WPC{ `Ͼk#~;iB23Pf9m@w}b,]^K<]4H=zVB(Z/Dj3 N=I|}s$kzc9qhH׸g s<\yeڗ"GjQ& QX 3H@fEz|b\(zw`J^xL +H'؅lu]fS[fMB[?9*NtŠ~f50vɲ!^r+&mz@=[ '7*1EUF\k [eQ^}..)A>Dns1U/UKaßZތ:y`D= ۤ&4R‹?24)}By)/ni7k+fUEDgç@hٽy#w{:LHU&.n %!' 0z fF aH B\ y    f a  0V= 0FG 0P 0Z 0d7 0C  fy8r#w;+$& 1"i+%+Q1g4%7 9w#BREHKTvXJ]Z_EtcfiEmEpU>sfta tftat3tJt 0et-v 0 _=v#w(ez 1uz 72{N4{^ 6{wB{4F{Z{ m\{;s{,xA`Univers,xA`UniversXX~xP7XP%\  `&Times New RomanXXj\  P6G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanX\  P6G;PX  @)Q=pP 0 pP0 "XQ   (4$  _ Page  1  0 p APPLICATIONFORSTAYOFOREGONSUPREMECOURTORDER, @ PENDINGCERTIORARIREVIEW (R2@$ <!XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (43?  Table_A d  _x  _xTable_B($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 (2$0 0 0 0 (<$0 0 0 0 0 ($      <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  1  .0  Unlessotherwisestated,alldatereferencesaretodatesin2004.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  2  .0  "ER"referstotheExcerptsofRecordfiledbyDefendantSecretaryofStateintheOregonSupreme  Court. \ <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  3  .0  TheopportunitytocastavoteforanindependentcandidateforPresidentinOregondependsupon  ballotaccess.OregondoesnoteventallywriteinvotesforPresident.ORS254.500. o <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  4  .0  WehaveconfirmedwithDefendantthattheoverseasandmilitaryballotswereprintedwithalineforthe  Nader/_Kucera_Ԁticketandthattheseballotshavebeenmailedout. h <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  5  .0  Alternatively,Defendantcouldprintaseparate,Presidentonlyballotandincludeitwiththeotherballot  inthemailingsrequiredbystatutetogotovotersbetweenOctober15andOctober19.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  6  .0  Eachsignaturesheetisasworn,datedaffidavitbyacountyelectionsofficer,thatthespecifiednumber  ofvotersignaturesonthesheetarevalid.ORS249.008(1)states:P(#(#   8 p Thecountyclerkshallattachtothepetitionorminutesacertificatestatingthe  numberofsignaturesbelievedtobegenuine.Thecertificateisprimafacie 0 evidenceofthefactsstatedinit.Asignaturenotincludedinthenumbercertifiedto   begenuineshallnotbecountedbytheofficerwithwhomthepetitionisfiled. m <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  7  .0  Wenotethatthe"HiEveryone"memoitself[ER9394]isundatedandisinTimesRomantypeface.  ThecoveremailforitisinArialtypefaceandwasunknowntoPlaintiffs'priortothedateoftrial.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  8  .0  TheUnpublishedInstructionsdirectthecountiesto"notreturnanysignaturesheetstotheNader  CampaignthatmayhavepotentialproblemsuntiltheSecretaryofStatehasresolvedtheseissuesand P notifiedthecounty."ThecountiesareinstructedtoreturntotheNaderCampaignonly"theoriginal @ sheetswiththecountiescertification,"whichmeansthosesheetsthatwerenotrejectedfor"potential  problemswithcirculatorsignatureanddatingofsignatureofsheets."lnpractice,asindicatedinthe 0 AffidavitofTravis_Diskin_Ԁ(_SER_Ԅ29),thecountiesdidnotreturntherejectedsheetstotheNader   Campaign,untilaftertheAugust24deadlineforfilingthesheetswiththeSecretaryofState. ! <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  9  .0  ThishasneverbeendisclosedbyDefendant,despitePlaintiffs's3writtenrequestsforproduction  seekingthatinformation.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  10  .0  Defendantlateradmitted,inamemorandumtotheOregonSupremeCourt,thataddressingthevalidity  ofthe_circulator_'ssignaturewasbeyondtheauthorityofthecountyelectionsofficers.Defendant's P MandamusMemorandum(p.6)stated:@(#(# 8  8pH!H!Notably,themattersexaminedbycountyofficialsisextremelylimited:Theysimply 0 "comparethesignaturesofelectorsonthepetitionorminuteswiththesignaturesof   theelectorsortheelectorregistrationcards."ORS249.006[sic;shouldbe p 249.008].Thecertificationstatesthenumberofsignaturesbelievedtobegenuine.$35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  11  .0  Later,Defendant'sMemoranduminSupportofPetitionfortheIssuanceofanAlternativeorPeremptory  WritofMandamustotheOregonSupremeCourt,p.6[hereinafter"Defendant'sMandamus P Memorandum"]seemstoconcedethatperformingthisrejectionofsheetsbasedupontheappearance @ ofthe_circulator_'ssignatureordatewasbeyondtheauthorityofthecounties:(#(#   8 p Notably,themattersexaminedbycountyofficialsisextremelylimited:Theysimply   "comparethesignaturesofelectorsonthepetitionorminuteswiththesignaturesof p theelectorsortheelectorregistrationcards."ORS249.006[sic;shouldbe  ` 249.008].Thecertificationstatesthenumberofsignaturesbelievedtobegenuine. G <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  12  .0  ThedirectoroftheSecretaryofState'sElectionsDivision,John_Lindback_,testifiedattrialthat  Defendantdoesacceptsuchexemplars,ifprovided,forthepurposeofvalidatingcirculatorsignatures. P ButneitherDefendantnorthecountyelectionsofficersnotifiedtheNaderCampaignoranycirculator @ thathersignaturewasbeingrejected.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  13  .0  DefendantonSeptember10,afterthetrialcourthadissueditsdecision,providedafacsimileofatable  purportingtoshowwhyeachsheetwasrejected,amongthosethatwerenotrejectedbythecounty P electionsofficersuponDefendant'sdirections.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  14  .0  AllaffidavitsfiledbyPlaintiffsintrialcourtwerenotcontestedbyDefendant.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  15  .0  DefendanthasneverrespondedtoPlaintiffs'attemptstoobtaindocumentsshowingwhyeachsheet  wasrejected.Priortothetrialcourthearing,Plaintiffsrequestedproductionof:P(#(# 0  4.0p(#(#AlldocumentsdemonstratingthereasonwhyeachNader/_Kucera_Ԁnominatingpetitionsignature  sheetrejectedbytheSecretaryofStatewasrejected.0p(#p(# 0  Afterhearingbutpriortotrialcourtjudgment,Plaintiffsrequestedproductionof:p(#(# 0  8.0p(#(#AllotherdocumentsindicatingwhyeachNadernominationsignaturesheetrejectedby   Defendantwasrejected.P  p(#p(#   9.0 p AcompletelistingofallNadernominationsignaturesheetsineverycountythatwerenotverified    bythecountyelectionsofficersduetocirculator"issues,"asstatedbyJohn_Lindback_Ԁatthecourt 0   hearingonSeptember8,2004,thereasonwhyeachsheetwasnotverified,andwhodirected    thatthesheetnotbeverified(SecretaryofStateorlocaldecisionofcountyelectionsofficer).p p(#p(#   10.0 p CopiesofallNadernominationsignaturesheetsineverycountythatwerenotverifiedbythe   countyelectionsofficersduetocirculator"issues,"asstatedbyJohn_Lindback_Ԁatthecourt P  hearingonSeptember8,2004.@ p(#p(# 0  Afterthetrial,Defendant'scounselfaxedanunauthenticatedspreadsheet,listingreasonsforsheet 0  rejections,thatDefendant'switnesshappenedtomentionduringtrial. m <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  16  .0  ThatManualdeclaresitselftobea"comprehensiveoverviewofthecandidatefilinga"comprehensive  overviewofthecandidatefilingprocess"andtoprovide"theproceduresandregulationsnecessaryto P fileforoffice."ER76.ItwasreasonablefortheNaderCampaigntorelyuponthis"comprehensive" @ Manual.Thefulldocumentisavailableathttp://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/manuals/indiv.pdf. H <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  17  .0  PlaintiffsalsosubmittedtheaffidavitofNorm_Frink_Ԁattestingtotheauthenticityofhissignatureon  disqualifiedsheets.Tab10,_SER_Ԅ382.DefendantrejectedthesignaturesheetsprovidedbyMr._Frink_, P whoisaMultnomahCountyDeputyDistrictAttorney,becauseitwas"unusual."Hearing10:52:48.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  18  .0  Referencestothehearingvideorecordaretothe_timestamps_Ԁembeddedinit.Plaintiffsarefurnishing  thefullDVDofthetrialcourthearing,asprovidedtothembytheMarionCountyCircuitCourt.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  19  .0  DefendantarguedtotheOregonSupremeCourtthatthesecriminalsanctionsarebeingenforced,thus  punishingunlawfulcirculatorconductandpresumablydeterringsuchconductinthefuture.Defendant's P MemoranduminSupportofPetitionfortheIssuanceofanAlternativeorPeremptoryWritofMandamus @ [hereinafter"Defendant'sMandamusMemorandum"],p.23.Defendantthereclaimsthat"notall  circulatorerroriscriminal,"butinOregonanydeviationfromtherequirementsoftheapplicablestatutes 0 orDefendant'srulespertainingtowhatacirculatorplacesonasignaturesheet(includinghissignature   andthedateofhissignature)issubjecttothecriminalpenaltysetforthinORS260.993(ClassC p felony),asaviolationofORS260.715.ThatiswhytheManualitself(p.13)states: `(#(#   8 p Warning: Violationsofthecirculatorrequirementsmayresultinconvictionofa P   felonywithafineofupto$100,000and/orprisonforuptofiveyears. @ phph 0  TheManualis,initsentirety,aruleadoptedbytheSecretaryofStatewhichitselfestablishesthe 0   "circulatorrequirements."Thus,Defendantinhisownrulethatviolationofthecirculatorrequirementsin    theManualisafelony.Defendantrequiresoneverynominatingpetitionsignaturesheetasimilar p  warning:` (#(#   8 p Warning:Falselysigningthisstatement[ascirculator]mayresultinconvictionofa P  felonywithafineofupto$100,000and/orprisonforuptofiveyears.(ORS @  260.715).  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  20  .0  Althoughthetrialcourtapplied Nelson here,Plaintiffs'argumentapplying Nelson iscontainedinthe  SecondClaimforRelief,whichthetrialcourtdidnotreach.OurFourthClaimforRelief,whichthetrial P courtgranted,didnotrelyon Nelson butinsteaduponthefactthatthe718signaturesheetsatissue @ compliedwithallstatutesandallwrittenrulesofDefendant.Webelievethat Nelson isanindependent  basisforthetrialcourt'sdecisionbutisnotnecessarytotheFourthClaimforRelief. l <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  21  .0   Buckleyv.AmericanConstitutionalLawFound. ,525U.S.182,119_S.Ct_.636,142_L.Ed_.2d599  (1999)[hereinafter" _ACLF_ "],overturnedColorado'sstatutoryrequirementthatpetition_circulators_Ԁbe P registeredvotersoftheState.Inthe1999session,theOregonLegislaturerepealedOregon'ssimilar @ statute,thusleavingtheonlyqualificationofacirculatortheimplicitrequirementthatshebeahuman  being.Thereisnovoterregistrationrequirementorresidencyrequirementoragerequirement. @ <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  22  .0  TheCourtalsoappearedtobelievethatthe"writteninstructionstothecountyclerks"weresomehow  public.Thetrialcourtisclearthattheywerenot.