed to appear after being properly served, or could not be located. These various factors provide more than ample basis to invalidate the signatures on their petition sheets. ( See Attachment A at Section B.) Circulators Who Were Subject To Allegations of Wrongdoing and Were Unavailable To Testify Some individuals were alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing involving forgeries, altered affidavits, etc., but were unavailable to testify because they either failed to appear after being properly served, or could not be located. In a context, as here, where the Challengers have offered considerable probative and unrebutted evidence of wrongdoing by other individuals, together with evidence that such wrongdoing is systemic, the Citizens Committee cannot be allowed to stand on the challenged affidavit. The unavailability of the witness provides a justifiable basis, in this context, to invalidate the signatures. (See Attachment A at Section C.)