Jordan original Motion filing

Plaintiff’s Motion For Order To Show CauseLinda Jordan,Plaintiff Pro Se Affidavit Of Linda Jordan; Memorandum

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

x Expedite

No hearing set

X Hearing is set

Date: September 7, 2012, 9:00 AM

Judge/Calendar: Lisa Sutton

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR THURSTON COUNTY

Linda Jordan) No. 12-2-01763-5

Plaintiff)Plaintiff’s Motion For Order To Show Cause;

v. ) Affidavit Of Linda Jordan; Memorandum

Secretary of State Sam Reed ) And Appendix Of Law

Defendant

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff requests the Court to issue an Order to Show Cause why Secretary of State Sam Reed,

in his official capacity, should not withhold the placement of Barack Hussein Obama II aka

Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 General Election Ballot as a candidate for the Office of the

President of the United States; why he should not require all presidential candidates to swear an

eligibility oath; why he should not direct filing officers to check eligibility requirements for all

candidates and why he should not comply with WAC 434-215-165.

and Appendix Of Law1 Linda Jordan v. Secretary of State, Sam Reed


24

25

26

27

Standing

RCW 29A.68.011 (1) (3)1provides for the prevention and correction of election frauds, errors

and wrongful acts, including a failure to perform a duty. Challenges may be brought by “an

elector” before ballots are printed. “Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of

appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person

charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the

wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders or to show cause forthwith why

the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not

performed, whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that:

(1) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in printing the name of any

candidate on official ballots; or (2) An error other than as provided in subsections (1) and (3) of

this section has been committed or is about to be committed in printing the ballots; or (3) The

name of any person has been or is about to be wrongfully placed upon the ballots; ” and that,

“An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

general election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than three days following the 38

official certification of the primary election returnsand shall be heard and finally disposed of by 39

the court not later than five days after the filing thereof.” (Emphasis added) 40

41

42

The Superior Court, Thurston County, Is A Proper Venue For This Election Challenge

5. RCW 29A.68.011 requires election contests to be brought before, “Any justice of the supreme

court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county …” .

(Emphasis added) County superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over actions

against the Secretary of State concerning statewide election challenges. The wrongful

43

44

45

1 RCW 29A.68.011(1)(3)



46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

actsPlaintiff wants to prohibit would occur in every Washington County, including the one

Plaintiff lives and votes in, King County.The acts originate out of Thurston County.

Wrongful Acts, Duty to Perform

1. Plaintiff is contesting the Secretary’s placement of the name Barack Hussein Obama II aka

Barack Obama on the 2012 General Election ballot as a candidate for the Office of President of

the United States (RCW 29A.68.011 (1) (3)) and alleges that the identity document Obama has

proffered as proof, to the Secretary and every Washington State elector, that he is eligible to be a

presidential candidate, is forged. A forged document can not be used to prove anything. The

Secretary would be aiding and abetting fraud if he were to place a candidate’s name on the ballot

who is using a forged identity document to prove eligibility. This assist would certainly help

Candidate Obama.2

2. Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary is violating WAC 434-215-1653 by certifying the names of

major party political candidates for President and Vice-President to the General Election Ballot

before their conventions are held and before receiving from the major parties a Certificate of

Nomination and list of electors4 for said candidates. In 2008 the Secretary did not certify Obama

to the General Ballot until 3-9 days after receiving the Nomination from the DNC, after their

convention. 5

2 Constructive Fraud: Any breach of duty which, without actual fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault… 3 WAC 434‐215‐165Presidential nominations by major political parties. “Nominations for president and vice‐president by major political parties are conducted at each party's national convention. Immediately following the convention, each party must submit a certificate of nomination and list of electors to the secretary of state in order to place the nominees on the presidential general election ballot.” 4 Ex1 ‘Appearing on Washington State Ballot in Washington State’ 5 Ex2 Kitsap County 2008 Election Calendar, DNC Nomination, DNC 2008 Convention dates.



63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

3. Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary has a legal duty to carry out elections in a uniform manner6,

to treat candidates equally where it concerns the eligibility oath. The Secretary requiresWrite In

candidates for President and Vice President to swear an eligibility oath or their declaration as a

candidate will not be considered.7 The Secretary has placed the names of Major Party candidates

on the General Election ballot before receiving an eligibility oath from them.

4. The filing officer for state and federal offices is required by the Secretary to verify eligibility

information provided by the candidate and should also do so for major party president and vice-

presidential candidates.8

Courts Have Upheld Eligibility Requirements And Equal Treatment For Candidates

1.“Treating candidates equally is, as a matter of law, an important state interest.”(See, e.g.,

Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 179f3d. 64, 78 (3d Cir.1999))9Candidate

Obama should be held to the same instruction that the Secretary holds Write In Candidates for

President and Vice-President to: they have to swear an eligibility oath and if they don’t swear the

oath their declaration will not be accepted.State and other federal candidates have their eligibility

information verified by the Secretary.10 The Secretary has the authority to verify the eligibility

claims of Candidate Obama.