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  Q=pP 0 pP0 "Q=XhXdXhXd=  23  ..0  8p(#(#TheSpeechandPressclauses,everybitasmuchasthePetitionClause,wereincluded  intheFirstAmendmenttoensurethegrowthandpreservationofdemocraticself P government....TheFramersenvisionedtherightsofspeech,press,assembly,and @ petitioningasinterrelatedcomponentsofthepublic'sexerciseofitsSovereignty.pH!pH! 0   McDonaldv.Smith ,supra,486,489. ; <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  24  .0  Attrial,SummerDavisstated,"Idonotrecalltheconversation."Sheconceded,however,thatshehad  providedincorrectadviceinresponsetoinquiriesduringthepastyearandthat,inthoseinstances,the P personsreceivingtheincorrectadvicewereallowedtorelyuponitandwererelievedofwhateverrules @ werethesubjectoftheincorrectadviceprovided.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _Q=pP 0 pP0 "Q=XhXdXhXd=  25  ..0  TheSecretaryofStatewasobviouslyprovidingadviceandoutrightdirectiontothecountyelections  officersatthetime,buthefailedtoadviseordirectthemtorejecttheunnumberedsheets.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _Q=pP 0 pP0 "Q=XhXdXhXd=  26  ..0  Someoftheverifiedsheetsreceivedbackfromthecountyelectionsofficersshowanothersetof  numbers,usuallybelowthelineoneachsheetforthe"SHEETNUMBER."Theseadditional P handwrittennumberswerewrittenonthesheetsbythecountyelectionsofficers,notbytheNader @ Campaign.  <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  27  .0  Courtsinsomestatesavoidconstitutionalissuesbyapplyinga"substantialcompliance"ruleto  requirementssuchasthenumberingofpetitionsheets,evenwheresuchrequirementsaremandatory. P  Turnerv._Lawley_ ,305_N.Y.S._Ԁ357(NY1969). z <!@@XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (4$  _  28  .0  The"purposeoftheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentistosecureeveryperson  withinthestate'sjurisdictionagainstintentionalandarbitrarydiscrimination...occasioned...byits P improperexecutionthroughdulyconstitutedagents."3Xg XX SiouxCityBridgeCo.v.DakotaCounty ,3 3Xg3Xg X3Ԁ260U.S. @ 441,445(1923).%\  `&Times New RomanTable_CTable_D9 _x(2c$ <!XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (43?  XXX  0  .3|O (7$XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (43?FinePrint,,,,0!3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)?i)181  1:i+001Upage page chapter volume footnote endnote  <!XQ=pP 0 pP0 "XQ  =XhXdd= (43?  _  8XXdd8 =   INTHESUPREMECOURT X OFTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA H   * ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,dt ,dd , dd +  J7   JSANDRA_KUCERA_,SARAH_THERESE_ԀWINDER,   _KRISTIN_Ԁ_ZUBEL_,NATALIEBOLTON,PHILLIP x  SALISBURYSAMANTHABERG,TIMOTHY @   JOHNSON,andGREGORYKAFOURY,  X  0  Applicants,      p v. (x  BILLBRADBURY,SecretaryofState,     Respondent, H  0  and( DEMOCRATICPARTYOFOREGON,JOHN_NEEL_ h _PENDER_,andJAMES_EDMUNSON_, 0 0  Respondent_Intervenors_ԀBelow. WM2##$$ W >4 ##$$ >No.__________   OregonSupremeCourt @  No.SC51764  X MarionCountyCircuit    CourtNo.04C18259 ` !  APPLICATIONFORSTAY @ & OFOREGONSUPREME  ' COURTORDER,PENDING  ( CERTIORARIREVIEW 4*(H ,  ##$$ 4 *  dddt dd  dd (#(#,O dd ,dd ,dd +  A7p1p 1A >4p2##$$ > >4p3##$$ >DANIELW.MEEK p4 OSBNo.79124 85 10949S.W.4thAvenue P6 Portland,OR97219 7 (503)29390210 E voice8EE (503)29390990 E faxX 9EE dan@meek.net  !p: OfAttorneysforPlaintiffs4*("< 1 ##$$ 4  @$== @8 TABLEOFCONTENTS         0     INTRODUCTION.#""p(#. (#(##1 ݌ @ Ќ     0     NATUREOFTHECASE.#""p(#. "(#(##2 ݌   Ќ    W0     THENEEDFORPROMPTRELIEF.#""p(#.DD*(#(##3Wr݌ `  Ќ    "0     SUMMARYOFFACTS.#""p(#. (#(##4"=݌  @ Ќ    0     LEGALARGUMENT#""p(#.V V (#(##9݌    Ќ    0     II.0(#(#BYIMPOSINGUNWRITTENRULESTOREJECTSIGNATURESHEETS, 8  DEFENDANTVIOLATEDTHERIGHTSOFPLAINTIFFSUNDERTHEFIRST P  ANDFIFTHAMENDMENTSBYTONOMINATEACANDIDATEPURSUANTTO   THEAPPLICABLEPUBLISHEDELECTIONSTATUTESANDRULES.#""p(#.00J(#(##9݌   Ќ    0       A.0p(#(#DEFENDANTREJECTEDSIGNATURESHEETSONTHEBASISOFHIS  p  UNWRITTENRULES.#H"H"o(#.88+p(#p(##10݌ 8 Ќ    0        p 1.0P (#(#UNDERLYINGFACTSREGARDINGSIGNATURESHEETS x APPARENTLYREJECTEDFORALLEGEDDEFECTSIN @ CIRCULATORSIGNATURESORTHEDATINGOFCIRCULATOR X SIGNATURES.#H"H"o(#.,P (#P (##10݌   Ќ    m0        p  P a.00 (#(#SHEETSWITHNODISCERNIBLEDATINGERRORS.#H"H"o(#.``P0 (#0 (##10m݌ ` Ќ    0        p 0P (#(#b.00 P (#P (#TRIVIALDATECORRECTIONSWHERETHEINTENTIONOF @ THECIRCULATORISMANIFESTLYCLEAR.#H"H"o(#.44J0 (#0 (##14݌  Ќ    0        p 0P (#(#c.00 P (#P (#SIGNATURESHEETSUPONWHICHTHEDATEIS H CORRECTEDINACCORDANCEWITHTHEANNOUNCED ` POLICYOFTHESECRETARYOFSTATE.#H"H"o(#.nnH0 (#0 (##15݌ (  Ќ    j0        p 2.0P (#(#THETRIALCOURT'SDECISIONCONCLUDEDTHATDEFENDANT h" APPLIED"UNWRITTENRULES"TODISQUALIFYTHENADER 0 # PETITIONS.#H"H"o(#.+P (#P (##15j݌  H$ Ќ    0        p 3.0P (#(#THEUNWRITTENRULESWERENOTADOPTEDBYANY "& RULEMAKINGPROCEDURE.#H"H"o(#.6P (#P (##17݌ P#' Ќ    0        p 4.0P (#(#THEUNWRITTENRULESWEREINCONSISTENTWITHTHE $0 ) PUBLISHEDRULES.#H"H"o(#.1P (#P (##190݌ % * Ќ    G0        p a.0P (#(#SHEETSREJECTEDDUETOTHELOOKOFTHE_CIRCULATOR_'S 8'", SIGNATURE.#H"H"o(#.+P (#P (##19Gb݌ (P#- Ќ    0        p 5.0P (#(#THEOREGONSUPREMECOURTDECISIONRECOGNIZEDTHAT )$/ DEFENDANTHADAPPLIED"UNWRITTENRULES"TODISQUALIFY X*%0 THENADERPETITIONS.#H"H"o(#.ll5P (#P (##22݌  +p&1 Ќ      +8'2 0       B.0p(#(#THEU.S.CONSTITUTIONDOESNOTALLOWSTATESTODENY  BALLOTACCESSPURSUANTTOUNWRITTENRULES.#H"H"o(#.Ep(#p(##24 6 ݌ x Ќ    t!0     III.0(#(#EVENIFTHEUNWRITTENRULESHADBEENWRITTEN,DEFENDANT X SHOWEDNOCOMPELLINGOREVENIMPORTANTSTATEINTERESTIN   IMPLEMENTINGTHOSERULES.#H"H"o(#.~~.(#(##32t!!݌  Ќ    "0       A.0p(#(#STATEIMPAIRMENTOFTHEEXERCISEOFFRANCHISERIGHTS ( x REQUIRESASHOWINGTHATITACHIEVESATLEASTANIMPORTANT  @ STATEINTEREST.#H"H"o(#.LL*p(#p(##32" #݌    Ќ    h$0       B.0p(#(#STATEACTIONSIMPAIRINGTHENOMINATIONOFCANDIDATESBY H   MEANSOFPETITIONINGMUSTBENARROWLYTAILOREDTO `  ACHIEVEACOMPELLINGSTATEINTEREST.#H"H"o(#.  ?p(#p(##34h$$݌ (  Ќ    %0       C.0p(#(#DEFENDANTHASNOTSHOWNANIMPORTANTORCOMPELLING h  STATEINTERESTINREJECTINGSIGNATURESHEETSFOR 0  "ILLEGIBLE"CIRCULATORSIGNATURES(NEXTTOLEGIBLEPRINTED H  NAMES)ORCIRCULATORSIGNATURESTHAT"APPEARTOBE  INITIALS."#H"H"o(#. %p(#p(##38% &݌  Ќ    '0       D.0p(#(#DEFENDANTHASNOTSHOWNANIMPORTANTORCOMPELLING h STATEINTERESTINREJECTINGSIGNATURESHEETSDUETOTHE 0 CORRECTIONOFTRIVIALDATINGERRORSONCIRCULATOR  SIGNATURES.#H"H"o(#. &p(#p(##38' (݌ p Ќ    )0     IV.0(#(#REJECTINGCIRCULATORSIGNATURESUNLESSTHEYMATCHTHE P SIGNATURESUPONOREGONVOTERREGISTRATIONCARDSVIOLATES  PLAINTIFFS'CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDVIOLATESTHEOFDUE  PROCESSGUARANTEEANDFREEDOMOFTRAVELGUARANTEEOFOUT X OFSTATE_CIRCULATORS_.#H"H"o(#.~~*(#(##39))݌  p Ќ    +0     V.0(#(#THEWRITTENRULESPERTAININGTOTHESEQUENTIALNUMBEROF   SIGNATURESHEETSBYTHEPETITIONERDONOTSURVIVESTRICT x! SCRUTINYORANYLOWERLEVELOFSCRUTINY.#H"H"o(#.JJ=(#(##40++݌ @" Ќ    `-0       A.0p(#(#DEFENDANTREJECTEDSHEETSWITH2,354VALIDSIGNATURES  $ MERELYBECAUSETHENADERCAMPAIGNDIDNOTAPPLY !% SEQUENTIALNUMBERSTOALLOFTHESHEETS.#H"H"o(#.""Cp(#p(##40`-{-݌ `"& Ќ    .0       B.0p(#(#DEFENDANTVIOLATEDTHERIGHTSOFPLAINTIFFS'INREJECTING #@( SIGNATURESHEETSFORLACKOFNADERAPPLIEDSEQUENTIAL $ ) NUMBERING.#H"H"o(#.n n %p(#p(##44./݌ % * Ќ    ^00     VI.0(#(#DISCARDINGVALID,VERIFIEDVOTERSIGNATURESDUETOALLEGED '`", "ERRORS"BYACIRCULATORDENIESVOTERSEQUALPROTECTION '(#- UNDERTHELAW.#H"H"o(#.L L #(#(##46^0y0݌ (#. Ќ    10     VII.0(#(#REQUESTEDRELIEF.#H"H"o(#.&(#(##4811݌ 0*%0 Ќ   Q=pP 0 pP0 "Q  *H&1     INTRODUCTION.  M3  x     OnSeptember2,2004,theOregonSecretaryofState[hereinafter"Defendant"] X refusedtocertifythenominationofRalphNadertoappearontheNovember2,2004,  OregonballotasanindependentcandidateforPresidentoftheUnitedStates,despite ( x thefactthathissupportershadfiledfarmorethanenoughvalidandfullyverifiedvoter    signatures.OnSeptember3,2004,PlaintiffsfiledsuitinMarionCountyCircuitCourt H   foranorderrequiringDefendanttocertifyNader'splaceontheballot.   1       (    OnSeptember9,afteradayofhearingwithlivewitnessesonSeptember8, h  JudgePaulJ.Lipscomb,presidingjudgeoftheMarionCountyCircuitCourt,issuedan H  OpinionandOrder(ER1070   2      ),whichruledforPlaintiffsontheirFourthClaimandfound  suchrulingtobe"_dispositive_Ԁofthemeritswithoutreachingconstitutionalclaims."The h CourtorderedthatNaderhadqualifiedfortheballotandorderedtheSecretaryofState  to"orderthepreparationofballotsforPresidentandVicePresidentforthe2004 8 GeneralElectionwhichcontainthenamesofRalphNaderandSandra_Kucera_Ԁas  independentcandidatesforPresidentandVicePresident."GeneralJudgment,ER X 115. 8   OnSeptember22,2004,TheOregonSupremeCourtissuedaPeremptoryWritof x! Mandamus,orderingtheMarionCountyCircuitCourttovacateitsorderofSeptember  X# 9.OnSeptember23,2004,theOregonSupremeCourtdeniedPlaintiffs'Petitionfor !