Opinion ID: 835816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plaintiffs' legal action

Text: On September 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed in Marion County Circuit Court an appeal of the action of the Secretary of State under ORS 246.910 [1] and a petition for review of administrative action under ORS 183.484. [2] Plaintiffs alleged eight claims for relief. We summarize those claims for relief, because they are relevant to our disposition here. The first claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State's decision to reject the nominating petitions was not accompanied by any findings of fact or conclusions of law sufficient to enable Plaintiffs (or anyone) to determine the reasons for the rejection and that [s]uch deficiency renders the decision unlawful. The second claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State has apparently rejected over 3,000 valid and verified voter signatures due to some errors committed by persons who circulated signature sheets or by the Nader campaign. Plaintiffs alleged that the refusal of the Secretary of State to count those signatures is beyond his authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and is otherwise unlawful. The third claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State had rejected signature sheets containing in the range of 2,000 valid and verified voter signatures on the ground that the sheets, as submitted to the Secretary of State, were not sequentially numbered. Plaintiffs asserted that the Nader campaign had complied with applicable requirements for numbering sheets and that the Secretary of State's action was unlawful. The fourth claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State had rejected signature sheets containing in the range of 700 valid and verified voter signatures on the ground that the sheets display some defect in the signature of the circulator or the date on the signature of the circulator. Plaintiffs asserted that the Secretary of State had not stated which signature sheets were rejected for these reasons and has not stated the reason for the rejection of any signature sheet   . Plaintiffs alleged that the Secretary of State's rejection of signature sheets due to the appearance of or date pertaining to a circulator's signature was unlawful. The fifth claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State's implementation of a rule that disqualified voter signatures on a nominating petition on the basis of alleged or proven errors by petition circulators, in signing, dating, or placing numbers on the sheets, violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [3] The sixth claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State's implementation of a rule that disqualified voter signatures on a nominating petition on the basis of alleged or proven errors by petition circulatorsin signing, dating, or placing numbers on the sheets with no opportunity for administrative cure of alleged defectsviolated Article I, sections 8 and 20, and Article II, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. [4] The seventh claim for relief alleged that the Secretary of State's implementation of a rule that disqualified a circulator's signature if it varied from the signature on the circulator's Oregon voter registration card discriminated against Oregon voters who are not registered to vote and violated the First Amendment right of plaintiffs to travel across state lines into Oregon to engage in core political speech and to circulate petition sheets. Plaintiffs' eighth claim for relief sought reasonable attorney fees and costs for the action. Plaintiffs also requested declaratory and injunctive relief nullifying the Secretary of State's action. Along with their complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction requiring the Secretary of State to certify the Nader/Kucera ticket for the 2004 general election ballot   . Plaintiffs supported the motion with affidavits from several circulators of the certificate of nomination signature sheets.