2. The eligibility assertions of major party president and vice-president candidates are initially

presumed by the Secretary, however, the Washington State Supreme Court has found that while

6 RCW 29A.04.611 Rules by secretary of state. “The secretary of state as chief election officer shall make reasonable rules in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW not inconsistent with the federal and state election laws to effectuate any provision of this title and to facilitate the execution of its provisions in an orderly, timely, and uniform manner relating to any federal, state, county, city, town, and district elections. To that end the secretary shall assist local election officers by devising uniform forms and procedures.” 7Ex3Email from SOS Elections Department to Linda Jordan 8Ex4 2012 King County Candidate Manuel “The officer with whom declarations are filed shall review each declaration for compliance with this law.” 9Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 179f3d. 64, 78 (3d Cir.1999) 10Ex4 2012 King County Candidate Manuel



81

82

83

84

85

86

87

it is an unqualified right for an “eligible” person to aspire to public office, that if there is any

doubt as to a candidate’s eligibility, that doubt must be resolved. “In State v. Schragg, 158

Wash. 74, 78, 291 P. 321 (1930), we stated: Since the right to participate in the government is

the common right of all, it is the unqualified right of any eligible person within the state to aspire

to any of these offices, and equally the unqualified right of the people of the state to choose from

among those aspiring the persons who shall hold such offices. It must follow from these

considerations that eligibility to an office in the state is to be presumed rather than to be denied,

and must further follow that any doubt as to the eligibility of any person to hold an office must 88

be resolved against the doubt.” (Emphasis added) (GERBERDING v. MUNRO No. 65059-4.

Washington State Supreme Court, En Banc)

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

11

The Secretary Can and Does Check Candidates for Eligibility But Is Failing To Do So With

Candidate Obama

1. From the King County 2012 Candidate Manuel: “Declarations of candidacy and filings (RCW

29A.24, WAC 434-215) A candidate who desires to have his or her name printed on the ballot

for election to an office other than President of the United States and Vice President of the

United States, shall complete and file a Declaration of Candidacy. A person filing a Declaration

of Candidacy for an office shall, at the time of filing, possess the qualifications specified by law

for persons who may be elected to the office. The candidate must be properly registered to vote

in the geographic area, district and/or division represented by the office at the time of filing.

The officer with whom declarations are filed shall review each declaration for compliance 100

with this law.”12(Emphasis added)The major party candidates for President and Vice-President 101

11GERBERDING v. MUNRO No. 65059‐4 12Ex4 King County 2012 Candidate Manuel



102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

are exempt from filing a Declaration of Candidacy because their party files a Certificate of

Nomination on their behalf. However, this does not make them exempt from satisfying

established eligibility requirements. Just like candidates for every other office, federal offices

included, major party presidential and vice-presidential candidates are not exempt from meeting

the eligibility requirements established by the Constitution and Washington State law.13 The

Secretary oversees every county’s election department. Under the direction of the Secretary the

“filing officer” is obligated to review each declaration for compliance with the law, it is a

ministerial duty.14

2. The Secretary instructs filing officers to review candidate declarations for eligibility. From

SOS publication, ‘CAN YOU REJECT A DECLARATION?’15

“Yes, if the declaration is ‘defective as to face.’ For example, if a candidate lists an address

outside the district, it must be rejected, or if the form is submitted and the candidate is not

registered to vote.”The filing officer, under instruction from the Secretary, is performing a

ministerial duty to verify the candidate’seligibility. While this direction says declarations can be

rejected if, on the face of it, the officer sees a defect, the two examples given are not obvious on

the face of it and can only be verified if the officer checks to see if the address is in the required

boundary or checks to verify if the candidate is a registered voter.It is legal for the Secretary to

order filing officers to check to see if information provided by candidates is true, including

candidates for federal office. It is legal and should be required for filing officers to check the

eligibility information provided by major party presidential and vice presidential candidates.

Supporting Documents

13 Ex5 SOS Presidential eligibility requirements 14ministerial act n. an act, particularly of a governmental employee, which is performed according to statutes, legal authority, established procedures or instructions from a superior, without exercising any individual judgment. 15Ex6 SOS Can you reject a Declaration?



123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

Plaintiff attaches to this Motion 1. The Affidavit of Linda Jordan with exhibits. 2. A

Memorandum In Support with Appendix of Law.

Prayer For Relief

For the reasons stated above andfor those statedin the supporting Memorandum and Affidavit,

Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Secretary of State;

1. To stop or prohibit the printing of ballots until disposal of this challenge. 2. To prohibit the

Secretary from placing the name of Candidate Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barack Obama on

the 2012 General Election ballot in Washington State as a candidate for the Office of the

President of the United States. 3.To prohibit the Secretary from continuing to exempt major party

President and Vice-President Candidates from eligibility checks by filing officers. 4. To prohibit

the Secretary from certifying the names of Major Party President and Vice-President Candidates

to the counties for a General Election until a Certificate of Nomination and list of electors is

received after the Major Party’s Convention nomination process. 5.To require all Major, Minor

and Independent candidates, for President and Vice-President, to be held to the same Eligibility

Oath and instructions that Write In Candidates for President and Vice President are in

Washington State.

Plaintiffs’Motion And Attached Affidavit Alleged With Sufficient Certainty

RCW 29A.68.030 provides that "no statement of contest may be dismissed for want of form if

the particular causes of contest are alleged with sufficient certainty."16 In re Election Contest

Filed by Coday ( 497 156 Wn.2d 485, March 2006)17 the Washington State Supreme Court

stated that, “ "Sufficient certainty" is not defined in the statute, nor have we had occasion to

16RCW 29A.68.030 17Election Contest Filed by Coday