% StayandReconsideration,thusendingallreviewofthematterbythecourtsofOregon. (#x'   % *     NATUREOFTHECASE. Ob<     TheOregonSecretaryofState'srefusaltorecognizethe18,000+signatureson @ thenominatingpetitions,fullyvalidatedandverifiedbythecountyelectionoffices   pursuanttoORS249.740(5)andORS249.008(1),violatestherightsofPlaintiffsunder `  theFirst,Fifth,andFourteenthAmendmentsoftheU.S.Constitution.Defendant's  @ decision,inadditiontobeingarbitrary,capricious,lackingbasisinfact,lackingfindings    offact,lackingconclusionsoflaw,andlackinganyreasoningorjustificationwhatever, `  violatestherightsofPlaintiffstoexercisetheirrightstofreespeechandassembly,to   peaceablypetitionthegovernment,toexercisetheirrightsasregisteredOregon 0  electors(includingtherighttosignpetitionstonominatecandidatesforpublicoffice),as  wellastheirrightstodueprocessandequalprotectionoflawundertheFifth P Amendment,madeapplicabletostateactionbytheFourteenthAmendment. 0   PlaintiffsincludevoterswhosevalidsignatureswererejectedbyDefendant, p personswhowereactivelyinvolvedingatheringsignaturesforthenominatingpetition, P andOregonelectorswhoseektheopportunitytoexercisetheirfranchiseeffectivelyin  votingfortheticketofRalphNaderandSandra_Kucera_ԀforPresidentandVice  p PresidentoftheUnitedStatesintheNovember2,2004,generalelection.   3      ׀Plaintiffs   alsoincludeacandidateforVicePresidentoftheUnitedStates,Sandra_Kucera_.The @" rightsofallPlaintiffswereviolatedbyDefendant.  $   DefendantBradburyistheSecretaryofStateofOregonandisresponsiblefor `"& enforcingtheelectionlawsofOregon,includingallthosestatutesandconstitutional #@( provisionsregulatingthenominationofcandidatesbyelectorpetition.Hisactionshere % *  arecontrarytoORS247,005,whichstates: '`", 0  Itisthepolicyofthisstatethatallelectionlawsandproceduresshallbe  establishedandconstruedtoassisttheelectorintheexerciseoftherightof x franchise.@(#(#    THENEEDFORPROMPTRELIEF. OxG       OnthesamedaythattheOregonSupremeCourtissueditsopinion(September ( x 22),Defendantannouncedhewasorderingtheimmediateprintingofallremaining    Oregonballots,withoutalinefortheNader/_Kucera_Ԁticket.InOregon,allelectionsare H   conductedundera"votebymail"system,whichhaseliminatedpollingplaces.Instead, (  allactiveregisteredvotersaremailedaballot1418dayspriortoelectionday.Each h  votercanreturntheballotbymail(afteraffixingtheappropriatepostage)orcandrop H  theballotatpickuplocationsscatteredaroundeachcounty(usuallyinshoppingcenter  parkinglotsandlibraries).UnderOregonlaw,allballotsmustbemailedtothevoters h byOctober19fortheNovember2,2004,election.    Defendanthasassertedthatprintingoftheballotsrequiresleadtimesothathe 8 hadtoordertheballotsprintedonSeptember22.IntheMarionCountyCircuitCourt,  Defendantassertedthatheneededtoordertheprintingofballotsforoverseasand X militaryOregonregisteredvotersbySeptember8.TheCircuitCourtissueditsorder 8 requiringNaderontheballotonSeptember9,andDefendantstatedthattheoverseas x! andmilitaryballotswouldbeprintedwithalinefortheNader/_Kucera_Ԁticket._   4      _  X#   Defendant'sorderingtheimmediateprintingofballotsnotlistingtheNader/_Kucera_ !% ticketimposesirreparableharmuponPlaintiffs.ApromptorderofthisCourt,staying (#x' theOregonSupremeCourtjudgment,wouldreducethenecessitytodiscardthose $ ) ballotsandreprintthemwithalinefortheNader/_Kucera_Ԁticket.   5       H&!+   SUMMARYOFFACTS. OP  x   InJuly2004,supportersofthecandidacyofRalphNaderforPresidentofthe X UnitedStatesbegancollectingthe15,306petitionsignaturesofactiveregisteredvoters  neededtoqualifyNaderfortheOregonballot,pursuanttoORS249.740andORS ( x 249.008.ORS249.008(1)requiresthatthecandidatefornominationbypetitionsubmit    originalpetitionsheetscontainingtheregisteredvotersignaturestothecountyelections H   officesforverificationofvotersignatures.OnvariousdatesinAugust2004,thegroup (  collectingsignaturesforthenominationoftheNader/_Kucera_Ԁticket("NaderCampaign") h  filedthousandsofsignaturesheetswiththeelectionofficersformostcountiesin H  Oregon.Thecountiesaresupposedtoverifythevotersignaturesandreturnthe  originalsofthesignaturesheetstotheCampaign,whichinturnmustsubmittheverified h originalstotheSecretaryofStateonorbeforethefilingdeadlineinthiscase,August  24,2004,forplacementontheNovemberballot. 8   Thesesheetssubmittedtothecountiescontainedover27,000signatures.The  countyelectionofficersreturnedtotheNaderCampaignsignaturesheetscontaining X over18,000votersignatureswhichwereindividuallyfoundtobevalidandsoverifiedby 8 thecountyelectionofficers.Everysignaturesheetisalsoanaffidavitofthecounty x! electionsofficer,whosignseverysheetafterspecifyingthenumberofvalid,verified  X# votersignaturesonthatsheet.   6       !%   Asthesignaturesheetswerebeingfiledwiththecountyelectionsofficers, (#x'  however,theSecretaryofStatesentaninformal("HiEveryone")memotothecounty $ ) electionsofficers(datedAugust4   7      ),withinstructionsonhowtohandletheNader   petitions.ExcerptofRecordsubmitted(byDefendant)totheOregonSupremeCourt @ [hereinafter"ER"]ER92etseq.Weshallrefertothismemoasthe"Unpublished   Instructions."TheUnpublishedInstructionsareapplicablebytheirtermsonlyto"the `  NaderforPresidentpetition"andtonothingelse.PursuanttotheUnpublished  @ Instructions,thecountyelectionofficersremovedsignaturesheetsfromtheverification    processanddidnotreturnthosesheetstotheNaderCampaign._   8      _ԀThetotalnumberof `  sheetssoaffectedisnotknowntoPlaintiffsortheNaderCampaign.   9           TheUnpublishedInstructionsdirectedthecountyelectionsofficerstoremove 0  sheets,andnotverifythevotersignaturesthereon,ifthesignatureofthe circulator did  notmeetthecriterialistedintheUnpublishedInstructions._    10      _ԀTheinstructionsmost P harmfultotheNaderCampaignwerethosetorejectentiresheets,if: 0    p 2   1  .3  0 P "circulatorsignaturehassignedusinginitialsonly."pP (#P (#    p 2   2  .3  0 P "Circulatordatehasbeencrossedoutormodified."PP (#P (# TheUnpublishedInstructionsrequiredrejectionofentiresheets,ifthe_circulator_'s  signature"appearedtobeinitials,"evenifthatwasthe_circulator_'snormalwayof  p signing.Thiswasnotaquestionofidentifyingthecirculator,becauseeverysignature  sheetcontainedtheprintednameofthecirculatorunderhersignature.Thereareno @ OregonstatutesorrulesoftheSecretaryofStatepertainingtocandidatepetitions   requiringthatcirculatorsignaturesmustnotconsistofinitials. `    NorarethereOregonstatutesorrulesrequiringthateverydateappliedtoa  @ _circulator_'ssignaturebepristine.UndertheUnpublishedInstructions,countieswere    directedtodisqualifyentiresheetsofvotersignatures,ifthecirculatorhadmadeany `  slipofthepeninwritingthedateonherownsignature(suchasbeginningtowritea"7"   forJulyand,realizingthemonthhadchanged,crossingitoutandreplacingitwithan 0  "8"forAugust).    NeithertheSecretaryofStatenorthecountiesnotifiedtheNaderCampaignthat P thesheetssignedbyanycirculatorwerebeingrejectedduringthecountylevel 0 verificationprocess._!   11      _ԀThus,therewasnoopportunityfortheCampaigntocontest p thoserejectionsby,forexample,producingthecirculatorinpersonorbyaffidavitwith P signatureexemplars(onadriver'slicense,passport,W4form,etc.)toshowthatthe  rejectedcirculatorsignaturewasindeedasignatureofthatcirculator._"0   12      _  p   Aftertheycompletedtheirverificationprocesses,thecountyelectionsoffices   returnedtherestofthesignaturesheetstotheNaderCampaign,completewiththeir @" ownaffidavitsattestingtothenumberofvalidsignaturesoneachsheet.  OnAugust  $ 24,theNaderCampaignsubmittedthesignaturesheetscontainingthevalidand  verifiedsignaturestotheSecretaryofState,whoannouncedthatthenumberofvalid, @ verifiedsignaturessubmittedwas18,186,farmorethantheneedednumber.But   Defendantalsosaidhewasgoingtoreviewthesheetsfor"problems"beforecertifying `  Naderfortheballot.  @   TheNaderCampaignthenheardnothingfromtheSecretaryofStateuntil    September1,despitenumerousattemptstoobtaininformation.TheNaderCampaign `  fearedthatDefendantwastryingto"runouttheclock"bymakingadecisionthatwould   betoolatetoappealtothecourts,despitethefactthathisfunctionwastotallythe 0  numberofcertifiedvalidvotersignaturesattestedtobythecountyelectionsofficers.  OnSeptember1,theSecretaryofStatecalledapressconference(wherethe P representativeoftheNaderCampaignwasphysicallyexcludedfromtheroom)and 0 announcedthatNaderhadfallen218signaturesshort,becauseDefendanthadhimself p rejectedadditionalsheetscontainingover3,000verifiedvotersignatures. Defendant P providednodocumentstotheNaderCampaignstatingwhyeachrejected  signaturesheetwasrejected.   p   TheNaderCampaignreceivednothinginwritingfromtheSecretaryofStateuntil   September2,2004,whenitreceiveda1page_telecopied_ԀletterfromMargieFranzof @" theofficeoftheSecretaryofState,statingthatthenumberofvalidsignaturescounted  $ bytheSecretaryofStatewas15,088(ExhibitAtotheAppeal/Petition),whichis218 `"& fewerthanthe15,306required.Still,Defendantprovidednodocumentsstatingwhy #@( eachrejectedsignaturesheetwasrejected,andthetrialcourthearingproceededon % * thebasisofPlaintiffs'assumptionsaboutwhyeachsheetwasrejected.#   13      ׀Those '`", assumptionswerebaseduponreportsinthepressthatDefendanthadrejectedan (#. unknownnumberofsheetsduetoperceivedproblemswithcirculatorsignatures,dates  oncirculatorsignatures,andthefactthattheNaderCampaigndidnotapplya @ sequentialnumber(bycounty)toeverysignaturesheetsubmittedtoeachcounty.     Justpriortotrial,Plaintiffsreceivedahalfpagesummaryofsheetsthatwere `  rejectedbytheSecretaryofStatebecausetheyhadnotbeensequentiallynumbered  @ bytheNaderCampaignpriortosubmittaltothecounties.ThoseDefendantrejected    sheetscontained2,354verifiedvotersignatures.Thehalfpagesummaryalsonoted `  "otherrejections"byDefendantofsheetscontaining718verifiedvotersignatures.   