On April 3, the Peace & Freedom Party filed this complaint in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. It challenges the California Secretary of State’s removal of Peta Lindsay from the party’s list of presidential primary candidates. Peta Lindsay is under the age of 35. She is the presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The case is Lindsay v Bowen, 2:2012-cv-853. It is assigned to Judge Garland Burrell, a Bush Sr. appointee.
The California Secretary of State was also sued on March 20 by individuals who feel she has a duty to determine whether presidential candidates meet the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. That case is pending in Superior Court in Sacramento, and is Dummett v Bowen, 34-2012-80001091. It was filed by individuals who believe that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications. Here is the Dummett complaint.
When one thinks about both of these cases, the conclusion comes to mind that the California Secretary of State is espousing contradictory positions. In the Dummett case, she says it is not her duty to determine if presidential candidates meet the constitutional qualifications. In the Lindsay case, she will presumably take a different position.
See 20th Amdt, Sec. 3 (1932-1933) – *qualified* language.
ANY need to look at the debates in the Congress ???
Pingback: Peace & Freedom Party Files Lawsuit to Restore Peta Lindsay to its Presidential Primary Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Lindsay is a facially invalid candidate (she’s too young). The Office of the SoS will surely take the position it has a statutory duty to not certify facially invalid candidates.
This in no way contradicts Keyes v. Bowen, where the California Court of Appeal ruled the office does not have the discretion to investigate qualifications. If Lindsay’s application reveals her ineligibility on its face, then there is no need to “investigate.”
#3, I don’t agree that Peta Lindsay is “facially” unqualified. Nothing in the papers that the Peace & Freedom Party submitted to the Secretary of State, or that other qualified parties submit to the Secretary of State, contain any information about the qualifications of the various candidates. There is no requirement that such party notifications make any statements about qualifications. That is the whole point of the Dummett case, that California forms and procedures must contain affirmative statements about the qualifications of presidential candidates, and none of them do. This is true both for the primary and the general election, for President.
#3, I agree with Richard’s response. To attempt to distinguish between “facially” invalid and other kinds of invalidity is to invite discriminatory decision making. Also, I don’t think the Court of Appeal ruled that the SoS “does not have discretion to investigate”. I think it ruled that she is under no obligation to investigate. Am I wrong?
The California State Court of Appeals, in Keyes v Bowen, 189 Cal App 4th 647 (2010) says, “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.” The word “must” is in italics.