.
Before the 40th Judicial Circuit
in Neosho, Missouri
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT, )
Relator )
)
vs. ) Case No. __CV396-771CC__
)
Newton County Clerk KAY BAUM, )
Chief Election Official )
of Newton County )
Respondent )
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Comes now the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, before this court of
jurisdiction granted by RSMo 115.333, Section 2, to petition for a
writ of mandamus compelling Respondent, Kay Baum, to place Relator's
name on the general election ballot of November 5, 1996 as the
Libertarian Party candidate for the office of Newton County Sheriff.
Statement of Facts.
The Newton County Libertarian Party, upon post-primary
reorganization on August 20, 1996, decided to run candidates
in the general election to fill positions otherwise uncontested.
Relator was re-elected Chairman of the Newton County Libertarian
Party. Relator had lost the statewide Libertarian Party primary
for the office of governor, and was now free to run as an unopposed
Libertarian candidate in any office which lacked a Libertarian
Party candidate. All of the elected and appointed members of the
Newton County Libertarian Party Central Committee formed a
nominating committee and unanimously granted Relator the nomination
to run for the office of Sheriff -- court action permitting.
On August 27, 1996, Relator dropped by the County Clerk's office
and orally informed the county clerk's office that Relator wanted
to run for sheriff. Would there be a problem with this? Since the
Respondent was out of the office, the other county workers did not
know and could not give Relator an answer.
On August 30, 1996 Relator presented to Respondent a letter
explaining the legal and political reasons why Relator has the
right to be printed on the general election ballot as a Libertarian
Party candidate for sheriff. Also presented were the relevant forms
filled out pursuant to RSMo 115.377 Section 1 -- Certificate of
nomination -- and RSMo 115.377 Section 3 -- Declaration of
Candidacy. Respondent refused to place Relator's name on the
ballot. Relator informed Respondent of the provisions of RSMo
115.333 Section 1's requirement of a statement outlining the
refusal backed by a finding of fact and conclusion of law, to be
given by September 10, 1996.
On September 12, 1996, after waiting two days after the deadline
for Respondent's statement or permission to file, Relator presented
Respondent with another letter asking for her determination or
permission and if Relator did not get it, Relator's intention to
pursue court action. Respondent said she did not have a RSMo 115.333
Section 1 written refusal, although she did ask the Secretary of
State's office counsel and the Newton County Prosecuting Attorney,
Greg Bridges, to provide such mandated written determination but
they refused to provide her with such. These quasi-legal politicians
are altogether free with advice in telling Respondent to refuse to
place Relator on the ballot but altogether lacking in
responsibility, initiative, and a sufficient legal reason behind
enforcing such free "legal" advice, thus leaving Respondent to face
Realtor on her own.
Relator bears no ill-will against Respondent, and in fact has a
measure of sympathy for the way in which the cowardly and corrupt
one-party political system is making her deny Relator and Relator's
political party their rights to participate in elections while
refusing to back up Respondent. However, Relator's sympathy for
Respondent in no way mitigates Relator's determination to assert
his political and constitutional rights.
Relator strongly suspects that a summary ruling by this court
to place his name on the general election ballot in accordance with
law will let Respondent off the hook politically by relieving
Respondent of further responsibility to try forestalling Relator.
Reasons and Suggestions of Law for Granting Mandamus.
1. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in
this matter. RSMo 115.333 Section 2. Article 5, Section 14,
Constitution of Missouri.
2. While Relator admits State election authorities have the power
to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections, these
"election authorities" DO NOT have any legitimate authority to
usurp the role of the electors by disqualifying constitutionally
qualified candidates under color of election statute. See U.S. Term
Limits vs. Thornton 115 S.Ct. 1842 1842, p.1844 (c). States only
have authority to protect the integrity and regularity of election
procedures, see Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724,730, 733., not
provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that
would exclude classes of candidates from federal office. See
U.S. 14th Amendment to see application of this precept to States'
lack of license to exclude classes of candidates from State office.
3. The only principal who has standing to determine any
extra-constitutional qualifications to run for office under their
Party ticket is the Newton County Libertarian Party. The State and
County election authorities lack standing to complain about this
matter, as does the Republican incumbent Sheriff. The County
Prosecutor lacks standing to make a complaint. Since no person,
government organization, election official or anyone else lacks
standing to complain about this matter, Relator should be allowed
to run as a candidate forthwith.
The concept of standing is such an elemental precept of law, that
Relator should have no need to quote cites to this court.