Plaintiffsreadinthepressthatthesesignatureswerecontainedonsheetswhich 0  Defendanthadrejectedforsomeperceiveddeficiencyinthe_circulator_'ssignatureor  thedateaccompanyingthe_circulator_'ssignature. P   DefendantprovidednonoticeoropportunityfortheNaderCampaign(oranyone 0 else)tocuretheallegedproblemswiththesignaturesheets.Instead,Defendant p merelydeclaredthatNaderhadnotqualifiedfortheballot. P   PlaintiffsfiledsuitagainstDefendantonSeptember3,2004(ER4).Thetrial  courtrequiredallpartiestosubmittheirmemorandaonthemorningofSeptember8  p andconductedanevidentiaryhearingthatday.ThetrialcourtissuedanOpinionand   OrderonSeptember9,grantingtoPlaintiffsthereliefsoughtorderingDefendantto @" recognizethattheNaderCampaignhadsubmittedsufficientvalidandverified  $ signaturestoqualifytheNader/_Kucera_Ԁticketfortheballot,pursuanttoORS249.740. `"& TheCircuitCourtgrantedPlaintiffs'FourthClaim,regardingthesheetsrejectedatthe #@( SecretaryofStatelevelforallegedproblemswithcirculatorsignaturesanddates.The % * courtrejectedPlaintiffs'ThirdClaim,regardingthelackofNaderappliedsequential '`", numberingonsomesignaturesheets.ThecourtdidnotrenderadecisiononPlaintiffs' (#.  otherclaims,whichincludedotherstatutoryclaims(FirstandSecondClaims)and 0*%0 constitutionalclaims(Fifth,Sixth,andSeventhClaims),eachofwhichwouldseparately  warrantthesamereliefthecertificationoftheNaderfortheOregonballot. @    DefendantonSeptember14filedintheOregonSupremeCourtaPetitionforthe   IssuanceofanAlternativeorPeremptoryWritofMandamus.TheOregonSupreme `  CourtallowedmemorandatobefiledonSeptember17,rendereditsfinalorderand  @ judgmentinfavorofDefendantonSeptember22,anddeniedPlaintiffs'PetitionforStay    andReconsiderationonSeptember23. `     LEGALARGUMENT ac  h    Plaintiffs'FifthandSeventhClaims(ER1416)soughtreliefforviolationsof  p  Plaintiffs'rightsundertheFirst,Fifth,andFourteenthAmendmentsoftheU.S.  Constitution.Thetrialcourtdidnotreachtheseclaims,havinggrantedthereliefsought @ onthebasisofoneofPlaintiffs'statutoryclaims.TheOregonSupremeCourt   addressedtheFifthandSeventhClaimsanddeniedtheminthespaceof2pages. ` OpinionofOregonSupremeCourt(September22,2004),pp.3234. @    2   II  .3  0  BYIMPOSINGUNWRITTENRULESTOREJECTSIGNATURESHEETS, H   DEFENDANTVIOLATEDTHERIGHTSOFPLAINTIFFSUNDERTHEFIRST ` ANDFIFTHAMENDMENTSBYTONOMINATEACANDIDATEPURSUANTTO (  THEAPPLICABLEPUBLISHEDELECTIONSTATUTESANDRULES. cu !(#(#     ItcannotbedeniedthatDefendantrejected,bymeansofhis"unwrittenrules,"far 0 # morethanenoughverifiedvotersignatures(atleast718andprobablyfarmore)than !% theshortfallof218signatures.TheOregonSupremeCourtconcludedthatapplication P#' ofthe"unwrittenrules"didnotviolateOregonlaw.Weargueherethatapplicationof $0 ) the"unwrittenrules"didviolatetherightsofPlaintiffs'undertheU.S.Constitutionby p&!+ deprivingthemofarecognizedlibertyinterestwithnonoticeandnoopportunitytocure (P#- thealleged"circulatorerrors"onthesignaturesheets. )$/    +p&1     2   A  .3  0 p DEFENDANTREJECTEDSIGNATURESHEETSONTHEBASISOFHIS   UNWRITTENRULES. cu xp(#p(#   Defendantrejectedsheetscontainingatleast718validandverifiedvoter X signaturesonthegroundthatthesheetsdisplaysomeunidentifieddefectinthe  signatureofthecirculatororthedateonthesignatureofthecirculator.Thesearein ( x additiontotheunknownnumberofvotersignaturesonsheetsthatwererejectedand    thenretainedbythecountyelectionsofficers,atthedirectionofDefendant,dueto H   Defendant'sperceptionofalleged"errors"bythe_circulators_. (    Priortotrial,Defendanthadnotstatedwhichsignaturesheetswererejectedfor h  whichreasons,buttrialproceeded(withoutobjection)onthebasisofPlaintiffs'stated H  assumptionsregardingeachsheet.        p 2   1  .3  0 P UNDERLYINGFACTSREGARDINGSIGNATURESHEETS 0 APPARENTLYREJECTEDFORALLEGEDDEFECTSIN  CIRCULATORSIGNATURESORTHEDATINGOFCIRCULATOR p SIGNATURES. cuN 8P (#P (#   Thetrialcourtfoundthatthenumberofsignaturesunlawfullydisqualifiedfor  allegeddefectsincirculatorsignaturesordatingofcirculatorsignatureswasmorethan X sufficienttorestoretheNader/_Kucera_Ԁtickettotheballot.TheOregonSupremeCourt 8 didnotfindotherwise. x!      p  P 2   a  .3  0 0 SHEETSWITHNODISCERNIBLEDATINGERRORS. cu  $0 (#0 (#   Defendantrejectedsheetscontainingseveralhundredsignatures,whichhaveno `"& conceivableerrorsorcorrectionstothedateonthe_circulator_'ssignature.Thetrial #@( proceededonouruncontradictedassumptionthatthesheetswererejectedsolely % * becauseDefendantdoesnotliketheappearanceofthe_circulator_'ssignature. '`",   TheAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_Ԁ(_SER_Ԅ28)attachedasexhibitssignaturesheets (#. signedbythese_circulators_: 0*%0    p (1)0 P TimothyJohnson,bearing41verifiedvotersignatures,Ex.C[_SER_Ԅ34];+'2P (#P (#  ,'3    p (2)0 P Terrence_Constancio_,bearing60verifiedvotersignatures,Ex.D[_SER_Ԅ  51];xP (#P (#    p (3)0 P Ronald_Rosenloff_,bearing160verifiedvotersignatures,Ex.F[_SER_Ԅ X 110]; P (#P (#    p (4)0 P Ronald_Rosenloff_,bearinganother245signaturesonsheetswhich `  were"pulled"byMultnomahCounty,atthedirectionofDefendant,and ( x notverified,Ex.G[_SER_Ԅ151]; @P (#P (#    p (5)0 P _Juanjuan_ԀWong,bearing117verifiedvotersignatures,Ex.H[_SER_Ԅ    217];H  P (#P (#    p (6)0 P Samantha_Theobold_,bearing70verifiedvotersignatures,Ex.I[_SER_Ԅ (  258]; P (#P (#    p (7)0 P _Donte_Ԁ_Pettet_,bearing76signaturesonsheetswhichwere"pulled"by 0  MultnomahCounty,atthedirectionofDefendant,andnotverified,Ex. H  J[_SER_Ԅ280].P (#P (#   Defendantprovidednorulingandnorationaleforrejectionofthesecirculator P signatures.PlaintiffTimothyJohnsonsubmittedtothetrialcourtanaffidavitaffirming 0 hissignatures[Tab3,_SER_Ԅ22].$   14      ׀AttachedtotheAffidavitofGeorgeKelley[Tab14, p _SER_Ԅ395]aresignatureexemplarsforRonald_Rosenloff_Ԁand_JuanJuan_ԀWong,recently P signedonimportantdocuments.Theseappearthesameasthesignatureseachused  ontherejectedpetitionsheetstheysignedas_circulators_.AttachedtotheAffidavitof  p Vince_Sayler_Ԁ[Tab8,_SER_Ԁ371]isanexemplarforTerrence_Constancio_,whichalso   displaysthesamesignatureasappearsonhisrejectedpetitionsheets. @"   MultnomahCounty"pulled"sheetssignedby_circulators_Ԁ_Pettet_Ԁand_Rosenloff_Ԁand  $ others,attheinstructionofDefendant'semployeeJohn_Lindback_,andnevernotified `"& Plaintiffsofthefactthatthecountywasnotverifyingthevotersignaturesonthose #@( sheets.Thus,theNaderCampaigncontinuedtosubmitsheetsfromthese_circulators_, % * intotalgoodfaithandreliancethattheelectorsignatureswouldbeverified,asis '`", absolutelyrequiredbyORS249.008(1)andORS249.740(5).SeeAffidavitofTravis (#. _Diskin_,Tab5at_Exs_.G[_SER_Ԅ151]andK[_SER_Ԅ326].HadPlaintiffsbeennotifiedthat 0*%0 thesecirculatorsignaturesweresomehow"questionable,"theywouldhaveprovidedto  thecountyelectionsofficerthecirculatorhimselforhis(orher)signatureexemplars @ duringthecountyverificationperiod.Asitstands,Johnson,Wong,_Rosenloff_,   _Constancio_,_Pettet_Ԁandothersneverhadnoticeofaproblem,norweretheygivenany `  chancetorebuttheundisclosed"finding"thattheirsignatureswere"bad,"alltothe  @ detrimentoftheirrights,therightsofeveryvoterwhosignedtheirsheets,andtherights    ofthenominees. `    Plaintiffsdonotknowwhetherothercountiesalso"pulled"anddidnotverify   sheetsatthedirectionofDefendant,whohasnotansweredPlaintiffs'requestfor 0  productiononthissubject._%   15      _    Plaintiffssuccessfullyarguedtothetrialcourtwasthatthemarksbytherejected P _circulators_Ԁqualifiedas"signatures."andthereforemettherequirementsofDefendant's 0  publishedrulesfornominatingpetitions,whicharecontainedinthe2004State p Candidate'sManual:IndividualElectors[ER71etseq.].&   16      ׀Theonlyrequirement  pertainingtocirculatorsignaturesintheManual[ER86]isthis: @  8  Thecirculatorofthecandidatenominatingpetitionmustsignthe_circulator_s   certification,statingthat:H!H!   8 p "Iherebycertifyeverypersonwhosignedthissheetdidsoinmy ( x presenceandIbelieveeachpersonisaqualifiedvoterofthe  @ stateofOregon."  phph 8  Thecirculatorshallcompletethedatewhenthecertificationissignedand H   shallnotcollectanyadditionalsignaturesonthatsheetafterdatingthe `  certification.( H!H! Black'sLawDictionary(8thed.2004)defines"signature"as: h    8  1.0pH!H!Aperson'snameormarkwrittenbythatpersonorattheperson's H  direction.[citationsomitted]pH!pH! 8  2.0pH!H!Commerciallaw.Anyname,mark,orwritingusedwiththeintentionof P authenticatingadocument.UCC1-201(b)(37),3-401(b).[citations h omitted]"Thesignaturetoamemorandummaybeanysymbolmade 0 oradoptedwithanintention,actualorapparent,toauthenticatethe  writingasthatofthesigner."Restatement(Second)ofContracts p 134(1979).8pH!pH! Themarksmadebytherejected_circulators_Ԁlistedabovecertainlyqualifyas  "signatures,"evenwithouttheiraffidavitsofauthenticity.Theseaffidavitswereprovided X assoonasDefendantprovidedanynoticetotheNaderCampaignthattherewasany 8 problemwiththesesignaturesheetsatall._'   17      _,_(   18      _ x!    X#      p 0 P 2   b  .3  00 P (#P (#TRIVIALDATECORRECTIONSWHERETHEINTENTIONOF     THECIRCULATORISMANIFESTLYCLEAR. e! x0 (#0 (#   Defendantalsorejectedsomeofthesheetsduetothewaythecirculatordatedhis X orhersignatureorcorrectedsuchdatethatthecirculatormayhavebeguntowrite  incorrectly.TheAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_.Ex.EandEx.K,presentabundleof ( x signaturesheetsforwhichPlaintiffswerenevergivenareason,nevertoldofacureor    correctionforfutureuse,andnevergivennoticeoftheperceivedproblem. H     Plaintiffsdiscernednoreasonforrejection,otherthantheappearanceofthedate (  ortheattemptbythecirculatortocorrectthedatenexttohisorhersignature.The h  numberofvalidandverifiedvotersignaturesonthesesheetsis69.GregoryKafoury H  andSandra_Kucera_Ԁdescribeintheirrespectiveaffidavitsthenatureoftheminorand  verylegiblecorrectionsuponthesignaturesheetstheysignedas_circulators_Ԁwhichwere h rejected.    