My anonymous source in Tennessee heard back from Lamar Alexander's office earlier this week. A staff member was kind enough to forward his/her request for information on to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so hopefully we'll have more to report in the not too distant future.
Please note: I have digitally altered this document by removing all information that could identify my source, or the staff member working for Senator Alexander. Everything else remains intact.
Lamar Alexander FBI Contacted
Here was our original letter to the Senator's office:
1st Response to Senator Alexander
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Follow-up with Joseph Sandler, Chief Legal Counsel for the Democratic National Committee
This correspondence had an email, with a document attached to it. First the email:
------------
Mr. Sandler,
I've been told that you're office is the correct one to forward this correspondence to. Please find attached some questions regarding the potential release of documents to the public from the DNC. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Dear Mr. Sandler,
Please allow me to thank you for your prompt and courteous reply to my records request. While I disagree with your assessment of the situation, I respect your judgment, and will proceed with my inquiry through the proper channels.
I thank you for the information regarding the various State Party's Delegate Selection Plans for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Please know that many of those documents have been reviewed by myself and other concerned citizens. We have also contacted a large number of Secretaries of State, who have unanimously told us that it is the legal responsibility of the political party to ensure that the candidates they put forth for election are legally qualified to serve in the office they are seeking; hence our decision to contact you.
I hope you won't consider it impertinent of me to ask you to clear up some confusion on my part. To the best of my knowledge, each of the State Party's Delegate Selection Plans must comply with the policies, procedures, and rules that are put forth in the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention that was adopted by the Democratic National Committee on August 19th of last year. In that document, under heading 12 (Presidential Preference), rule K, it states:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
This document leads me to believe that there are policies and procedures that have been established by the party in which a candidate is determined to be legally qualified to hold office. As far as I am able to determine, each of these necessary qualification could be established by the presentation of documentary evidence. I am hopeful that the party will be willing to share this information with the public because in the Delegate Selection Rules it also states, under the heading An Open Party: “The Democratic Party in each state should publicize fully and in such a manner as to assure notice to all interested parties a full description of the legal and practical procedures for selection of Democratic Party officers and representatives on all levels”. I have made this request of my state party, and was rebuffed – perhaps the national party organization is willing to receive a “full description of the legal and practical procedures” for the selection of the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the office of President of the United States of America. Is there any circumstance under which the Democratic National Party would be willing to share this information with the public? Is there any circumstance under which the party would be willing to share with the public the evidence that was considered in making the determination that Mr. Obama was legally eligible to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution and the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention?
Finally, please know that I come to you in a spirit of cooperation and, hopefully, coordinated effort. I am anything but a litigious person, and am willing to exhaust any and all necessary efforts to bring this information to light before considering the option of petitioning the judicial branch of our governmental system. I wish you the very best, and eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Mr. Sandler,
I've been told that you're office is the correct one to forward this correspondence to. Please find attached some questions regarding the potential release of documents to the public from the DNC. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Dear Mr. Sandler,
Please allow me to thank you for your prompt and courteous reply to my records request. While I disagree with your assessment of the situation, I respect your judgment, and will proceed with my inquiry through the proper channels.
I thank you for the information regarding the various State Party's Delegate Selection Plans for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Please know that many of those documents have been reviewed by myself and other concerned citizens. We have also contacted a large number of Secretaries of State, who have unanimously told us that it is the legal responsibility of the political party to ensure that the candidates they put forth for election are legally qualified to serve in the office they are seeking; hence our decision to contact you.
I hope you won't consider it impertinent of me to ask you to clear up some confusion on my part. To the best of my knowledge, each of the State Party's Delegate Selection Plans must comply with the policies, procedures, and rules that are put forth in the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention that was adopted by the Democratic National Committee on August 19th of last year. In that document, under heading 12 (Presidential Preference), rule K, it states:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
This document leads me to believe that there are policies and procedures that have been established by the party in which a candidate is determined to be legally qualified to hold office. As far as I am able to determine, each of these necessary qualification could be established by the presentation of documentary evidence. I am hopeful that the party will be willing to share this information with the public because in the Delegate Selection Rules it also states, under the heading An Open Party: “The Democratic Party in each state should publicize fully and in such a manner as to assure notice to all interested parties a full description of the legal and practical procedures for selection of Democratic Party officers and representatives on all levels”. I have made this request of my state party, and was rebuffed – perhaps the national party organization is willing to receive a “full description of the legal and practical procedures” for the selection of the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the office of President of the United States of America. Is there any circumstance under which the Democratic National Party would be willing to share this information with the public? Is there any circumstance under which the party would be willing to share with the public the evidence that was considered in making the determination that Mr. Obama was legally eligible to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution and the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention?
Finally, please know that I come to you in a spirit of cooperation and, hopefully, coordinated effort. I am anything but a litigious person, and am willing to exhaust any and all necessary efforts to bring this information to light before considering the option of petitioning the judicial branch of our governmental system. I wish you the very best, and eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
A Hand Delivered Letter to Nancy Pelosi?
I received an interesting letter from an an unnamed source today. This person wrote:
------------
If you want to draft a letter to NP (Nancy Pelosi) regarding the differences in the HI DNC Certification, I have someone who will hand-deliver this to NP in D.C.
------------
Obviously, I jumped at the offer. Here's the letter I wrote:
------------
January 2nd, 2009
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Washington, D.C. Office
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
202.225.4965
Congresswoman Pelosi,
First, please allow me the opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year, and express my gratitude for the chance to present this letter to you. I know that you are an extremely busy woman, and I will seek to be as brief and to the point as possible.
On the 22nd of December last year, I received a document from the Hawaii Office of Elections that included an Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic Party that bears your signature on it. On that document, it states in part that: “the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (referring to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively) are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” I was interested in this document because it was different from all the other Certifications of Nomination which I have received, which simply state that the candidates had been nominated at the convention. I am assuming that this difference is a result of Section 11-113 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which stipulates that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
As I'm sure you know, there has been some concern on the part of the citizens of this country that Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President; and, as of yet, no evidence has been made available to the public that would allow for a determination of eligibility to be made. Because you signed your name to this document, I have been asked by other concerned citizens to make a request that you provide us access to and copies of any documents that you used when making a determination of eligibility regarding Mr. Obama's qualifications to serve as President of the United States of America.
Again, I thank you for your time, and eagerly await your response.
Sincerely Yours,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
If I hear anything, I'll post it right away...
------------
If you want to draft a letter to NP (Nancy Pelosi) regarding the differences in the HI DNC Certification, I have someone who will hand-deliver this to NP in D.C.
------------
Obviously, I jumped at the offer. Here's the letter I wrote:
------------
January 2nd, 2009
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Washington, D.C. Office
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
202.225.4965
Congresswoman Pelosi,
First, please allow me the opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year, and express my gratitude for the chance to present this letter to you. I know that you are an extremely busy woman, and I will seek to be as brief and to the point as possible.
On the 22nd of December last year, I received a document from the Hawaii Office of Elections that included an Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic Party that bears your signature on it. On that document, it states in part that: “the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (referring to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively) are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” I was interested in this document because it was different from all the other Certifications of Nomination which I have received, which simply state that the candidates had been nominated at the convention. I am assuming that this difference is a result of Section 11-113 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which stipulates that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
As I'm sure you know, there has been some concern on the part of the citizens of this country that Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President; and, as of yet, no evidence has been made available to the public that would allow for a determination of eligibility to be made. Because you signed your name to this document, I have been asked by other concerned citizens to make a request that you provide us access to and copies of any documents that you used when making a determination of eligibility regarding Mr. Obama's qualifications to serve as President of the United States of America.
Again, I thank you for your time, and eagerly await your response.
Sincerely Yours,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
If I hear anything, I'll post it right away...
Response From the Democratic National Committee Regarding Document Request
Thanks to many new friends from the Plains Radio Network, I received a response to my document request today (note: the request came through others, not directly to my request). It looks like the request has been forwarded on to the legal department for review. Here's a sampling of the emails that were sent by the DNC to various petitioners (I've redacted the names of all senders for the privacy of those involved).
