Before the Missouri Supreme Court
in Jefferson City, Missouri
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT, )
Relator/Appellant, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 79367
)
Newton County Clerk KAY BAUM, )
Chief Election Official of Newton County, )
and Missouri Secretary of State, )
Chief Election Official of Missouri )
REBECCA COOK )
Respondents )
AMENDED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTION LAWS
Comes now the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, before this court of final
jurisdiction in the State of Missouri, to petition that election laws
contrary to the democratic principles alluded to in the United States'
and Missouri's Constitution be overturned and set aside as being null
and void and that Respondents Baum and Cook be compelled to place
Relator/Appellant's name on the general election ballot of November 5,
1996 as the Libertarian Party candidate for the office of Newton County
Sheriff.
This Court belatedly recognizes its jurisdiction and duty to finally
rule on this matter as witnessed by its letter of October 11, 1996
assigning this matter a case number of 79367 and this Court also has
jurisdiction because the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
denied Relator/Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus (without
giving legal justification for that denial) on October 10, 1996.
Since the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Judicial Review of
Election Law written by Plaintiff on October 4 and updated on October
8, 1996 has never been fully addressed by any state court,
Relator/Appellant will not print out and resubmit another eight copies
to this Court. Relator will let it stand and hereby asks for the
October 4, 1996 Petition to be ruled upon its merits.
This Amended Petition for Judicial Review of Election Laws is meant
to additionally cover the unconstitutionality of certain Missouri
election laws and to ask this court to overturn them as
unconstitutional, thus null and void. If they are unconstitutional,
then the writ of mandamus would have to follow.
Additional Facts since Oct. 4, 1996
This Court has been kept advised of events since October 4, 1996.
Relator/Appellant mailed to this Court a Petition of Grievance
complaining about its conduct in this matter on October 8. Relator
submitted a substantially similar Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
Missouri Court of Appeals on October 8, 1996. On October 10, the
Missouri Court of Appeals denied Relator/Appellant's application. On
October 11, Relator demanded to know the legal basis of the Missouri
Court of Appeal's decision. The Missouri Court of Appeals has refused
to inform Relator so far of that legal basis. On October 11, this
Court assigned this case a docket number of 79367.
Relator/Appellant is still a pauper. Relator takes this Court up on
its belated invitation of October 11 to finally rule on this matter
once and for all at the state judicial level.
Arguments Supporting Judicial Review of Election Laws.
1. In its decision of October 10, 1996, all the Missouri Court of
Appeals did was to "deny said application" for a writ of mandamus. The
Missouri Court of Appeals did not rule upon the constitutionality of
Missouri 'election laws', thus leaving it up by default to this Court
to do so.
2. Relator/Appellant has never, ever violated any election law by
wishing to run for Sheriff as a Libertarian Party Candidate since there
is no law specifically prohibiting Relator/Appellant or his political
party from doing so. There are only a number of election laws purporting
to regulate internal political party matters in the hope that
Relator/Appellant will be deceived into thinking that election laws
prevent him from exercising his political rights.
RSMo 115.343, 115.333, 115.339, 115.363, 115.377 have all been
misquoted by the Respondents or their lawyers, or the Missouri court
system as having relevance in denying Relator/Appellant a place on the
ballot as his political party's nominee. These statutes are irrelevant
because Relator/Appellant is not seeking to run as an Independent
candidate, is not seeking to form a new political party, is not running
in a contested primary race against political opposition within his
political party. To say that above statutes prevent Relator and his
Party from exercising their rights in running for political office is
a form of legal and judicial fraud.
3. In addition to being fraudulently applied against Relator/Appellant,
the above-mentioned 'election laws' are an unconstitutional trespass
upon the associational and free speech rights of Relator/Appellant and
his political party. They are not 'election laws,' they are
candidate-denial laws, meant to disenfranchise minor party candidates
from being 'recycled' in small political parties which have a shortage
of political candidates in relationship to the number of elective
offices available. It maintains the current political monopolies and
electoral stranglehold of the very self-interested politicians who made
up these 'election laws.'
What compelling state interest will this court cite as a reason to
prevent Relator/Appellant from running as Sheriff of Newton County as
a Libertarian candidate? The political interests of the politicians who
placed you on the bench? Maintaining the political oligarchies of the
Republicans in Newton County and the Democrats in urban areas? Will you
continue to deliberately confuse private interests with the public
interest?
4. Respondents, their Lawyers, Incumbent Sheriff, the Newton County
Republican Party, or the Missouri judicial system have never, ever,
explained or come up with legitimate reasons as to how and why
Relator/Appellant's getting to run as a Libertarian Candidate for
Sheriff and getting his name printed on the ballot harms them in any
way. What is their standing behind this denial of Relator/Appellant's,
the Newton County Libertarian Party's or unknown Newton County voter's
rights?
5. Continued denial of allowing candidates who timely file a place on
the ballot sort of puts the lie to the state of Missouri's claim to be
holding legitimate elections. If the ruling oligarchies can determine
who gets placed on the ballot, then why not just spare themselves and
the public the expense of holding elections?