Plaintiffsarguedtothetrialcourtthatthe2004StateCandidate'sManual: 8 IndividualElectors[hereinaftertheManual]containsonlyoneapplicabledating  requirement: X 8  Thecirculatorshallcompletethedatewhenthecertificationissignedand 8 shallnotcollectanyadditionalsignaturesonthatsheetafterdatingthe   certification.x!H!H! Id.,p.13.Therejectedsignaturesheetscompliedwiththisdatingrequirement. Allof  X# themcontaineddatesinthespaceforadateonthe_circulator_'ssignature.But !% Defendantrejectedsheets,asshownintheAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_,becausethe (#x' circulatorhadcorrectedsomepartofthedateorhadwrittenacompletelynewdate, $ ) alongwithanotherinstanceofthe_circulator_'scompletesignature(inaccordancewith H&!+ oneofDefendant'snew"unwrittenrules"thattheNaderCampaignhappenedtohear '(#- about). h)$/   Thereisnorequirementinanystatuteorrulethatalldatesoncirculator *H&1 signaturesbepristine.Banksroutinelyacceptchecks,eventhoughthedatesare ,'3 corrected(withorwithoutinitials).Suchchecksareneverthelessconsideredtohave  been"dated"bythe_payor_.Defendantrejectedsheetssolelybecausethecirculator @ startedtowriteadate,realizeditwaswrong,andthenproceededtowritethecorrect   date,sometimesbycrossingoutandreplacingtheentirewrongdateandsometimesby `  merelycorrectingonenumberinthedate,suchasthemonthoryear.Thereisno  @ publishedruleagainstthis.          p 0 P 2   c  .3  00 P (#P (#SIGNATURESHEETSUPONWHICHTHEDATEIS (  CORRECTEDINACCORDANCEWITHTHEANNOUNCED   POLICYOFTHESECRETARYOFSTATE. kn h 0 (#0 (#   TheAffidavitofJohn_Slevin_Ԁ[_SER_Ԅ368]statesthathe,asapaidconsultant, H  instructedsignature_circulators_Ԁtocrossoutadateerrorwithasingleline,andtothe  signtheattestationwithanewdatewithafullsignature.Thisistheimplementationof h the"correction"ruletheSecretaryofStatehadinformallysetforthinJune2004for  initiativepetitions,althoughitwasneveradoptedasaruleforinitiativesandcertainly 8 notforcandidatenominatingpetitions(whichhasitsownsetofrules,differentfrom  thoseapplicabletoinitiativepetitions).Thesignaturesheetsbearing63valid X signaturesattachedtotheAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_ԀasEx.KalltoDefendant'sunwritten 8 policy. x!       p 2   2  .3  0 P THETRIALCOURT'SDECISIONCONCLUDEDTHATDEFENDANT  $ APPLIED"UNWRITTENRULES"TODISQUALIFYTHENADER !% PETITIONS. kn `"&P (#P (#   JudgeLipscombinMarionCountyCircuitCourtconcludedthatDefendanthad #@( violatedOregonstatutesandhisownrulesinrejectingthesesignatures.ER107et % * seq.TheOregonSupremeCourtruledotherwise,thatDefendantactedwithinhis '`", statutoryauthority.ButtheOregonSupremeCourtdidnotcontradictthetrialcourt's (#. findingsthatDefendantrejectedthesignaturesheetspursuantto"unwrittenrules"that 0*%0 werenotavailabletoPlaintiffsatthetimethatthesignaturesweregathered.Our +'2 argumenttothisCourtisnotthatDefendant'sactionswereillegalunderOregonlawbut  thathisrejectionofsignaturesheetsbymeansofthe"unwrittenrules"violated @ Plaintiffs'rightsundertheFirstandFifthAmendments.     JudgeLipscombnoted(ER109)thattheonlymentionintheManualofanevent `  thatwould"resultintherejectionofthosesheets"isthefailureofpetitionerstoreceive  @ writtenapprovalfromtheSecretaryofStatebeforecirculatingthesignaturesheets.    TheNaderCampaignobtainedsuchapproval.Henoted(ER110)thattheManual `  statesacriminalpenaltyforviolatingthecirculatorrequirementsbutdoesnotstatethat   validvotersignaturesaretobedisqualified.)   19      ׀Hecited Nelsonv._Keisling_ ,155 0  _Or.App_.388,964P.2d284(1998),reviewdenied328Or.246,987P.2d507(1999),for  thepropositionthatevenoutrightviolationsofthethenapplicablecirculatorrules,"the P verifiedsignaturesofelectorscollectedbythose_circulators_Ԁshouldnotbeinvalidated."*   20       0   Thetrialcourtconcluded(p.4)thattheelaborateadditionalrequirementson p circulatorsignaturesimposedbyDefendantwerenotcontainedinanywrittenrule.The P courtalsofoundJohn_Lindback_'stestimonytolackcredibilityinthatitwas"notentirely  consistentwithhisSecondAffidavitsubmittedinthiscase."Thejudgeconcluded(p.  5): @ 8   p Theseunwrittenrules,howeverlongstanding,arenotsupportedbythe   writtenadministrativerulesassetforthintheManual,andtheyare  inconsistentwithORS247.005,aswellaswiththepriorpolicyofthe `  ElectionsDivisionassetforthabove.Additionally,itwasobviousfromthe ( x testimonyofMr._Lindback_ԀthattheSecretarysunwrittenruleswerenot  @ appliedeitheruniformlyorconsistentlyinactualpractice.  H!H! Thetrialcourt(p.5)furtherconcludedthatDefendantalsoactedcontrarytostatuteand H   hiswrittenrulesininstructingcountyelectionsofficerstoremovesheetsfromthe (  verificationprocess,baseduponalleged"circulatorproblems." h  8  However,theseinstructionsareinconsistentwithboththestateelections H  policyestablishedbytheLegislatureinORS247.005,andwiththe  SecretarysownwrittenrulesassetforthintheManual,aswellaswiththe  SecretaryspolicypositionsetforthinNelsonv._Keisling_.PH!H! Asnotedabove,Defendantthenexcludedyetmorehundredsofsheetsforalleged 0 "circulatorproblems,"afterthosesheetshadbeenverifiedbythecountiesand p deliveredtoDefendantonAugust24.Thecourtfound"nostatutoryoradministrative P ruleauthorityforthatnovelactionbytheSecretaryatthepostverificationstage."    Thecourt(p.6)concluded:  p 8   p ItisnotdisputedbytheSecretarythatiftheelectorsignaturesheets   thathadbeenverifiedbycountyclerksandcertifiedtotheSecretaryhadnot x! beendisallowedbytheSecretary,theNadercampaignwouldhavehad @" morethanenough Verifiedsignaturesheetswiththesufficientnumberof  X# signatures,asrequiredbytheadministrativerulesassetforthinthe  $ Manual.Andmanymoreadditionalsignaturepetitionswerenevereven !% processedforverificationatthecountiesbecauseoftheSecretarys `"& instructionsinAugust,2004toscrutinizeforcirculatorcertification issues (#x' beforeverifyingelectorsignaturesontheNadernominatingpetitions. #@( Neitheractionwasauthorizedbyadministrativeruleorstatute,andeachwas $ ) inconsistentwithboththestateelectionspolicyasestablishedbythe % * Legislature,ORS247.005,andwiththepriorpolicyoftheSecretaryofState H&!+ asexpressedNelsonv._Keisling_,supra.'`",H!H!       p 2   3  .3  0 P THEUNWRITTENRULESWERENOTADOPTEDBYANY h)$/ RULEMAKINGPROCEDURE. kn] 0*%0P (#P (#   *H&1   Someofthe"unwrittenrules"appliedbyDefendantwerecontainedinthe   UnpublishedInstructions(allegedlydatedAugust4).Otheroftheunwrittenruleswere @ notevenintheUnpublishedInstructions.Forexample,attrialitwasestablishedthat   Defendanthadrejectedsheetsbecausethe_circulator_'ssignaturewasnot"legible." `  SeeSecondAffidavitofJohn_Lindback_ԀatER96,line11.Thatrequirementisnotin  @ anypublishedruleorevenintheUnpublishedInstructions.      TheSecretaryofStatesofficeisresponsibleforthenoticeandpublicationof `  stateadministrativeagencyrules(includingitsown).ORS183.360.Oregons   AdministrativeProcedureAct(APA)plainlystatesthatnoruleshallbeadopted, 0  amended,repealed,orsuspendedunlesstheagencyhaspreviouslyprintedtheaction  withregardtotheruleinthebulletinpublishedbytheSecretaryofStateatleast21 P dayspriortotheeffectivedateoftheactionontherule.ORS183.335(b).Shouldan 0 agencywishtoadopt,amend,orsuspendarulewithoutpriornotice,theagencyis p requiredtomakeafindingthat itsfailuretoactpromptlywillresultinseriousprejudice P tothepublicinterestortheinterestofthepartiesconcernedandthespecificreasons  foritsfindingsofprejudice.ORS183.335(5)(a).TheSecretaryofStatesattemptto  p changetherequirementspertainingtothecirculatorsignaturewasnotincompliance   withOregonsAPA. @"   DefendantsoughtattrialtocircumventtheAPAbyclaimingitwasmerely  $ interpretingarule.First,anadministrativeagencyisnotfreetointerpretaruleunlessit `"& isambiguous.Shouldtheagencyfindthataruleisambiguous,itisrequiredtoprovide #@( noticeandopportunitytointerestedpartiesforcomment.Theadministrativeagency % * maynotchangearulebyinterpretingit. '`",   OregonsAdministrativeProcedureActdoesnothaveaprovisionforinterpretative (#. rulesthatparallelstheonefoundintheFederalAdministrativeProcedureAct. 0*%0 However,evenunderthefederalactaninterpretativerulemustbepublishedbeforeitis +'2 effective.5U.S.C.A.553(b).See,SalemFirefightersv.PublicEmployees  RetirementBoard,300Or663,717P2d126(1986)atn3. P UnderDefendant's @ "interpretative"approach,Defendantcouldrejectallsignaturesonasheet,usingan   "unwrittenrule"thatthecirculatorfailedtosignwithhisfullname,includingmiddle `  nameormiddleinitial.Afterall,Defendantclaimsthathiscurrent"interpretation"of  @ "sign"istorequirea"fullsignature"ora"completesignature."A"fullsignature"ora    "completesignature"surelywouldincludethesignor'smiddlename.Applyingsuchan `  "unwrittenrule"wouldinvalidatenearlyallsignaturesheetsoneverypetition.     TheDefendant'sMandamusMemorandum(p.15)claimedthattheUnpublished 0  Instructionswere"internalmanagementdirectivesthatdonotsubstantiallyaffectthe  interestsofthepublic"andthereforedidnotneedtobeadoptedasrules.Weagree P thathisunwritteninstructionstothecountieswereinternalmanagementdirectives, 0 neverprovidedtotheNaderCampaignpriortotheircollectionofsignatures.We p cannot,however,imaginesuchadirectivehavingagreatereffectontheinterestsofthe P public,becausethesedirectivesabolishtherightofOregonvoterstousethefranchise  tonominatecandidatesforpublicofficebycitizenpetition.  p      p 2   4  .3  0 P THEUNWRITTENRULESWEREINCONSISTENTWITHTHE x! PUBLISHEDRULES. v @"P (#P (#     p  P 2   a  .3  0 0 SHEETSREJECTEDDUETOTHELOOKOFTHE  $   _CIRCULATOR_'SSIGNATURE. v !%0 (#0 (#   Defendantclaimsthatitwasfinetodiscardallsheetssignedbyacirculator,ifthat (#x' _circulator_'ssignature"appearstobeinitials."Butthisisnotaruleapplicableto $ ) candidatenominatingpetitionsandisnotcontainedinthe2004StateCandidate's H&!