------------
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate department.
------------
and then:
Already received several duplicate copies. Forwarded to the appropriate department.
------------
in response to a question about what department the correspondence was sent to, the DNC replied:
Legal.
------------
So we've made progress. We should hear back relatively soon, I would hope. I'll post something here as soon as there's news fit to print...
------------
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate department.
------------
and then:
Already received several duplicate copies. Forwarded to the appropriate department.
------------
in response to a question about what department the correspondence was sent to, the DNC replied:
Legal.
------------
So we've made progress. We should hear back relatively soon, I would hope. I'll post something here as soon as there's news fit to print...
Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner
John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi signed the Hawaii Certification of Nominations. I wrote them through their Congressional offices.
------------
On the 4th of September, 2008, Mr. Boehner signed a document that was submitted to Hawaiian government officials stating that John McCain met the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of President. I am doing a research project on this topic, and was wondering what evidence Mr. Boehner was presented with that allowed him to make this determination of eligibility.
Thanks for your help!
------------
On the 28th of August, 2008, Ms. Pelosi signed a document that was submitted to Hawaiian government officials stating that Barack Obama was legally qualified to hold the office of President under the provisions of the Constitution. I am doing a research project on this topic, and was wondering what evidence Ms. Pelosi was presented with that allowed her to make this determination of eligibility.
Thanks for your help!
------------
On the 4th of September, 2008, Mr. Boehner signed a document that was submitted to Hawaiian government officials stating that John McCain met the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of President. I am doing a research project on this topic, and was wondering what evidence Mr. Boehner was presented with that allowed him to make this determination of eligibility.
Thanks for your help!
------------
On the 28th of August, 2008, Ms. Pelosi signed a document that was submitted to Hawaiian government officials stating that Barack Obama was legally qualified to hold the office of President under the provisions of the Constitution. I am doing a research project on this topic, and was wondering what evidence Ms. Pelosi was presented with that allowed her to make this determination of eligibility.
Thanks for your help!
Hawaii Answers TWO of My Questions
Today was a landmark day in my search. Hawaii has answered two of the questions I originally asked.
1) WHO was responsible for ensuring that our presidential candidate's were eligible?
For the Republicans, the answer to that question is 1) John Boehner, Chairman of the Republican National Convention, 2) Jean A. Inman, Secretary of the Republican National Convention, and 3) Willes K. Lee, Chairman of the Republican Party of Hawaii.
For the Democrats, it was 1) Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, 2) Alice Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention 3) Brian E. Schatz, Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and 4) Lynne Matusow, Secretary of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
2) WHEN was the final determination regarding the presidential candidates eligibility made?
For the Republicans, the date was September 4th, 2008.
For the Democrats, the date was the 28th of August.
This only leaves us with one final question to answer:
3) WHAT EVIDENCE did the candidates provide to the above named officials which allowed a determination of eligibility to be made? At least we know who to ask!
I've attached the documents for you to review, and wish to express again my thanks for Hawaiian officials, who have been more than helpful during my correspondence with them.
Hawaii - Dems and Repubs Say Constitutionally Eligible
1) WHO was responsible for ensuring that our presidential candidate's were eligible?
For the Republicans, the answer to that question is 1) John Boehner, Chairman of the Republican National Convention, 2) Jean A. Inman, Secretary of the Republican National Convention, and 3) Willes K. Lee, Chairman of the Republican Party of Hawaii.
For the Democrats, it was 1) Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, 2) Alice Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention 3) Brian E. Schatz, Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and 4) Lynne Matusow, Secretary of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
2) WHEN was the final determination regarding the presidential candidates eligibility made?
For the Republicans, the date was September 4th, 2008.
For the Democrats, the date was the 28th of August.
This only leaves us with one final question to answer:
3) WHAT EVIDENCE did the candidates provide to the above named officials which allowed a determination of eligibility to be made? At least we know who to ask!
I've attached the documents for you to review, and wish to express again my thanks for Hawaiian officials, who have been more than helpful during my correspondence with them.
Hawaii - Dems and Repubs Say Constitutionally Eligible
A Surprise From the Liberterian Party...
I haven't had any luck getting the two major parties to respond to my calls and emails, so today I decided to try the minor parties. One, the Libertarian Party, responded almost immediately to my request for information. What they told me boldly highlighted the problem with our current system. First, the correspondence:
------------
Dear Sir/Madam, According to my Secretary of State's office, it is the responsibility of the party to ensure that its candidates are qualified to hold the office for which they run. I'm doing a research project on how different parties go about fulfilling this obligation. Specifically, I was wondering:
1) How did your organization ensure that Mr. (redacted - I first got the candidate's name wrong) was eligible to hold the office of President, should he have been elected?
2) When did the qualification process take place, and was there a particular date when he was "declared" to be eligible?
3) What evidence was your candidate required to present to the party in order to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold office? I thank you for your time, and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
The response:
There was no question as to Congressman Barr’s eligibility, so we went on good faith that he was Constitutionally qualified.
------------
If you'll remember, the Colorado Secretary of State's office explicitly stated that the legal responsibility for ensuring that a candidate is qualified falls to the candidate's party; yet here we have a concrete example of a party who performed no check on their candidate, proceeding on "good faith" because "there was no question" about their candidate's eligibility. I don' t think I need to point out the more obvious problems with this scenario. In fact, I don't know that I need to say anything at all - the problems are so glaringly obvious that they speak for themselves.
------------
Dear Sir/Madam, According to my Secretary of State's office, it is the responsibility of the party to ensure that its candidates are qualified to hold the office for which they run. I'm doing a research project on how different parties go about fulfilling this obligation. Specifically, I was wondering:
1) How did your organization ensure that Mr. (redacted - I first got the candidate's name wrong) was eligible to hold the office of President, should he have been elected?
2) When did the qualification process take place, and was there a particular date when he was "declared" to be eligible?
3) What evidence was your candidate required to present to the party in order to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold office? I thank you for your time, and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
The response:
There was no question as to Congressman Barr’s eligibility, so we went on good faith that he was Constitutionally qualified.
------------
If you'll remember, the Colorado Secretary of State's office explicitly stated that the legal responsibility for ensuring that a candidate is qualified falls to the candidate's party; yet here we have a concrete example of a party who performed no check on their candidate, proceeding on "good faith" because "there was no question" about their candidate's eligibility. I don' t think I need to point out the more obvious problems with this scenario. In fact, I don't know that I need to say anything at all - the problems are so glaringly obvious that they speak for themselves.
Question Regarding Filing a Complaint Against State Political Parties
Although I am loathe to travel this road, the political parties seem resistant to releasing what ought to be simple, factual information. Today, I opened a correspondence with Troy Bratton, a Legal Specialist with the Colorado Secretary of State's office, in regards to how one would file a complaint against the political parties. Here is the correspondence, in full:
------------
Ms. Geiger,
In an email communication, the Colorado Secretary of State's office is quoted as saying:
"The Colorado Secretary of State's office, has received numerous calls and emails inquiring into the procedures undertaken to ensure that presidential candidates are qualified to be placed on the ballot. This email is intended to answer your questions regarding the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States.First, please understand that, pursuant to Colorado statute, the process of nominating and certifying presidential candidates to the ballot is party-oriented; candidates are certified to the state and, therefore, the legal responsibility for confirming citizenship (or any other qualification) lies with the certifying entity.Any questions regarding the qualifications of a presidential candidate should be directed to the parties, who are the certifying entities in this case."
I have directed my questions to the parties, and they have, unfortunately, been unresponsive to my requests for information. I would now like to inquire as to how I might file an official complaint against the parties, and perhaps open an investigation into whether or not they performed their "legal responsibility" of confirming their presidential candidate's qualifications before certifying him to the state. Any help you might be able to offer in regards to this unpleasant business is gratefully received.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Mr. Riggs:
Because the legal dispute appears to be between you and the parties, I recommend that you consult an attorney for legal advice on how to proceed. This office is unable to provide you with legal advice on how to file a protest regarding the certification of candidates by a political party. Further, as expressed in the original email response from this office, the proper forum for complaints is the district court, not the Secretary of State’s office. As such, this office lacks the authority to investigate the certification of candidates by a political party. Please see sections 1-4-501(3) and 1-4-909, C.R.S., for more information.