4. The Newton County Libertarian Party has an affirmative right
to nominate candidates to the general election. See ". . . a
political party has a right . . . to select a 'standard bearer who
best represents the party's ideologies and preferences.'" Eu v. San
Francisco Democratic Committee, 489 U.S. 214, at 224. Also see
"Parties have an associational right to 'broaden the base of public
participation and support of [their] activities." Tashjian
v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 at 214, and
"Parties have the right `to select their own candidate.'" Tashjian,
Id. at 230.
5. The Newton County Libertarian Party's nominating committee
and candidate have otherwise obeyed all but the egregiously
unconstitutional provisions usurping the rights of this political
party and candidates imposed by RSMo Chapter 115.305 to 115.405.
Those statutory provisions which do not violate their constitutional
rights have been obeyed by both Party and Relator candidate. See
letters of August 30, and September 12, 1996 and relevant portions
of RSMo Chapter 115.
6.(a) On the other hand, the election authorities have shown
"bad faith" by not obeying their own election laws, specifically
RSMo 115.333 Section 1, by not issuing a determination of their
reasons and the grounding in law behind their whims. Relator
strongly suspects that there is no valid legal grounds behind
Respondent's refusal to place Relator on the ballot, and that
Respondent's advisors are simulating legal process to privately
convert election procedure to their own political ends.
6.(b) While Relator may file as a write-in candidate in order
to mitigate damages, Relator is annoyed at County Prosecutor and
County Lawyer Greg Bridges' second-hand advice to do so and his
first-hand advice to Respondent to refuse Relator's ballot access
without putting his legal reasoning down on paper. If he shows up
to argue against Relator's petition for mandamus on behalf of
Respondent, Lawyer Bridges should explain why he could not help
Respondent obey RSMo 115.333 Section 1 by putting his quasi-legal
reasoning down on paper.
While Lawyer Bridges did get his job by write-in ballot, Relator
doubts that his having to follow the write-in routine will be as
successful in getting a government job like Prosecuting Lawyer
Bridges' since Relator does not have a daddy heading the County
Clerk's office to count the votes for him.
7. There is a lot of whining about voter apathy. If the purpose
of elections is for voters to merely to rubber-stamp third- and
fourth-rate candidates propped up by the major political parties,
then voter cynicism and the loss of governmental legitimacy will
be ensured. If election officials are allowed to enforce
unconstitutional laws made by politicians who wish to make
extra-constitutional qualifications on competing candidates, then
Newton County can be held to be politically equivalent to Nazi
Germany and Communist Russia in that only one-party candidates are
allowed to run for general election and the rest of the electorate
is allowed only the faint sop of write-in candidates or leaving
blank the slate as political protest. Turning the ballot into a
mere rubber-stamping by voters of the current status quo undermines
the alleged democratic foundations of this regime and makes its
claim of 'consent of the governed' spurious.
Allowing Relator to be on the general election ballot gives the
voters a clear choice between law-enforcement alternatives not to
be found in the Republican primary; a mere bragging contest as to
which Republican could establish a police state in Newton County
the fastest. Since the Democrats in Newton County couldn't be
bothered running a candidate for Sheriff, the Newton County
Libertarian Party should be allowed to do so now that a
constitutionally qualified candidate like Relator has stepped
forward.
The gist of this argument is paralleled in'Powell's Reliance
on Democratic Principles,' pages 1850-1851 of U.S. Term Limits v.
Thornton, 115 S.Ct 1842.
8. In the interests of saving taxpayer time and money, it would
be best to simply grant Relator's petition for mandamus right now
-- at this level -- rather than have to continue justifying
Respondent's cause to the Missouri Supreme Court and through the
federal courts where the Respondent will eventually lose. Relator
is quite willing to legally fight, fight, fight and politically
trash, trash, trash the corrupt nature of the elections process and
court system until this matter is finally settled. Does this court
want this election to be re-held at public expense with the
corresponding loss of political legitimacy later on? Or want to be
blamed for a lack of common sense and political integrity?
Far better to solve this matter, right now, and let the voters
decide who they want to elect from the choices on the ballot. Cut
the losses now.
Request for Relief
Wherefore, the Relator asks that this court grant mandamus and
direct Respondent Baum to place Relator's name on the general
election ballot of November 5, 1996 as the Libertarian Party
candidate for Sheriff of Newton County, plus whatever other relief
this court finds just and proper.
-s- Martin Lindstedt September 12, 1996
_______________________________ ___________________
Relator Date
Certificate of Service
A copy of the foregoing was hand delivered to the office of
Respondent Kay Baum, Newton County Clerk, at the Newton County
Courthouse on Tuesday, September 17, 1996.