+ Manual:IndividualElectorsatall.Itdoesappearinthe2004StateInitiativeand '(#- ReferendumManual[hereinafter"_SIRM_"],p.28,whichisapplicabletoinitiativesand h)$/ referendabutnotapplicabletocandidatenominatingpetitions.Thisispositive *H&1 evidencethatthe"noinitialsrule"doesnotapplytonominatingpetitions,astheruleis ,'3 expresslystatedforinitiativeandreferendumpetitionsbutnotatallfornominating  petitions.Whenagovernmentactorwishestoimposearequirement,andshowsthatit @ knowshowtoexpressthatintention,thelackofsuchanexpressionnegatesthe   intention. _Gladhart_Ԁv.OregonVineyardSupplyCo. ,332Or226,23334,26P3d817 `  (2001).  @   Norcanpartiesseekingtofilecorrectnominatingpetitionsberequiredtofollow    rulesthatDefendanthasnotadoptedfornominatingpetitions,particularlywhenitis `  clearthatDefendantknowshowtoexpressthoseexactsamerequirementsandhas   donesoinotherrulesnotapplicabletonominatingpetitions. 0    Asnotedbythetrialcourt(pp.34):  8   p Specifically,theonlyadditionalrequirementsforpetition_circulators_Ԁare P two: Thecirculatorofthecandidatenominatingpetitionmustsignthe h _circulator_scertification....And Thecirculatorshallcompletethedate 0 whenthecertificationissignedandshallnotcollectanyadditionalsignatures  onthatsheetafterdatingthecertification.pH!H! Thereisnorequirementthatthe_circulator_'ssignaturemeetsomeadhoc,subjective P test,suchasthatadmittedlyappliedbyDefendant,whohappilyrejectsentiresheetsif  the_circulator_'ssignatureline"bearsamark,butthemarkisillegibleorappearstobe  p initials."ER96.Thereisnorequirementthatasignaturebelegible.Manyarenot.   Forexample,thesignatureofMultnomahCountyDeputyDistrictAttorneyNorm_Frink_ @" (see_SER_Ԅ382)iscertainlynot"legible"inthesensethatnooneotherthanMr._Frink_  $ couldknowthathisseriesofinterlockingO'sactuallyspellsouthisname.Nodoubt `"& thatiswhyDefendantrejectedthesignaturesheetsbearinghissignatureascirculator, #@( astheinterlockingO'salsocertainlydonot"appeartobeinitials."Eventhoughhis % * "illegible"signatureissufficienttosignacriminalindictment,itdidnotsatisfy '`", Defendant'ssubjectivetasteinsignatures.NordidDefendantevernotifyMr._Frink_Ԁor (#. theNaderCampaignthatMr._Frink_'ssignaturewasinanywaydefectiveorinvalidora 0*%0 "problem." +'2   Defendantalsofailstonotethateverysheetalsoshowstheprintednameofthe  circulator,belowhisorhersignature,thusobviatinganypossibleconcernforlegibility. @ And,sinceanyhumanbeingcanlawfullycirculateapetitioninOregon(followingrepeal   bythe1999Legislatureofallqualificationsfor_circulators_),theonlyrelevantquestion `  abouta_circulator_'ssignatureiswhetherthemarkwasmadebyahumanbeing._+   21      _ԀAny  @ humanbeingcancirculateapetitioninOregon.      TheManualstatesthatthecirculator"mustsignthe_circulator_'scertification," `  whichallofthemdid.NowDefendant(p.11)claimsauthoritytoadoptanewdefinition   of"sign"tomeansigninaparticularmanner(i.e.,withamarkthatis"legible"anddoes 0  not"appeartobeinitials").Thisdefinitioniscontainedinnostatuteandinnorule.Itis  contrarytotheplainmeaningoftheterm"sign"or"signature."Black'sLaw P Dictionary,citedabove,definesitasa"nameormark."The_Merriam_-Webster 0 DictionaryofLaw(1996)definesitas: p 10 p a:0P pH!pH!theactofsigningone'snameorofmakingamarkinlieuthereofPP H!P H! 0 p b:0P pH!pH!thenameofapersonwrittenwithhisorherownhandtosignify  thatthewritingwhichprecedesaccordswithhisorherwishesor X intentions pP H!P H! 0 p c:0P pH!pH!anymark(asinitials,stamp,orprintedname)madeona   documentandintendedtoserveasanindicationoftheparty's x! executionorauthenticationofthedocumentandintenttobe @" boundbyit X#P H!P H! TheAmericanHeritageDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage(4thed.2000)definesit !% as"One'snameaswrittenbyoneself." (#x'   Further,asnotedabove,thecirculatorsignaturesDefendantrejectedwereinfact $ ) thesignaturesofthose_circulators_,asattestedtointheiraffidavitstothetrialcourt. H&!+ Defendantseekstoimposeyetmoreunwritten(andevenunstated)rules,includingthat '(#- apersoncanhaveonlyonesignature,period.Manypeopleusedifferentsignaturesin  differentcontexts.Aperson'ssignatureonacreditcardslipmaylooklesscomplete @ thatthesameperson'ssignatureonahomemortgage.Thereisnorulethatevery   humanmusthaveonlyonesignatureandcanuseonlythatsignatureforallpurposes. `  Defendant'semployee_Lindback_Ԁalsoadmittedattrialthataperson'ssignaturecan  @ changeovertime(Hearing10:45:05)butthatDefendantcomparescirculatorsignatures    tocomputerimagesofvoterregistrationcards,nomattertheageofsignaturesonthe `  _the_Ԁcards.        p 2   5  .3  0 P THEOREGONSUPREMECOURTDECISIONRECOGNIZEDTHAT H  DEFENDANTHADAPPLIED"UNWRITTENRULES"TO  DISQUALIFYTHENADERPETITIONS. maL P (#P (#   TheOregonSupremeCourtdecision(p.21)concededthatDefendant'sactions h weretakenpursuantto"unwrittenrules,"althoughitfoundthatdoingsowasnot  contrarytoOregonlaw.TheCourtstated(emphasisadded): 8 8  Thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthesignatureanddatereviewproceduresthat  _Lindback_Ԁhadfollowedinhisofficewere"unwrittenrules,"thattheywere"not  supportedbythewrittenadministrativerulesassetforthintheManual,"that X theywere"inconsistentwithORS247.005"and"thepriorpolicyofthe  p ElectionsDivision"asstatedin Nelson ,andthatthey"werenotapplied 8 eitheruniformlyorconsistentlyinactualpractice." Itistruethatthereview   proceduresthat_Lindback_Ԁdescribedwerenotthemselveswritten,but x! thatdoesnotrenderthemunlawful. Onthecontrary,thereview @" proceduresarenothingmorethanthestep-by-stepprocessbywhichthe  X# SecretaryofStatecarriedoutlegalauthorityfoundelsewhereinstatute,in  $ rule,andintheSecretaryofState'swritteninstructionstothecountyclerks. !% Thereviewprocedureswerenot,asthetrialcourt'scommentsappearto `"& suggest,yetanotherlayerofunannouncedlegalbarriers.Theywere, (#x' instead,themethodologybywhichtheSecretaryofStateenforcedexisting #@( legalstandards.$ )H!H! TheCourtdidnotidentifythesourceofthesealleged"existinglegalstandards"and H&!+ identifiednostatuteorpublishedrulecontainingtherequirementsthatDefendantto '(#- rejecttheNaderpetitions.,   22       h)$/   WecannotherecontendthatDefendant'sactionswerenotincompliancewith  Oregonlaw.Instead,wearguethathisactionsinapplyingunwrittenrules,without @ noticeoropportunityfortheNaderCampaigntocomplywiththoserules,violatedthe   rightofPlaintiffs'undertheFirstandFifthAmendments.TheNaderCampaignfully `  compliedwithallofDefendant'swrittenrules;neitherthetrialcourtnortheOregon  @ SupremeCourtconcludedthattheNaderCampaignhadviolatedorhadfailedto    complywithevenonesinglewrittenruleapplicabletothecirculatorsignaturesand `  dates.     TheOregonSupremeCourt(pp.2324)discussestheterms"certify"and 0  "signature,"notingthattheManualrequiresthatthecirculator"sign"thesheetinorder  to"certify"thatthevotersignaturesweremadeinhispresence.Thecertificationis P printedoneverysignaturesheet.Theonlyrequirementinthewrittenrulesisthatthe 0 circulator"sign"thatsheet.TheOregonSupremeCourtconcludedthatDefendanthad p authoritytointerprettheword"sign"tomeanaparticulartypeofsignatureonethat P doesnot"consistofmereinitials."But,asestablishedbytheaffidavitsattrial,  Defendantrejectedtheactualsignaturesof_circulators_Ԁbecausethey"appearedtobe  p initials"anddidsowithoutnotifyingtheNaderCampaignorprovidinganyopportunityto   provideexemplarsshowingthatwhat"appearstobeinitials"wasinfactthe_circulator_'s @" signature.  $   TheOregonSupremeCourtdoesnotaddresstheadditional"unwrittenrule" `"& appliedbyDefendantthateverycirculatorsignaturemustbe"legible."TheCourt(pp. #@( 2425)states: % * 8  Thecertificationrequirementservestodiscouragefraudintheexecutionof '`", signaturesheets.TheSecretaryofState'schoicetoinvalidateasignature '(#- sheetifthecirculatorviolatesthecertificationrequirementpromotesthat (#. objective.h)$/H!H! TheCourtdidnotidentifywhattypeoffraudisdiscouragedbytheapplicationofthe *H&1 unwrittenrulethata_circulator_'ssignaturemustbesubjectively"legible"toanemployee ,'3 ofDefendantandmustnot"appeartobeinitials"ortheunwrittenrulethatadateona  _circulator_'ssignaturemustbeapristineflowofinkonpaper,withnothingcrossedoutor @ inanywaycorrected.Inanyevent,the_circulators_Ԁheredidnotviolateany"certification   requirement"thatwasactuallyawrittenruleprovidedtothepublic. `       2   B  .3  0 p THEU.S.CONSTITUTIONDOESNOTALLOWSTATESTODENY      BALLOTACCESSPURSUANTTOUNWRITTENRULES. ,   p(#p(#     Citizensareentitledtorelyonpublishedlawsandrulesinnominatingcandidates `  forPresident.The"liberty"protectedfromstateimpairmentbythedueprocessclause   oftheFourteenthAmendmentincludesthefreedomsofspeechandassociation 0  guaranteedbytheFirstAmendment;theseFirstAmendmentfreedomsextendto  politicalactivitiessuchasrunningforelectiveoffice;andstateelectionpracticesmust P thereforeservelegitimatestateinterests"narrowlyandfairlytoavoidobstructingand 0 dilutingthesefundamentalliberties." Duncanv._Poythress_, 657F.2d691,702(5th p Cir.1981);quotingwithapproval, Smithv.Cherry ,489F.2d1098,1100(7thCir. P 1973),cert.denied,417U.S.910,94_S.Ct_.2607,41_L.Ed_.2d214(1974); _Briscoe_Ԁv.  _Kusper_ ,435F.2d1046,1052-54(7thCir.1970).  p 8  Thecandidates,theirsupporters,andthevotingpublicingeneralhavean   interestinconsistentinterpretationsoftheElectionCodebytheElection x! Boardsothattheelectionprocessisnotthrownintochaosbyarbitrary @" interpretationsthatvaryfromelectiontoelectionorfromcandidateto  X# candidate.Thevotingpublicandthecandidatesshouldknowwhattoexpect  $ fromtheelectionprocess.!%H!H!  _Schober_Ԁv.Young ,322_Ill.App_.3d996,1003,751N.E.2d610,616,256Ill.Dec.220,226 (#x' (_Ill.App_.4Dist.2001). $ )   Proceduraldueprocessisviolatedwhenanelectionauthority,byachangein H&!