------------
Mr. Bratton, et al...
Thank you for your timely response to my question. However, I'm not sure I made myself very clear in my previous message.
I am not a litigous man, and don't have the time, energy or resources to pursue this matter in a court of any kind. I am not seeking legal advice from your office - I simply want to know where I can file a *complaint* against the parties, claiming that that they didn't perform the duties prescribed to them by the Secretary of State's office.
In other words, I don't want to challenge the candidate's eligibility - that would be foolish, as I don't know if the candidate is eligible, because if the parties checked the candidates' qualifications, they won't release a) who did it, b) when it was done, or c) what evidence was provided by the candidate to the party that allowed the party to decide that the candidate was eligible.
The Secretary of State's office is on the record as stating that it is the "legal responsibility" of the party to confirm the qualifications of their candidates before certifying them to the state. If this is the case, surely there is an enforcement mechanism in place, and an authorized body that has been established to investigate such complaints as the one I propose..
Again, I am not challenging any candidate's eligibility - I am complaining that, to the best of my knowledge, the state parties did not perform their legal duty to check those same candidates' qualifications - or that if they did, they will not release the pertinent information to the public.
Sorry for the confusion, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Please see below:
1-1-113. Neglect of duty and wrongful acts - procedures for adjudication of controversies -
review by supreme court.
(1) When any controversy arises between any official charged with any duty
or function under this code and any candidate, or any officers or representatives of a political party, or
any persons who have made nominations or when any eligible elector files a verified petition in a district
court of competent jurisdiction alleging that a person charged with a duty under this code has committed
or is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act, after notice to the official which
includes an opportunity to be heard, upon a finding of good cause, the district court shall issue an order
requiring substantial compliance with the provisions of this code. The order shall require the person
charged to forthwith perform the duty or to desist from the wrongful act or to forthwith show cause why
the order should not be obeyed. The burden of proof is on the petitioner.
(2) The petitioner shall be required to deposit in court the statutory witness fees pursuant to section
13-33-102, C.R.S., for each person cited or summoned into court as a party or a witness, to be paid to the
party or witness if the charge is not sustained. The money so deposited shall be returned to the party
depositing it if any of the charges are sustained.
(3) The proceedings may be reviewed and finally adjudicated by the supreme court of this state, if
either party makes application to the supreme court within three days after the district court proceedings
are terminated, unless the supreme court, in its discretion, declines jurisdiction of the case. If the
supreme court declines to review the proceedings, the decision of the district court shall be final and not
subject to further appellate review.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in this part 1, the procedure specified in this section shall be the
exclusive method for the adjudication of controversies arising from a breach or neglect of duty or other
wrongful act that occurs prior to the day of an election.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the procedures specified in section 1-1.5-105 shall
constitute the exclusive administrative remedy for a complaint arising under title III of the federal "Help
America Vote Act of 2002", Pub.L. 107-252.
Thank you.
------------
Mr. Bratton,
One final question: In the Secretary of State's communication, it refers to "the party" and "the parties", but does not specify whether it is referring to the state organization and/or the national organization. Is it the Secretary of State's official position that the legal responsibility for checking the candidate's qualifications lies at the feet of the state or the national party organization?
Thanks again...
Justin
------------
I am disheartened by the fact that the only opportunity I have to file a grievance is through a court of law. I do not want to clog our system with a case that ought to be handled with a simple, straightforward answer.
As of yet, I have not decided what to do. I will, of course, post when I make a final determination.
------------
Ms. Geiger,
In an email communication, the Colorado Secretary of State's office is quoted as saying:
"The Colorado Secretary of State's office, has received numerous calls and emails inquiring into the procedures undertaken to ensure that presidential candidates are qualified to be placed on the ballot. This email is intended to answer your questions regarding the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States.First, please understand that, pursuant to Colorado statute, the process of nominating and certifying presidential candidates to the ballot is party-oriented; candidates are certified to the state and, therefore, the legal responsibility for confirming citizenship (or any other qualification) lies with the certifying entity.Any questions regarding the qualifications of a presidential candidate should be directed to the parties, who are the certifying entities in this case."
I have directed my questions to the parties, and they have, unfortunately, been unresponsive to my requests for information. I would now like to inquire as to how I might file an official complaint against the parties, and perhaps open an investigation into whether or not they performed their "legal responsibility" of confirming their presidential candidate's qualifications before certifying him to the state. Any help you might be able to offer in regards to this unpleasant business is gratefully received.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Mr. Riggs:
Because the legal dispute appears to be between you and the parties, I recommend that you consult an attorney for legal advice on how to proceed. This office is unable to provide you with legal advice on how to file a protest regarding the certification of candidates by a political party. Further, as expressed in the original email response from this office, the proper forum for complaints is the district court, not the Secretary of State’s office. As such, this office lacks the authority to investigate the certification of candidates by a political party. Please see sections 1-4-501(3) and 1-4-909, C.R.S., for more information.
------------
Mr. Bratton, et al...
Thank you for your timely response to my question. However, I'm not sure I made myself very clear in my previous message.
I am not a litigous man, and don't have the time, energy or resources to pursue this matter in a court of any kind. I am not seeking legal advice from your office - I simply want to know where I can file a *complaint* against the parties, claiming that that they didn't perform the duties prescribed to them by the Secretary of State's office.
In other words, I don't want to challenge the candidate's eligibility - that would be foolish, as I don't know if the candidate is eligible, because if the parties checked the candidates' qualifications, they won't release a) who did it, b) when it was done, or c) what evidence was provided by the candidate to the party that allowed the party to decide that the candidate was eligible.
The Secretary of State's office is on the record as stating that it is the "legal responsibility" of the party to confirm the qualifications of their candidates before certifying them to the state. If this is the case, surely there is an enforcement mechanism in place, and an authorized body that has been established to investigate such complaints as the one I propose..
Again, I am not challenging any candidate's eligibility - I am complaining that, to the best of my knowledge, the state parties did not perform their legal duty to check those same candidates' qualifications - or that if they did, they will not release the pertinent information to the public.
Sorry for the confusion, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Please see below:
1-1-113. Neglect of duty and wrongful acts - procedures for adjudication of controversies -
review by supreme court.
(1) When any controversy arises between any official charged with any duty
or function under this code and any candidate, or any officers or representatives of a political party, or
any persons who have made nominations or when any eligible elector files a verified petition in a district
court of competent jurisdiction alleging that a person charged with a duty under this code has committed
or is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act, after notice to the official which
includes an opportunity to be heard, upon a finding of good cause, the district court shall issue an order
requiring substantial compliance with the provisions of this code. The order shall require the person
charged to forthwith perform the duty or to desist from the wrongful act or to forthwith show cause why
the order should not be obeyed. The burden of proof is on the petitioner.
(2) The petitioner shall be required to deposit in court the statutory witness fees pursuant to section
13-33-102, C.R.S., for each person cited or summoned into court as a party or a witness, to be paid to the
party or witness if the charge is not sustained. The money so deposited shall be returned to the party
depositing it if any of the charges are sustained.
(3) The proceedings may be reviewed and finally adjudicated by the supreme court of this state, if
either party makes application to the supreme court within three days after the district court proceedings
are terminated, unless the supreme court, in its discretion, declines jurisdiction of the case. If the
supreme court declines to review the proceedings, the decision of the district court shall be final and not
subject to further appellate review.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in this part 1, the procedure specified in this section shall be the
exclusive method for the adjudication of controversies arising from a breach or neglect of duty or other
wrongful act that occurs prior to the day of an election.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the procedures specified in section 1-1.5-105 shall
constitute the exclusive administrative remedy for a complaint arising under title III of the federal "Help
America Vote Act of 2002", Pub.L. 107-252.
Thank you.
------------
Mr. Bratton,
One final question: In the Secretary of State's communication, it refers to "the party" and "the parties", but does not specify whether it is referring to the state organization and/or the national organization. Is it the Secretary of State's official position that the legal responsibility for checking the candidate's qualifications lies at the feet of the state or the national party organization?