In fact, a profit could be made by just simply letting all the
special-interests, corporate and personal, bid on who they want to
fill these government offices. This way the power of the state can be
openly used to coerce the general public into doing what they want.
While it will cut into the profits generated by advertising, no one
need be fooled into imagining they live in a free country anymore.
6. Sooner or later, the politicized judicial system will have to either
let Relator/Appellant run for Sheriff of Newton County or admit to the
fact that there are no such thing as open, honest, legitimate elections
allowed in this country. This might have to take place at the federal
level if this court refuses to overturn 'election laws' unconstitutionally
applied against Relator/Appellant.
Rather than waste time and money on a special election held to
resolve this matter, would it not be better for this Court to clean up
its own mess and allow Relator/Appellant to run as a Libertarian
candidate for Sheriff of Newton County before the November 5, 1996
general election?
Suggestions Supporting Relator/Appellant's Arguments
1. See Oct. 10, 1996 letter from Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern
District to Relator/Appellant. This letter was a mere Order which did
nothing more than "deny said application." No findings of fact or
conclusions of law were given. To say that judicial review took place
would be absurd.
2. RSMo 115.343 as quoted by Judge Timothy Perigo on the Sept. 24, 1996
docket sheet is irrelevant because Relator/Appellant and his party did
not run a primary race for the office of sheriff or need to do so. The
implication that RSMo 115.343 overrides the associational and political
rights of Relator/Appellant and his political party is refuted by
Eu v San Francisco Democratic Committee 489 U.S. 214.
The other election laws dishonestly quoted by Lawyer Bridges and
Judge Perigo were also irrelevant. Relator/Appellant was not petitioning
Respondents to run as an Independent candidate or to form a new
political party. These 'election laws' implying authority to deny the
rights of Relator/Appellant and his political party are refuted by
Eu v. San Francisco, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct 1842, and
numerous other U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
3. The need to prove compelling state interests to override individual
rights to participate in elections are not only mentioned in
above-mentioned federal case law, but the Missouri court system even
paid some lip service to these ideals in the Missouri case, State ex
rel. Coker-Garcia v. Blunt 849 S.W.2d 81. at 85.
4. This court has heard of the legal concept of Standing to sue, has
it not?
5. Special interests 'buying' politicians through the use of campaign
contributions is well known to happen. Still, for this Court to keep
an alternative candidate like Relator/Appellant and his political party
out of the election just because they don't want to buy nor sell in
favor of the auctioneers' demand for "spectators to move along if they
ain't there to do business" is not only
unjust, but foolish.
You do want the general public's respecting judges and bothering to
listen to what you say, don't you? See your own Missouri Rules of Court,
Rule 2. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1 and Canon 2.
6. Relator/Appellant is very likely to make this matter a federal case
if this Court refuses to do its duty. Remember what happened when this
Court refused to do its duty and hear Lindstedt v. Missouri Libertarian
Party, et.al. by sending Lawyer Thompson to stall? Relator refiled the
case in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Request for Relief
Wherefore, the Relator/Appellant asks that this Court to: (1) quit
stalling and settle down and rule that Missouri 'election laws' which
cut into a political candidate's right to appear on the ballot are
unconstitutional; (2) look at Relator/Appellant's Petition for Writ of
Mandamus of October 4, 1996 and today's Amended Petition for Judicial
Review and order Relator/Appellant placed upon the Newton County
general election ballot as a Libertarian Candidate for the office of
Sheriff; and (3) grant Relator/Appellant whatever other relief is just,
proper, and lawful.
-s- Martin Lindstedt October 17, 1996
_______________________________ ___________________
Relator/Appellant Date
Certificate of Service
A copy of this petition was mailed to the office of Respondent Kay
Baum, Newton County Clerk, at the Newton County Courthouse on
October 17, 1996.
A copy of this petition was mailed to the office of Secretary of
State Rebecca Cook, 208 State Capitol, P.O. Box 778, Jefferson City,
Missouri 65101 on October 17, 1996.
.
Commentary: It wasn't more than 45 minutes after I had this in the mail than a female clerk from the Missouri supreme court called me up around 3:15 p.m. Friday, October 18th. She informed me the court had denied my writ of mandamus. When I asked if any Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law had been given, she refused to say.
I asked if any ruling had been made as of yet on the petition for judicial review of election laws. I was informed that no, no ruling had been made. I informed the clerk that I had just mailed an Amended Petition for Judicial Review, eight copies for the court.
She informed me the court's decision would be mailed that afternoon.
On Monday, Oct. 21, 1996, I received the decision on mandamus. On Wednesday, Oct. 23, 1996 I received all eight copies of this petition, the extra copy I wanted file-stamped, the stamped, self-addressed envelope, the invitation to file by the Missouri supreme court, the denial of mandamus by the Missouri court of appeals.
The next step is to file a suit in Federal Court to overthrow these 'election laws' forbidding my candidacy to run for sheriff and to hold a special election.
.
Back to Lindstedt for Newton County Sheriff or
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line