+ policyorcourseofconduct,activelymisleadscandidatesorvoters. _Briscoe_Ԁv. '(#- _Kusper_ ,435F.2dat1055(7thCir1970)(BoardofElectionCommissionerscouldnot h)$/ apply"new***ruletonullifypreviouslyacceptablesignatureswithoutpriornotice"); *H&1  Griffinv.Burns ,570F.2d1065,1074(1stCir.1978)(thestate"couldnot, ,'3 constitutionally,invalidate***ballotsthatstateofficialshad[prepared],wherethe  effectofthestate'sactionhadbeentoinducethevoterstovotebythismeans"); @  Williamsv._Sclafani_ ,444_F.Supp_.906,912(1978)(electionofficial'sadvice   established"customorpractice,whichinducedjustifiablereliance"andcouldnotbe `  changedwithoutnotice),_aff'd_Ԁmem.,580F.2d1046(2dCir.1978).  @    _Briscoe_Ԁv._Kusper_ ,435F.2d1046(7thCir1970)offersfactsandproceduraldue    processviolationsstrikinglysimilartothepresentcase.TheChicagoBoardofElection `  Commissionersimposednewandcomplexballotplacementproceduresforcandidate   nominatingpetitionsincontestsforalderman,withoutnotice,andrefusedthe 0  candidatesanadequateopportunitytoexaminedisqualifiedpetitions.Bothfailures  impairedlibertyinterestsprotectedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth P Amendment.ThefirstDueProcessviolationsforlackofnoticeare"onallfours"with 0 thenewandadhocchangesembodiedintheUnpublishedInstructionssenttothe p countiesbyDefendantinAugust2004,alsoissuedwithoutnoticetopetitioners,the P NaderCampaign,orthepublic.AffidavitofTravis_Diskin_,Tab5,ExhibitA[_SER_Ԅ31.]    In _Briscoe_ ,thelocalelectionboardappliednewadhocrulestocandidate  p nominatingpetitions,therebychangingexistingpractices.Itinvalidatedsignatures   wherethesameelectorhadsignedmorethanonecandidate'spetition(newanti @" duplicationrule).Itdisallowedvoters'signatureswhichfailedtoincludeamiddleinitial,  $ despitethefactthatthedisputedsignaturesweregenuineandverifiablebyreferenceto `"& registrationlists.ThislatterpracticemirrorsDefendant'sdisqualificationofvoter #@( signatureswhichhadalreadybeendeterminedtobeauthenticandverifiedbythe % * countyofficers,ongroundsofalleged"problems"withcirculatorsignatures. '`", Additionally,thelocalboarddisqualifiedvotersignatureswithoutexplanationor (#. opportunityforanyonetoinspectthevoterr_egistration_Ԁmaterialssupposedlyformingthe 0*%0 basisforthedisqualification.Thosesame"StarChamber"tacticsalackofany +'2 opportunitytorebutevidenceandlackofany"findings"tocontestinfectthepresent  decisionmakingprocessaswell. @   TheSeventhCircuitheldthattheBoardviolatedproceduraldueprocessina   numberofways,including:(1)byfailingtogiveanynoticetoprospectivecandidatesof `  therigorousnewstandardstobeappliedtonominatingpetitionswhichwerenot  @ specificallydisclosedinthestatute,and(2)bydenyingplaintiffsaccesstovoter    registrationsignatureswithwhichofficialcomparisonofsignaturesonnomination `  petitionswasmade.Theseshortcomingswere"fundamentallyinimicaltodueprocess."   8  [_T]he_Ԁapplicationofthenewanti-duplicationruletonullifypreviously 0  acceptablesignatureswithoutpriornoticewasunfairandviolateddue H  process.Inthisinstance,theformerinterpretationofSection10-3wasnot  onlyreasonable,butitalsorepresentedtheapplicationofthestatuteleast  limitingtopoliticalassociation.Anagencymaybeboundbyitsown P establishedcustomandpracticeaswellasbyitsformalregulations. The h Boardmaynotdeviatefromsuchpriorrulesofdecisiononthe 0 applicabilityofafundamentaldirectivewithoutannouncinginadvance  itschangeinpolicy.Thisisespeciallytruewhere,ashere, p fundamental,constitutionallyprotectedlibertiesareadverselyaffected, 8 andthoseinterestedrequirecertainknowledgeofwhatisexpectedof P thembythestate.UntilsuchtimeastheBoardmakespublicitsnew  determination,itisconstitutionallyprohibitedfromimposingthatrule  onunsuspectingpersons. XH!H! Id.at1055(emphasisadded). 8   TheCourtthenturnedtothenewinterpretationofthe"proper"signingrule x! requiringafullnamewithmiddleinitialandnonicknames.  X# 8  TheBoardthusdisallowedsignatureswithonlythefirstinitialornickname, !% aswellasthosewhichfailedtoincludeamiddleinitial.Thiswasenforced `"& regardlessofwhetherthesignaturewasgenuineandverifiablebyreference (#x' totheprecinctbinderormastervoterregistrationlists.#@(H!H! 0  N_othing_Ԁinthestatutorylanguagesuggeststhatsucharestrictive % * interpretationwasnecessaryorwouldbereadilyunderstoodbythegeneral H&!+ public.'`",(#(# 8  ***[_S]uch_ԀarigidandtechnicalinterpretationbytheBoardmaynotbe (#. imposedintheabsenceofpre-existingregulationsforewarning h)$/ candidates. Cf. _Baggett_Ԁv._Bullitt_ ,377U.S.360,377-378,84_S.Ct_.1316, 0*%0 12_L.Ed_.2d377; _Staub_Ԁv.Cityof_Baxley_ ,355U.S.313,78_S.Ct_.277,2 *H&1 _L.Ed_.2d302; Gibsonv.Florida. LegislativeInvestigationCommittee ,372 +'2 U.S.539,83_S.Ct_.889,9_L.Ed_.2d929; Gonzalezv.Freeman ,118 ,'3 _U.S.App.D.C._Ԁ180,334F.2d570,578(1964); UnitedStatesv.Atkins ,323  F.2d733,743(5thCir1963).Lackingsuchadvanceclarification,we x concludethattheConstitutionpermitsenforcementofthestatutoryrulein @ onlytheleastrestrictiveandmostobviousmanner.XH!H! Id.at105556(emphasisadded).    TheCourtthenturnedtothedecisionmakingprocessfordisqualifyingspecific ( x individualsignatures.Itheldthatdenyingtheinterestedpartiesaccesstothevoter    registrationmaterialsuponwhichtheelectionsofficialsallegedlybasedtheirdecisionto H   disqualifyanindividual'ssignaturewasunfairandunconstitutional. (  8  Relianceuponevidenceconsideredincameraasthebasisfordecisionis h  fundamentallyinimicaltodueprocess.See OhioBellTelephoneCo.v. 0  PublicUtilitiesCommission ,301U.S.292,300,57_S.Ct_.724,81_L.Ed_. H  1093etseq.***.Herethedocumentshavebeenmadetheheartofthe  matterbythepracticesofthedefendantofficialsthemselves,andtheyare  _dispositive_Ԁofthecontroversiesaffectingfundamentalconstitutionalrights. P Bypreventingnotonlycopyingoftheserecordsanddocumentsbuttheir h veryinspection,theBoardseverelycurtailedthecandidates'andobjectors' 0 abilitytoascertaintheexactclaimsatissueandtheiropportunitytorespond  tothoseclaims.Theinvidiousconsequencesofthisincameraprocedure p wereexacerbatedbytheBoard'spracticeofstrikingirregularsignatures 8 upongroundsotherthanthosestatedintheobjectors'petitions.PH!H! Id.at1957.TheCourtsummarizedtheelectionofficers'conduct:  8  Thesumofthesepracticesmeantthatpetitions'signaturesweredisqualified  p forobscureorunknownreasonsonthebasisofevidenceunavailabletothe 8 partiesandwithouttheopportunityofeffectiveresponsebythoseadversely   affectedbythecheckers'investigations.x!H!H! Id.Thisisverysimilartothesituationinthiscase,whereDefendantdisqualifiedentire  X# sheetsofverifiedvotersignatures,withnonoticetothevoters,_circulators_,ortheNader !% Campaign,ongroundsthatwerenotstatedinanymanner,eveninformally,untilafter (#x' thetrialcourthadissuedtheorderconcludingthissuitatthetrialcourtlevel. $ )   In Griffinv.Burns ,supra,theFirstCircuitfoundprofoundfundamentalunfairness H&!+ inalocalRhodeIslandprimaryforacitycouncilseat,whentheSecretaryofState '(#- followeda7yearpracticeinissuingabsenteeandshutinballotsandthenretroactively h)$/ invalidatedtheballots.570F.2dat1078.TheCourtheldthattheabruptchange *H&1 violatedvoters'dueprocessrighttonotice,asthestatehadahistoryofadvertisingthe ,'3 availabilityofabsenteeandshutinballotsforprimaryelections,providingtheabsentee  andshutinballotforms,andcountingsuchballotsintheelectionresults.Therefore, @ thosevoterswhotrustedthatsuchballotswouldbetreatedasalwayswere   constructivelydeniedtheirrighttovote.TheFirstCircuitdistinguishedthisprofound `  dueprocessviolationwithcasesdealingwithelectionirregularities,notingthatincases  @ inwhichfederalcourtsdidintervene,suchas _Ury_Ԁv.Santee ,303_F.Supp_.119(_N.D.Ill_.,    1969)and _Briscoe_Ԁv._Kusper_ : `  Ӏ8  [_I]t_Ԁisapparentthatinbothcasesthatattackwas,broadly,uponthefairness   oftheofficialtermsandproceduresunderwhichtheelectionwasconducted. h  Thefederalcourtswerenotaskedtocountandvalidateballotsandenterin 0  thedetailsoftheadministrationoftheelection.Rathertheywereconfronted H  withanofficiallysponsoredelectionprocedurewhich,initsbasicaspectwas  flawed.H!H!  Griffin ,570F.2dat1078. h   Williamsv._Sclafani_ ,supraenjoinedtheremovalofacandidate'snamefromthe  primaryballot.Thecandidatehadcirculatedanominatingpetitionandhadbeen 8 informedthatapersonwhoregisteredtovoteonthestreetcouldalsosimultaneously  signhisdesignatingpetition,solongasthevoterregistrationwasstampedinatthe X BoardofElectionsonorbeforereceiptofthecandidatepetitionattheBoard.Afterthe 8 candidatesubmittedhispetitions,theBoardchangeditsposition,invalidatingmany x! signaturesandthuscausinghissuccessfulcandidacytofail.444_F.Supp_.at912.The  X# Courtheld(asin _Briscoe_ )theadvicewasacustomorpractice,whichinduced !% justifiablereliance,andcouldnotbedepartedfromwithoutgivingpriornoticeto (#x' potentialcandidatesandvoters.Id. $ ) 8  Inthiscase,plaintiffswhoattemptedingoodfaithtoexercisethatrightfind H&!+ throughnofaultoftheirown,andinrelianceontherepresentationsofstate '`", officialsthattheyhavesomehow"lost"thatright.AstheCourtnotedinits '(#- May2Order,"somethingfundamentallyunfairhastakenplace."Itishardto (#. seehowthissuddenlossofthefranchiseafterithasbeenexercisedby h)$/ votersunquestionablyqualifiedtoexerciseitcomportseitherwiththerightto 0*%0 anundilutedvote, Reynoldsv.Sims ,377U.S.533,562-68,84_S.Ct_.1362, *H&1 12_L.Ed_.2d506(1964); Grayv.Sanders ,372U.S.368,380,83_S.Ct_.801,9 +'2 _L.Ed_.2d821(1963),orwithdueprocessoflaw.,'3H!H! Ї444_F.Supp_.at913.    