Thanks again...
Justin
------------
I am disheartened by the fact that the only opportunity I have to file a grievance is through a court of law. I do not want to clog our system with a case that ought to be handled with a simple, straightforward answer.
As of yet, I have not decided what to do. I will, of course, post when I make a final determination.
Labels:
Colorado,
Constitution,
Democrats,
election,
eligibility,
President,
Republicans,
Secretary of State,
State
Colorado Democratic Party Legal Counsel
If I was going to contact the Republican Party's legal counsel, I decided I'd better contact the Democratic Party's, too. Here's the letter:
------------
Ms. Tierney,
I hope that my information is correct, and that you are still affiliated with the Colorado Democratic Party as part of their legal team. If not, please accept my apologies.
I am writing you in response to an email message that has been circulated by the Colorado Secretary of State's office stating:
"pursuant to Colorado statute, the process of nominating and certifying presidential candidates to the ballot is party-oriented; candidates are certified to the state and, therefore, the legal responsibility for confirming (the qualifications of a candidate) lies with the certifying entity. (my parantheses)Any questions regarding the qualifications of a presidential candidate should be directed to the parties, who are the certifying entities in this case."
Since the SoS' office used the term legal, I assume you would be the person to answer my questions.
In researching who determines whether or not a presidential candidate is eligible to hold office, I came across the following information in your party's 2008 Delegate Selection Rules:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
So it appears that the Democratic Party has some rather stringent requirements regarding who can and cannot represent the party as a presidential candidate - more stringent than the Constitution itself! My questions, then, are these:
1) Who in the Democratic Party is responsible for making sure that a presidential candidate meets all the requirements set out in the above quoted text?
2) When did the qualification process for presidential candidates take place during the 2008 election cycle?
3) What evidence is provided by the candidate to the party that allows the party to make a final determination regarding the eligibility of a presidential candidate? Is any of that documentation available to the public? If so, how would one go about requesting it?
4) Is there some sort of document that the party leadership signs that states, in effect, "this candidate is qualified to hold the office he/she is running for"? Again, where might I find a copy of such a document, should it exist?
I thank you for your time and attention to these questions. I congratulate the Democratic Party on their recent success, and wish you all the best as you attempt to govern our country through these difficult and perilous times.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Ms. Tierney,
I hope that my information is correct, and that you are still affiliated with the Colorado Democratic Party as part of their legal team. If not, please accept my apologies.
I am writing you in response to an email message that has been circulated by the Colorado Secretary of State's office stating:
"pursuant to Colorado statute, the process of nominating and certifying presidential candidates to the ballot is party-oriented; candidates are certified to the state and, therefore, the legal responsibility for confirming (the qualifications of a candidate) lies with the certifying entity. (my parantheses)Any questions regarding the qualifications of a presidential candidate should be directed to the parties, who are the certifying entities in this case."
Since the SoS' office used the term legal, I assume you would be the person to answer my questions.
In researching who determines whether or not a presidential candidate is eligible to hold office, I came across the following information in your party's 2008 Delegate Selection Rules:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
So it appears that the Democratic Party has some rather stringent requirements regarding who can and cannot represent the party as a presidential candidate - more stringent than the Constitution itself! My questions, then, are these:
1) Who in the Democratic Party is responsible for making sure that a presidential candidate meets all the requirements set out in the above quoted text?
2) When did the qualification process for presidential candidates take place during the 2008 election cycle?
3) What evidence is provided by the candidate to the party that allows the party to make a final determination regarding the eligibility of a presidential candidate? Is any of that documentation available to the public? If so, how would one go about requesting it?
4) Is there some sort of document that the party leadership signs that states, in effect, "this candidate is qualified to hold the office he/she is running for"? Again, where might I find a copy of such a document, should it exist?
I thank you for your time and attention to these questions. I congratulate the Democratic Party on their recent success, and wish you all the best as you attempt to govern our country through these difficult and perilous times.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Colorado GOP Legal Counsel
This has become something of a legal question, so I thought I would approach the legal counsel of both state party organizations. Here's the letter I sent to Mr. Call, legal counsel for the Colorado GOP:
------------
Mr. Call,
In a communication from the Colorado Secretary of State's office they state:
"pursuant to Colorado statute, the process of nominating and certifying presidential candidates to the ballot is party-oriented; candidates are certified to the state and, therefore, the legal responsibility for confirming citizenship (or any other qualification) lies with the certifying entity."
At this time, I am seeking an official response from the Colorado Republican Party (CRP) regarding what process and procedures were in place during the 2008 general election that ensured that the CRP met their legal responsibility as outlined by the Secretary of State's office. Specifically, the information I'm looking for is:
1) What individual, individuals, group, or groups is/are/were responsible for checking the Republican Party's presidential candidate's qualifications for office (including both party and Constitutional eligibility requirements)?
2) When does the verification process take place, and in 2008, when was the determination made that Sen. John McCain was eligible to hold the office of President, and that the party could certify his name to the Secretary of State as an eligible candidate?
3) What evidence was provided by Mr. McCain to the state party that caused that determination to be made?
I thank you for your assistance in this matter, and look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Mr. Call,
In a communication from the Colorado Secretary of State's office they state:
"pursuant to Colorado statute, the process of nominating and certifying presidential candidates to the ballot is party-oriented; candidates are certified to the state and, therefore, the legal responsibility for confirming citizenship (or any other qualification) lies with the certifying entity."
At this time, I am seeking an official response from the Colorado Republican Party (CRP) regarding what process and procedures were in place during the 2008 general election that ensured that the CRP met their legal responsibility as outlined by the Secretary of State's office. Specifically, the information I'm looking for is:
1) What individual, individuals, group, or groups is/are/were responsible for checking the Republican Party's presidential candidate's qualifications for office (including both party and Constitutional eligibility requirements)?
2) When does the verification process take place, and in 2008, when was the determination made that Sen. John McCain was eligible to hold the office of President, and that the party could certify his name to the Secretary of State as an eligible candidate?
3) What evidence was provided by Mr. McCain to the state party that caused that determination to be made?
I thank you for your assistance in this matter, and look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
New Hampshire Document Request
RECORDS REQUEST
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of the Declaration of Intent for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates (RSA 655:17-b) for all major-party presidential candidates on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot.
Because this request is for public, non-commercial use, I request that any fee be waived. If a fee is required, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with the amount, at which time I will decide to pursue or cancel my request.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I would also remind you that the act stipulates that you respond to this request in a timely fashion. I request that the document be mailed either electronically (a scan of the document is sufficient) or through the postal service, no later than noon, December 10th(sic). If this is not possible, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with a time and a date by which I can expect to receive the document. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of the Declaration of Intent for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates (RSA 655:17-b) for all major-party presidential candidates on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot.
Because this request is for public, non-commercial use, I request that any fee be waived. If a fee is required, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with the amount, at which time I will decide to pursue or cancel my request.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I would also remind you that the act stipulates that you respond to this request in a timely fashion. I request that the document be mailed either electronically (a scan of the document is sufficient) or through the postal service, no later than noon, December 10th(sic). If this is not possible, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with a time and a date by which I can expect to receive the document. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Wisconsin
Some of the laws are difficult for me to interpret, and I've struck out a few times now. I figured I'd ask before making a document request this time - and it was a good thing I did.
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
Are presidential candidates required to file a declaration of candidacy under the provisions of s. 8.21 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Hi Justin,
In Wisconsin, matters having to do with elections and voters are handled by the Elections Division of the Government Accountability Board (not the Office of the Secretary of State). My best suggestion is to contact the Elections Division directly http://elections.state.wi.us/
Sincerely,
Susan Churchill
------------
Thanks, Susan - I appreciate your quick reply. Have a great day!
Justin
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
Are presidential candidates required to file a declaration of candidacy under the provisions of s. 8.21 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Hi Justin,
In Wisconsin, matters having to do with elections and voters are handled by the Elections Division of the Government Accountability Board (not the Office of the Secretary of State). My best suggestion is to contact the Elections Division directly http://elections.state.wi.us/
Sincerely,
Susan Churchill
------------
Thanks, Susan - I appreciate your quick reply. Have a great day!
Justin
Hawaii
I love Hawaii - the are such a warm, loving people. Even the Lieutenant Governor's office is nice.
------------
DOCUMENT REQUEST - *TIME SENSITIVE*
Justin W. Riggs
5255 S. Grant St. Littleton, CO 80121
303-781-1998
December 12, 2008
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR James R. "Duke" Aiona, Jr.
State of Hawaii
ELECTIONS DIVISION
Phone: 808 586-0255
Fax: 808 586-0231
email: ltgov@hawaii.gov
RECORDS REQUEST
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of the candidate nomination papers (as referred to in §12-7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes) for all major-party presidential candidates on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot. Because this request is for public, non-commercial use, I request that any fee be waived. If a fee is required, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with the amount, at which time I will decide to pursue or cancel my request. If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I would also remind you that the act stipulates that you respond to this request in a timely fashion. I request that the document be mailed either electronically (a scan of the document is sufficient) or through the postal service, no later than noon, December 10th. If this is not possible, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with a time and a date by which I can expect to receive the document. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Aloha Mr. Riggs, The Office of Elections is no longer under within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. By copy of this correspondence, I am requesting that the Office of Elections review your matter and take any action that they deem to be necessary and appropriate. Mahalo for writing to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Office of the Lieutenant GovernorState Capitol - Fifth FloorHonolulu, Hawai`i 96813(808) 586-0255www.hawaii.gov/ltgov
Justin Riggs
------------
DOCUMENT REQUEST - *TIME SENSITIVE*
Justin W. Riggs
5255 S. Grant St. Littleton, CO 80121
303-781-1998
December 12, 2008
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR James R. "Duke" Aiona, Jr.
State of Hawaii
ELECTIONS DIVISION
Phone: 808 586-0255
Fax: 808 586-0231
email: ltgov@hawaii.gov
RECORDS REQUEST
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of the candidate nomination papers (as referred to in §12-7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes) for all major-party presidential candidates on the November 4, 2008 General Election ballot. Because this request is for public, non-commercial use, I request that any fee be waived. If a fee is required, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with the amount, at which time I will decide to pursue or cancel my request. If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I would also remind you that the act stipulates that you respond to this request in a timely fashion. I request that the document be mailed either electronically (a scan of the document is sufficient) or through the postal service, no later than noon, December 10th. If this is not possible, please contact me at this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) with a time and a date by which I can expect to receive the document. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Aloha Mr. Riggs, The Office of Elections is no longer under within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. By copy of this correspondence, I am requesting that the Office of Elections review your matter and take any action that they deem to be necessary and appropriate. Mahalo for writing to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Office of the Lieutenant GovernorState Capitol - Fifth FloorHonolulu, Hawai`i 96813(808) 586-0255www.hawaii.gov/ltgov
Justin Riggs
Colorado Democratic Party Chair States, "(Obama) qualified as a U.S. citizen (While Running for Senator and President) by virtue of his BC"
I've had on again/ off again correspondence with Patricia Waak, Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party. I hadn't received a suitable answer to my questions to her, so I renewed our correspondence today. Her reply certainly surprised me:
------------
Ms. Waak,
I have reviewed the documentation you referred me to, and don't see the answer to my questions. Could you please provide me with further guidance in this matter? Again, my questions are:
1) The Colorado Secretary of State is on the record stating that it is the legal responsibility of the state party to check the candidate's qualifications before certifying the name of the candidate to the state. Who in your organization was responsible for checking Mr. Obama's credentials (this might be somebody from the national party who informed your office of his eligibility?)?
2) When did the qualification process take place?
3) What evidence was provided by Mr. Obama that allowed a determination of eligibility to be made?
I am certain that this process occured, because in the 2008 Delegate Selection Plan it states:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
This means that before the nomination occured, somebody checked Mr. Obama's qualifications ("all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall" meet the requirements the DNC specifies). I'm simply trying to ascertain WHO performed this check, WHEN it was done, and WHAT EVIDENCE was provided by the candidate.
Because of the legal nature of these questions, I understand your reticence to answer them. If there is a staff lawyer in your office, or somebody from the national party that would be better qualified (or authorized) to discuss these matters, I would be happy to speak with them instead.
I thank you for your time, and wish you the best during this busy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
From: Pat Waak pwaak@coloradodems.org
Subject: Re: Renewed request for information...
To: juriggs@yahoo.com
Cc: "Sherry Jackson" sjackson@coloradodems.org
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 3:45 PM
Mr. Riggs,
Sen. Obama has run for office numerous times and qualified as a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth certificate. He was certified as a candidate under Federal Election Commission law, both during his Senate run and his Presidential contest. If you would like more information on specifics, please contact the Democratic National Committee.
P. Waak
------------
Ms. Waak,
I understand that Mr. Obama has qualified as a citizen to run for various offices, but to become President, he must be a "natural-born" citizen, which is a different requirement altogether. If he qualified to run by virtue of his birth certificate, I would very much like to know where a copy of that document resides, so that I can view it along with the rest of the paperwork he filed.
I would definitely like more specifics, but don't know how to get anyone from the Democratic National Committee to respond to my messages (I've sent them pretty much the same messages I've sent you). Perhaps you could provide an introduction for me, so that both of our problems go away? :)
I'm sorry to bother you - I'm not seeking to make enemies. I am determined to get an answer to these questions, however - I feel it lies within my rights as a citizen of Colorado and the United States of America.
I thank you for the information you've provided so far, and hope to resolve this issue quickly so that we both might go about our normal business.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Ms. Waak,
I have reviewed the documentation you referred me to, and don't see the answer to my questions. Could you please provide me with further guidance in this matter? Again, my questions are:
1) The Colorado Secretary of State is on the record stating that it is the legal responsibility of the state party to check the candidate's qualifications before certifying the name of the candidate to the state. Who in your organization was responsible for checking Mr. Obama's credentials (this might be somebody from the national party who informed your office of his eligibility?)?
2) When did the qualification process take place?
3) What evidence was provided by Mr. Obama that allowed a determination of eligibility to be made?
I am certain that this process occured, because in the 2008 Delegate Selection Plan it states:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
This means that before the nomination occured, somebody checked Mr. Obama's qualifications ("all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall" meet the requirements the DNC specifies). I'm simply trying to ascertain WHO performed this check, WHEN it was done, and WHAT EVIDENCE was provided by the candidate.
Because of the legal nature of these questions, I understand your reticence to answer them. If there is a staff lawyer in your office, or somebody from the national party that would be better qualified (or authorized) to discuss these matters, I would be happy to speak with them instead.
I thank you for your time, and wish you the best during this busy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
From: Pat Waak pwaak@coloradodems.org
Subject: Re: Renewed request for information...
To: juriggs@yahoo.com
Cc: "Sherry Jackson" sjackson@coloradodems.org
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 3:45 PM
Mr. Riggs,
Sen. Obama has run for office numerous times and qualified as a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth certificate. He was certified as a candidate under Federal Election Commission law, both during his Senate run and his Presidential contest. If you would like more information on specifics, please contact the Democratic National Committee.
P. Waak
------------
Ms. Waak,
I understand that Mr. Obama has qualified as a citizen to run for various offices, but to become President, he must be a "natural-born" citizen, which is a different requirement altogether. If he qualified to run by virtue of his birth certificate, I would very much like to know where a copy of that document resides, so that I can view it along with the rest of the paperwork he filed.
I would definitely like more specifics, but don't know how to get anyone from the Democratic National Committee to respond to my messages (I've sent them pretty much the same messages I've sent you). Perhaps you could provide an introduction for me, so that both of our problems go away? :)
I'm sorry to bother you - I'm not seeking to make enemies. I am determined to get an answer to these questions, however - I feel it lies within my rights as a citizen of Colorado and the United States of America.
I thank you for the information you've provided so far, and hope to resolve this issue quickly so that we both might go about our normal business.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Oregon's Secretary of State's Office and Attorney General's Office Say it's National Party's Responsibility
The following post is long, but definitely required reading.
Last night, during my research, I found a law in Oregon's Revised Statutes regarding the contesting of elections. I sent a question in, as I thought it might be wise to find someone from Oregon to contest the results of the 2008 Presidential election in order to see if we could bring the eligibility issue to the forefront. Here is a copy of the entire correspondence, but for those who can't wait, the key statement is that, according to the Oregon Attorney General's legal counsel, it is the NATIONAL PARTY'S responsibility to ensure that they nominate ONLY qualified candidates.
Here's each individual message:
------------
According to the Oregon Revised Statutes: The nomination or election of any person... may be contested by anyelector entitled to vote for the person...
I am considering contesting the Presidential election, as it is altogether unclear whether or not John McCain or Barack Obama meet the Constitutional requirements for holding that office. My question is this: am I allowed to question the President's qualifications and contest that election?
Please respond immediately, as I will have to file my contest petition before Friday evening. Thank you for your time, and I wish you the best during this holidayseason.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
From: Norma J BUCKNO <http://us.mc448.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Norma.J.Buckno@state.or.us>
Subject: Re: Contest of Election question
To: juriggs@yahoo.com
Cc: "Brenda J BAYES" <http://us.mc448.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Brenda.J.Bayes@state.or.us>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:02 AM
Dear Mr. Riggs,
Thank you for contacting our office by email. You are correct that Oregon election law provides procedures for election contests, in ORSChapter 258. An information page on these provisions is attached and also attached is an Election Law Summary memo that contains basically the same information on this process. The complete language of these election laws is contained in the 2007-2008 Oregon Election Laws handbook as well as posted on our website, at http://www.sos.state.or.us/, choose Elections Division, then Election Laws.
This contest of election process is a filing in court and our office does not provide legal advice to a person who wishes to file such a contest, they may wish to contact private legal counsel. The result of an election can only be changed by a recount or set aside by a judge in a court of law. A contest of election is an action filed in court by an eligible person, as defined in the statute, to contest the nomination or election of any person or the decision on any measure. The deadline for a contest of election for the November 4, 2008 General Election isDecember 15, 2008 (40 days after the election date). As to a determination of whether a Presidential candidate is qualified to take office, we offer the following advice. The Secretary of State is the elections filing officer for U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator; statewide candidates, such as Secretary of State, State Treasurer and Attorney General, as well as statewide judicial, and for other state candidates for State Representative, State Senate, Circuit Court judges and District Attorney. For the Primary Election and General Electionthere is a listing of candidates on our website, www.sos.state.or.us -select Elections Division, then Candidates. For each of the candidates listed from U.S. Senator down through District Attorney, there would be in the original file a form the candidate signed and copies of the county verification paperwork that answers the voter registration and residency question for each candidate. For copies of these documents,we would need to follow our public records request process.
The office of U.S. President and Vice President are handled differently due to the Electoral College Process. A copy of an information page on the Electoral College process is enclosed for your reference. We have also enclosed copies of information pages from the 2008 State Candidate’s Manual: Major Political Party Manual that explains the two methods for candidates to be on ballot for the Primary Election.Then under Oregon law, ORS 248.315, national political party conventions are held and the party selects it’s nominees for the GeneralElection. At the General Election, Oregon electors do not vote for presidential candidates, but only for the electors who are pledged to support a party’s candidates for President and Vice President. ORS 248.355 andORS 248.360. We note that on Oregon’s presidential ballots there was a note stating: “Your vote for the candidates for United States President and Vice President shall be a vote for the electors supporting those candidates.”
We have previously reviewed with the Attorney General’s Department of Justice legal counsel the question of the Secretary of State’s role in determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate. We have been advised that the eligibility of a presidential candidate is not a question for the Oregon Secretary of State to determine. Therefore, there is not the same verification paperwork available for these candidates in our office. In this case, these candidates are not Oregon residents and so there would be no Oregon voter registration records etc.
We hope this information is helpful for you. Thanks, Norma
Sincerely,
Norma Buckno
Compliance Specialist
Oregon Secretary of StateElections Division
------------
Ms. Buckno,
Thank you *very* much for your thorough explanation - that was exactlythe information that I needed. I do have one follow up question, if youdon't mind.
You stated that "We have previously reviewed with the Attorney General’s Department of Justice legal counsel the question of the Secretary of State’s role in determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate. We have been advised that the eligibility of a presidential candidate is not a question for the Oregon Secretary of State to determine."
I now understand that the Oregon Secretary of State does not determine the presidential candidates' eligibility, but I was wondering if it was established during that conversation who is responsible for doing this. Did the Attorney General's Dept. of Justice make a determination or offer an opinion on this matter? Again, any documentation available would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your answer - I wish that everyone were half as helpful as you.
Have a wonderful holiday season, and a fantastic 2009.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Dear Mr. Riggs,
I posed your additional question to our AG legal counsel and the onlyother advice received is that the national organizations of the major political parties are responsible for ensuring that they nominate only qualified candidates for the presidency. Thanks, Norma
Sincerely,
Norma Buckno
Compliance Specialist
Oregon Secretary of StateElections Division
Last night, during my research, I found a law in Oregon's Revised Statutes regarding the contesting of elections. I sent a question in, as I thought it might be wise to find someone from Oregon to contest the results of the 2008 Presidential election in order to see if we could bring the eligibility issue to the forefront. Here is a copy of the entire correspondence, but for those who can't wait, the key statement is that, according to the Oregon Attorney General's legal counsel, it is the NATIONAL PARTY'S responsibility to ensure that they nominate ONLY qualified candidates.
Here's each individual message:
------------
According to the Oregon Revised Statutes: The nomination or election of any person... may be contested by anyelector entitled to vote for the person...
I am considering contesting the Presidential election, as it is altogether unclear whether or not John McCain or Barack Obama meet the Constitutional requirements for holding that office. My question is this: am I allowed to question the President's qualifications and contest that election?
Please respond immediately, as I will have to file my contest petition before Friday evening. Thank you for your time, and I wish you the best during this holidayseason.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
From: Norma J BUCKNO <http://us.mc448.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Norma.J.Buckno@state.or.us>
Subject: Re: Contest of Election question
To: juriggs@yahoo.com
Cc: "Brenda J BAYES" <http://us.mc448.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Brenda.J.Bayes@state.or.us>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:02 AM
Dear Mr. Riggs,
Thank you for contacting our office by email. You are correct that Oregon election law provides procedures for election contests, in ORSChapter 258. An information page on these provisions is attached and also attached is an Election Law Summary memo that contains basically the same information on this process. The complete language of these election laws is contained in the 2007-2008 Oregon Election Laws handbook as well as posted on our website, at http://www.sos.state.or.us/, choose Elections Division, then Election Laws.
This contest of election process is a filing in court and our office does not provide legal advice to a person who wishes to file such a contest, they may wish to contact private legal counsel. The result of an election can only be changed by a recount or set aside by a judge in a court of law. A contest of election is an action filed in court by an eligible person, as defined in the statute, to contest the nomination or election of any person or the decision on any measure. The deadline for a contest of election for the November 4, 2008 General Election isDecember 15, 2008 (40 days after the election date). As to a determination of whether a Presidential candidate is qualified to take office, we offer the following advice. The Secretary of State is the elections filing officer for U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator; statewide candidates, such as Secretary of State, State Treasurer and Attorney General, as well as statewide judicial, and for other state candidates for State Representative, State Senate, Circuit Court judges and District Attorney. For the Primary Election and General Electionthere is a listing of candidates on our website, www.sos.state.or.us -select Elections Division, then Candidates. For each of the candidates listed from U.S. Senator down through District Attorney, there would be in the original file a form the candidate signed and copies of the county verification paperwork that answers the voter registration and residency question for each candidate. For copies of these documents,we would need to follow our public records request process.
The office of U.S. President and Vice President are handled differently due to the Electoral College Process. A copy of an information page on the Electoral College process is enclosed for your reference. We have also enclosed copies of information pages from the 2008 State Candidate’s Manual: Major Political Party Manual that explains the two methods for candidates to be on ballot for the Primary Election.Then under Oregon law, ORS 248.315, national political party conventions are held and the party selects it’s nominees for the GeneralElection. At the General Election, Oregon electors do not vote for presidential candidates, but only for the electors who are pledged to support a party’s candidates for President and Vice President. ORS 248.355 andORS 248.360. We note that on Oregon’s presidential ballots there was a note stating: “Your vote for the candidates for United States President and Vice President shall be a vote for the electors supporting those candidates.”
We have previously reviewed with the Attorney General’s Department of Justice legal counsel the question of the Secretary of State’s role in determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate. We have been advised that the eligibility of a presidential candidate is not a question for the Oregon Secretary of State to determine. Therefore, there is not the same verification paperwork available for these candidates in our office. In this case, these candidates are not Oregon residents and so there would be no Oregon voter registration records etc.
We hope this information is helpful for you. Thanks, Norma
Sincerely,
Norma Buckno
Compliance Specialist
Oregon Secretary of StateElections Division
------------
Ms. Buckno,
Thank you *very* much for your thorough explanation - that was exactlythe information that I needed. I do have one follow up question, if youdon't mind.
You stated that "We have previously reviewed with the Attorney General’s Department of Justice legal counsel the question of the Secretary of State’s role in determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate. We have been advised that the eligibility of a presidential candidate is not a question for the Oregon Secretary of State to determine."
I now understand that the Oregon Secretary of State does not determine the presidential candidates' eligibility, but I was wondering if it was established during that conversation who is responsible for doing this. Did the Attorney General's Dept. of Justice make a determination or offer an opinion on this matter? Again, any documentation available would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your answer - I wish that everyone were half as helpful as you.
Have a wonderful holiday season, and a fantastic 2009.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Dear Mr. Riggs,
I posed your additional question to our AG legal counsel and the onlyother advice received is that the national organizations of the major political parties are responsible for ensuring that they nominate only qualified candidates for the presidency. Thanks, Norma
Sincerely,
Norma Buckno
Compliance Specialist
Oregon Secretary of StateElections Division
A Former Democratic Party Committee Chairman
I've had a hard time getting through to the national level of the Democratic so far, so today I decided to find a former chairman and pose my questions to him/her. The person I found was Terry McCauliffe. Here is the message I sent him:
-----------
Mr. McCauliffe,
I work for a small blog called www.yourfellowcitizen.com that is dedicated to answering the questions:
1) Who verifies that presidential candidates are eligible to hold the office they're running for?
2) When does the verification process take place? and
3) What evidence is provided by the candidate that allows a determination of eligibility to be made?
As a former Democratic National Committee Chairman, I was hoping you might be able to answer some of these questions for me and my audience.
In the 2008 Delegate Selection Plan it states:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
Obviously, if the party has requirements, I am sure they also have an enforcement mechanism in place to make sure those requirements are met. My reading of this particular clause leads me to believe that the candidate's qualifications must be verified sometime after he/she officially becomes a candidate (filing with the FEC?) and sometime before he/she is nominated. I say this because the above clause specifically says that "all candidates for the nomination shall" have met those requirements.
Any insights you might be able to offer into this process would be most appreciated. I thank you for your time, and for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
-----------
Mr. McCauliffe,
I work for a small blog called www.yourfellowcitizen.com that is dedicated to answering the questions:
1) Who verifies that presidential candidates are eligible to hold the office they're running for?
2) When does the verification process take place? and
3) What evidence is provided by the candidate that allows a determination of eligibility to be made?
As a former Democratic National Committee Chairman, I was hoping you might be able to answer some of these questions for me and my audience.
In the 2008 Delegate Selection Plan it states:
1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements
set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.
Obviously, if the party has requirements, I am sure they also have an enforcement mechanism in place to make sure those requirements are met. My reading of this particular clause leads me to believe that the candidate's qualifications must be verified sometime after he/she officially becomes a candidate (filing with the FEC?) and sometime before he/she is nominated. I say this because the above clause specifically says that "all candidates for the nomination shall" have met those requirements.
Any insights you might be able to offer into this process would be most appreciated. I thank you for your time, and for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Ohio Completed...
I've been corresponding with Brandi Seskes for approximately a week now. Today wrapped up our correspondence, as I've obtained (or will obtain) all the documents I've requested from them. Here is Ms. Seskes final email to me:
Dear Mr. Riggs,
You have requested a copy of Form No. 1-A as filed by all presidential candidates appearing on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Form 1-A, if required, would have been filed on or before January 4, 2008 (60 days prior to the day of the primary election). All of the forms filed for the 2008 presidential primary election have been boxed up and sent to our off-site storage. I have requested that the boxes be delivered back to our elections department. Once we receive them, we will go through them and locate any 1-A forms.
Please note that only those presidential primary candidates who sought matching funds were required to file a form 1-A (or 1-B). Form 1-A is not a form that Barack Obama would have been required to file with this office (he did not seek matching funds).
In a previous email, you asked what was required of Barack Obama. I have attached the 2008 Ohio Presidential Guide, which is published by this office. Please see page 9 for an explanation of how a presidential candidate appears on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in Ohio.
I hope to email any form 1-As to you by next week.
Sincerely,
Brandi Laser Seskes
Elections Counsel,
Office of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
------------
I wish to thank the Ohio Secretary of State's office for their cooperation - I found them to be prompt and accomodating in my interaction with them.
Dear Mr. Riggs,
You have requested a copy of Form No. 1-A as filed by all presidential candidates appearing on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Form 1-A, if required, would have been filed on or before January 4, 2008 (60 days prior to the day of the primary election). All of the forms filed for the 2008 presidential primary election have been boxed up and sent to our off-site storage. I have requested that the boxes be delivered back to our elections department. Once we receive them, we will go through them and locate any 1-A forms.
Please note that only those presidential primary candidates who sought matching funds were required to file a form 1-A (or 1-B). Form 1-A is not a form that Barack Obama would have been required to file with this office (he did not seek matching funds).
In a previous email, you asked what was required of Barack Obama. I have attached the 2008 Ohio Presidential Guide, which is published by this office. Please see page 9 for an explanation of how a presidential candidate appears on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in Ohio.
I hope to email any form 1-As to you by next week.
Sincerely,
Brandi Laser Seskes
Elections Counsel,
Office of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
------------
I wish to thank the Ohio Secretary of State's office for their cooperation - I found them to be prompt and accomodating in my interaction with them.
SC Election Board
I'm still trying to figure out how the election works in South Carolina, so I contacted Chris Whitmore, who works in the Secretary of State's office. Here's the rest of our correspondence (the first part can be found in earlier posts):
------------
Mr. Riggs,
Please see my responses in blue below.
Thanks,
Chris Whitmire
Public Information Officer
South Carolina State Election Commission
Post Office Box 5987Columbia, S.C. 29250
Tel: 803.734.9070
Fax: 803.734.9366
This message originates from the South Carolina State Election Commission. If you have received this message in error, we would appreciate it if you would immediately notify the South Carolina State Election Commission by sending a reply e-mail to the sender of this message. Thank you.
From: Justin Riggs [mailto:juriggs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:41 PM
To: Whitmire, Chris
Subject: RE: Apologies - Questions about SC Election Law...
Mr. Whitmire,
Great! Thanks for your willingness to help. Here are my questions:
According to SECTION 7-13-40 of the South Carolina Election Code, "Political parties nominating candidates by party primary must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the appropriate election commission of the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots." (my emphasis) What exactly qualifies as "verifying the qualifications" of the candidate? For example, the Constitution states that an individual must a) be a natural-born citizen, b) be 35 years old, and c) be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. What evidence would the state expect the political party to handle and observe before certifying the names of a Presidential candidate to the appropriate election commission?
7-13-40 does not apply to President. It applies to offices on June State Primary ballots (U.S. Senate down).
The statute then goes on to say that the written verification provided to the state must contain a statement certifying that the candidate certified meets the qualifications for office which he/she has filed for. I read this as a separate requirement from the one quoted above - is that correct?
7-13-40 does not apply to President. It applies to offices on June State Primary ballots (U.S. Senate down).
Finally, the Democrats 2008 Delegate Selection Plan states that: "No one may gain access to the South Carolina ballot unless he or she... is legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States..." (my emphasis)
If no one can gain access to the ballot UNLESS he or she is qualified, doesn't that mean that SOMEBODY had to check the credentials of the candidates (and not just take their word for it) BEFORE placing them on the ballot?
This is political party rules issue. Your answer will likely come from the political party.
Over the past two weeks or so, I have spoken with Carol Fowler (head of the SC Democratic Party) several times, and she is on the record as saying that the only thing they did was have Mr. Obama sign a piece of paper stating that he is qualified. This "take my word for it" approach is troubling to me, as state law and the Democrat's own Delegate Selection Plan seem to call for a more positive, diligent approach to ensuring our candidates meet the qualifications for office.
This is political party rules issue. Your answer will likely come from the political party.
I hope you understand that I am not out to "get" any candidate. I have researched this issue in regards to John McCain, Roger Calero, and Barack Obama, each of whom have had their qualifications challenged at one point or another in this election cycle. I am not pro- or anti- any candidate; I am pro-Constitution. Indeed, as I told Ms. Fowler (when she expressed that nothing I did would disqualify Mr. Obama), my efforts could easily be seen as pro-Obama, because if SOMEBODY checked his credentials SOMEWHERE, then he has nothing to worry about. I would just like to know the WHO, the WHERE, and the WHAT EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED so that I can know that my Constitution is being protected.
Sections 7-19-70 and 7-13-320 of the S.C. Code of Laws require the State Election Commission (SEC) to place the names of Presidential candidates on the ballot as they are certified to the SEC by their respective political parties. The SEC does not have the authority to examine or investigate the qualifications of Presidential candidates.
As you can see, these questions are somewhat legalistic in nature. If you don't feel comfortable answering them, I completely understand, but do request that you help me find the right person to talk to. I thank you for your time, as well as for your prompt response to my inquiry.
Sincerely Yours,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
As you can see, Mr. Whitmore was very courteous, professional, and helpful. I'm grateful for his assistance. It seems thatI'm going to have to go back to the state party to ask more questions...
------------
Mr. Riggs,
Please see my responses in blue below.
Thanks,
Chris Whitmire
Public Information Officer
South Carolina State Election Commission
Post Office Box 5987Columbia, S.C. 29250
Tel: 803.734.9070
Fax: 803.734.9366
This message originates from the South Carolina State Election Commission. If you have received this message in error, we would appreciate it if you would immediately notify the South Carolina State Election Commission by sending a reply e-mail to the sender of this message. Thank you.
From: Justin Riggs [mailto:juriggs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:41 PM
To: Whitmire, Chris
Subject: RE: Apologies - Questions about SC Election Law...
Mr. Whitmire,
Great! Thanks for your willingness to help. Here are my questions:
According to SECTION 7-13-40 of the South Carolina Election Code, "Political parties nominating candidates by party primary must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the appropriate election commission of the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots." (my emphasis) What exactly qualifies as "verifying the qualifications" of the candidate? For example, the Constitution states that an individual must a) be a natural-born citizen, b) be 35 years old, and c) be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. What evidence would the state expect the political party to handle and observe before certifying the names of a Presidential candidate to the appropriate election commission?
7-13-40 does not apply to President. It applies to offices on June State Primary ballots (U.S. Senate down).
The statute then goes on to say that the written verification provided to the state must contain a statement certifying that the candidate certified meets the qualifications for office which he/she has filed for. I read this as a separate requirement from the one quoted above - is that correct?
7-13-40 does not apply to President. It applies to offices on June State Primary ballots (U.S. Senate down).
Finally, the Democrats 2008 Delegate Selection Plan states that: "No one may gain access to the South Carolina ballot unless he or she... is legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States..." (my emphasis)
If no one can gain access to the ballot UNLESS he or she is qualified, doesn't that mean that SOMEBODY had to check the credentials of the candidates (and not just take their word for it) BEFORE placing them on the ballot?
This is political party rules issue. Your answer will likely come from the political party.
Over the past two weeks or so, I have spoken with Carol Fowler (head of the SC Democratic Party) several times, and she is on the record as saying that the only thing they did was have Mr. Obama sign a piece of paper stating that he is qualified. This "take my word for it" approach is troubling to me, as state law and the Democrat's own Delegate Selection Plan seem to call for a more positive, diligent approach to ensuring our candidates meet the qualifications for office.
This is political party rules issue. Your answer will likely come from the political party.
I hope you understand that I am not out to "get" any candidate. I have researched this issue in regards to John McCain, Roger Calero, and Barack Obama, each of whom have had their qualifications challenged at one point or another in this election cycle. I am not pro- or anti- any candidate; I am pro-Constitution. Indeed, as I told Ms. Fowler (when she expressed that nothing I did would disqualify Mr. Obama), my efforts could easily be seen as pro-Obama, because if SOMEBODY checked his credentials SOMEWHERE, then he has nothing to worry about. I would just like to know the WHO, the WHERE, and the WHAT EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED so that I can know that my Constitution is being protected.
Sections 7-19-70 and 7-13-320 of the S.C. Code of Laws require the State Election Commission (SEC) to place the names of Presidential candidates on the ballot as they are certified to the SEC by their respective political parties. The SEC does not have the authority to examine or investigate the qualifications of Presidential candidates.
As you can see, these questions are somewhat legalistic in nature. If you don't feel comfortable answering them, I completely understand, but do request that you help me find the right person to talk to. I thank you for your time, as well as for your prompt response to my inquiry.
Sincerely Yours,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
As you can see, Mr. Whitmore was very courteous, professional, and helpful. I'm grateful for his assistance. It seems that
Republican National Committee's Lawyers
I seem to be getting the best response to my letters when I write to lawyers, so I thought I would try the lawyers for the Republican National Committee. Here's what I wrote:
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I was recently forwared a copy of the Certificate of Nominations from the state of Maryland. The document is signed by John A. Boehner, Chairman of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and Jean A. Inman, Secretary of the same.
The document states, in part, "We do hereby certify that... the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States...w(as) nominated for (this) office to be filled at the ensuing general election...."
My question is this: What is the process for checking a presidential candidate's qualifications? Who is responsible for doing this? When is it done? What evidence is provided by the candidate that establishes eligibility? Clearly, some process took place - otherwise, it would impossible to certify him as an eligible candidate, would it not?
I am most grateful for your time and attention, and eagerly look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I was recently forwared a copy of the Certificate of Nominations from the state of Maryland. The document is signed by John A. Boehner, Chairman of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and Jean A. Inman, Secretary of the same.
The document states, in part, "We do hereby certify that... the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States...w(as) nominated for (this) office to be filled at the ensuing general election...."
My question is this: What is the process for checking a presidential candidate's qualifications? Who is responsible for doing this? When is it done? What evidence is provided by the candidate that establishes eligibility? Clearly, some process took place - otherwise, it would impossible to certify him as an eligible candidate, would it not?
I am most grateful for your time and attention, and eagerly look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
Obama's 'About the Issues'
The Democratic National Committee has a link on their site where people can ask questions about "the issues" - so I asked mine:
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
As you know both John McCain and Barack Obama have had their eligibility for office questioned during this election cycle.
My question is this: What is the process for checking a presidential candidate's qualifications? Who is responsible for doing this? When is it done? What evidence is provided by the candidate that establishes eligibility? Clearly, some process took place - otherwise, it would impossible to certify these candidates as eligible, would it not?
I am most grateful for your time and attention, and eagerly look forward to your response.
Sincerely, Your Fellow Citizen, Justin W. Riggs
------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
As you know both John McCain and Barack Obama have had their eligibility for office questioned during this election cycle.
My question is this: What is the process for checking a presidential candidate's qualifications? Who is responsible for doing this? When is it done? What evidence is provided by the candidate that establishes eligibility? Clearly, some process took place - otherwise, it would impossible to certify these candidates as eligible, would it not?
I am most grateful for your time and attention, and eagerly look forward to your response.
Sincerely, Your Fellow Citizen, Justin W. Riggs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)