Here,Plaintiffs'didnotrelyupontheinformaladviceofelectionsofficials.Here, @ Plaintiffs'reliedontheactualwrittenrules,allofthem.Surelytheirreliancewas   justifiedandcannotbedisregarded,withoutviolatingtheirrightstodueprocess.Here, `  Plaintiffssufferedfrompreciselythesameunfairandunconstitutionalconductno  @ noticeofwhata"signature"mustlooklike;an _irrebuttable_Ԁpresumption byDefendant    thatsignatureswhicharesloppy,stylizedorsomehow"notright"areinvalid;another `   _irrebuttable_Ԁpresumption thatanyattempttocorrectadateona_circulator_'ssignature   indicatesfraudandwarrantsdiscardingtheentiresheet;no"findings"tosupportwhya 0  petitionsheetwasinvalid;noopportunitytoappealorrebutsuchfindings;andno  accesstobasicevidence. P   Here,Defendantnotonlyprovidednonoticeregardinghisapplicationofhis 0 "unwrittenrules",buthealsoprovidednonoticeregardinghisrejectionofallsheets p submittedbycertain_circulators_,despitetheavailabilityofthose_circulators_Ԁtofurther P attesttothevalidityoftheirownsignatures.Asfullyestablishedbythetrialcourt  record,Defendantrejectedhundredsofsignaturesheetsduetohisconclusionthatthe  p circulatorsignatureswereillegibleorwereinitials,withoutevernotifyingtheNader   CampaignandwithoutprovidinganyopportunitytoprovidetoDefendantanyexemplars @" ofthat_circulator_'ssignature.  $   Atthetrialcourthearing,Defendant'semployeeJohn_Lindback_Ԁtestifiedthat `"& sometimesheasksforexemplarsandsometimeshedoesnot.Hearing10:30:36.He #@( admittedthathedisqualifiedsomeofthecirculatorsignatures,byadvisingthecounties % * todoso,weeksinadvancebutthatprovidingnoticeofsuchrejectionstotheNader '`", Campaignwas"justnotpartofourprocess"Hearing11:03:29.Inregardto_JuanJuan_ (#. Wang,itisunknownhowmanyofhersheetswerenotprocessedbythecounty 0*%0 electionsofficers,atDefendant'sdirection.Ofhersheetsthatwereprocessedatthe +'2 counties,117votersignatureswereverified.Mr._Lindback_Ԁthenrejectedallofthose  sheets,aftertheyweresubmittedtoDefendantonAugust24._Lindback_Ԁdidnotaskfor @ anexemplarfor_JuanJuan_ԀWang,eventhoughhehadaskedforexemplarsinthepast.   _JuanJuan_ԀWangssignaturesweresummarilyrejectedwithoutnoticetothecampaign `  ortoher.Hearing10:30:5010:38:21.Theexemplarsof_JuanJuan_ԀWangare  @ attachedtoheraffidavit.Tab9,_SER_Ԅ375.Thesignaturesheetssubmittedby    _JuanJuan_ԀWangarefoundatTab5H,_SER_Ԅ217. `    Meanwhile,theevidenceshowedthatinprocessingMeasure26sheets(which   wasendorsedbyBillBradbury)Mr._Lindback_Ԁaskedforexemplarsandaccepted 0  signaturesthatcontainingonlyafirstnameandjustaninitialforthelastname.Thisis  despitethefactthattheStateInitiativeandReferendumManualexpresslyrequiresa P firstinitialandfulllastname.Mr._Lindback_Ԁdismissesthisasamistake.However,he 0 intentionallyaskedforanexemplarandintentionallyacceptedasignaturewhichdidnot p meettheplainlanguageofarule.Mr._Lindback_Ԁdidsomorethanonce.Hearing P 10:31:1010:32:09    WithregardtosignaturesheetssubmittedbycirculatorTimothyJohnson(Tab5C,  p _SER_Ԅ34),Mr._Lindback_Ԁrejected41votersignaturesverifiedbythecounties.Atthe   hearing,Mr._Lindback_Ԁconcededthatheshouldhaveaskedforanexemplar.Hearing @" 10:39:5510:42:04.HadMr._Lindback_Ԁaskedforanexemplar,itwouldhavebeen  $ provided.Mr.JohnsonsaffidavitwassubmittedtothetrialcourtTab3,_SER_Ԅ22.His `"& signaturesheetsareatTab5C,_SER_Ԅ34. #@(   Notably,theNaderCampaigndoesnotknowandhasneverbeeninformedofthe % * namesandnumberof_circulators_Ԁwhosesignatureswererejectedduetothelackof '`", exemplars. (#.   CirculatorRonaldE._Rosenloff_Ԁsignedhisnameas _RER_,whichishisnormal 0*%0 signature.Thecountiesprocessedhissheetscontaining160verifiedvotersignatures. +'2 UponinstructionsfromMr._Lindback_,thecountiesatsamepointstoppedprocessinghis  sheets,andPlaintiffs'haveneverbeeninformednowmanyofhissheetswererejected @ atthecountylevel,despiteourrequests.Weknowthatatleast245signatureswere   rejectedbyMultnomahCountyaloneonhissheets,asshowninhisaffidavit.Mr. `  _Lindback_ԀdidnotaskforanexemplarofRonaldE._Rosenloff_.Thesignaturecirculating  @ firmthathiredMr._Rosenloff_Ԁhadexemplarsintheirpossession,andtheywereprovided    tothetrialcourt.AffidavitofGeorgeKelly,Tab14,_SER_Ԅ398etseq.Mr._Lindback_Ԁat `  trialdidnotclaimthatthesheetswerenotsignedbyMr._Rosenloff_,statingthatit"was   notaquestionthatitwashim."Hearing10:47:1010:50:10. 0    Terence_Constancio_'ssheetswererejectedbyMr._Lindback_,butwehavenoidea  howmanysheetswerenotprocessedatthecountylevelonDefendant'sinstructions. P Mr._Lindback_Ԁrejectedhissheetsbecausehedidnotthinkthattheysufficientlymatched 0 hisvoterregistrationsignature.Aswithallothersignatures,theNadercampaignwas p notnotifiedthatDefendantwasrejectingMr._Constancio_'ssignature.JudgeLipscomb P comparedthevoterregistrationcardofMr._Constancio_Ԁtothesignaturesheetsubmitted  byMr._Constancio_ԀandcommentedthatitstruckhimthatMr._Lindback_Ԁwas settinga  p prettyhighthreshold._Lindback_ԀrejectedallsheetssignedbyMr._Constancio_,withno   noticetohimortotheNaderCampaign.Hearing10:56:01.Atnopointwasany @" circulatornotifiedthatthesignaturewouldhavetomatchthemannerinwhichtheyhad  $ signedtheirvoterregistrationcardsnomatterhowlongago.Mr._Lindback_Ԁagreedhe `"& shouldhaveaskedfor_examplars_.Atleast70verifiedsignaturesobtainedbyMr. #@( _Constancio_Ԁwerethrownout.Tab5D,_SER_Ԅ51.Foranexample,seeaffidavitof % * Vincent_Sayler_.Tab8,_SER_Ԅ371. '`",   Notably,withregardtoallofthesecirculatorsheetsrejectedbyMr._Lindback_,he (#. couldnotcontendthatasingleonedidnotactuallycontainthemarkorwhatthesigner 0*%0 intendedtobeasignatureonthecirculatorsheet. +'2   Mr._Lindback_Ԁadmittedthathehaddoneaspreadsheetshowingwhythe  signaturessubmittedbytheNadercampaignwereexcluded.Hearing10:58:40.The @ spreadsheetwasnotprovidedtotheNaderCampaign,until2daysafterthetrial(17   daysaftertheAugust24deadlineforsubmittingthesheets).TheNaderCampaignhas `  nothadanopportunitytolaunchchallengesagainstsheetsthatwereotherwise  @ wrongfullyexcluded.Thisisanotherviolationofdueprocess,similartothatrecognized    in _Briscoe_ ,supra. `     2   III  .3  0  EVENIFTHEUNWRITTENRULESHADBEENWRITTEN,DEFENDANT h  SHOWEDNOCOMPELLINGOREVENIMPORTANTSTATEINTERESTIN 0  IMPLEMENTINGTHOSERULES. lĘ H (#(#   Theimplementationofarulewhichdisqualifiesvotersignaturesonanominating  petitiononthebasisofalleged(orproven)errorsby_circulators_Ԁ(insigning,dating,or h placingnumbersuponthesheets)significantlyburdensthecollectionofsignaturesby  precludingfromtheverificationprocess,withoutanexactingstandardofcompelling 8 justification,thousandsofsignatures.ImpositionofthisburdenviolatesPlaintiffs'rights  undertheFirstandFifthAmendmentstotheU.S.Constitution,applicabletothestates X bytheFourteenthAmendment. 8     2   A  .3  0 p STATEIMPAIRMENTOFTHEEXERCISEOFFRANCHISERIGHTS @" REQUIRESASHOWINGTHATITACHIEVESATLEASTANIMPORTANT  X# STATEINTEREST. l  $p(#p(#   ThisCourtrequiresthatburdensontheprocessofqualifyingcandidatesforthe `"& federalballotbejustifiedaschemenarrowlytailoredtoachieveacompellingstate #@( interest(knowas"exactingscrutiny"). Andersonv._Celebrezze_ ,460U.S.780,78688 % * (1983),stated: '`", Nevertheless,aswehaverecognized,"therightsofvotersandtherightsof (#. candidatesdonotlendthemselvestoneatseparation;lawsthataffect h)$/ candidatesalwayshaveatleastsometheoretical,correlativeeffecton 0*%0 voters." Bullockv.Carter ,405U.S.134,143,92_S.Ct_.849,856,31 *H&1 _L.Ed_.2d92(1972).Ourprimaryconcerniswiththetendencyofballot +'2 accessrestrictions"tolimitthefieldofcandidatesfromwhichv_oters_Ԁmight ,'3 choose."Therefore,"[_i]n_Ԁapproachingcandidaterestrictions,itisessential  toexamineinarealisticlighttheextentandnatureoftheirimpactonvoters." x Ibid. @  p Theimpactofcandidateeligibilityrequirementsonvotersimplicates   basicconstitutionalrights.WritingforaunanimousCourtin NAACPv.  Alabama ,357U.S.449,460,78_S.Ct_.1163,1170,2_L.Ed_.2d1488(1958), `  JusticeHarlanstatedthatit"isbeyonddebatethatfreedomtoengagein ( x associationfortheadvancementofbeliefsandideasisaninseparable  @ aspectofthe'liberty'assuredbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth    Amendment,whichembracesfreedomofspeech."Inourfirstreviewof    Ohio'selectoralscheme, Williamsv.Rhodes ,393U.S.23,30-31,89_S.Ct_. H   5,10,21_L.Ed_.2d24(1968),thisCourtexplainedtheinterwovenstrandsof `  "liberty"affectedbyballotaccessrestrictions: (  8 p "Inthepresentsituationthestatelawsplaceburdensontwo h  different,althoughoverlapping,kindsofrights--therightof 0  individualstoassociatefortheadvancementofpoliticalbeliefs, H  andtherightofqualifiedvoters,regardlessoftheirpolitical  persuasion,tocasttheirvoteseffectively.Bothoftheserights,of  course,rankamongourmostpreciousfreedoms."Pphph Aswehaverepeatedlyrecognized,voterscanasserttheirpreferencesonly 0 throughcandidatesorpartiesorboth."Itistobeexpectedthatavoter  hopestofindontheballotacandidatewhocomesneartoreflectinghis p policypreferencesoncontemporaryissues." _Lubin_Ԁv._Panish_ ,415U.S. 8 709,716,94_S.Ct_.1315,1320,39_L.Ed_.2d702(1974).Therighttovoteis P "heavilyburdened"ifthatvotemaybecastonlyformajor-partycandidatesat  atimewhenotherpartiesorothercandidatesare"clamoringforaplaceon  theballot."Ibid.; Williamsv.Rhodes ,supra,393U.S.,at31,89_S.Ct_.,at X 10.Theexclusionofcandidatesalsoburdensvoters'freedomof  p association,becauseanelectioncampaignisaneffectiveplatformforthe 8 expressionofviewsontheissuesoftheday,andacandidateservesasa   rallying-pointforlike-mindedcitizens. x! TheCourtthenoutlinedhowcourtsmustexaminethejustificationsofferedbythestate  X# government,concludingthattheStatemustoffersufficientjustificationforeachofthe !% burdensimposedbyitsrules. (#x' 8  Itmustfirstconsiderthecharacterandmagnitudeoftheassertedinjuryto $ ) therightsprotectedbytheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentsthatthe % * plaintiffseekstovindicate.Itthenmustidentifyandevaluatetheprecise H&!+ interestsputforwardbytheStateasjustificationsfortheburdenimposedby '`", itsrule.Inpassingjudgment,theCourtmustnotonlydeterminethe '(#- legitimacyandstrengthofeachofthoseinterests;italsomustconsiderthe (#. extenttowhichthoseinterestsmakeitnecessarytoburdentheplaintiff's h)$/ rights.Onlyafterweighingallthesefactorsisthereviewingcourtina 0*%0 positiontodecidewhetherthechallengedprovisionisunconstitutional.See *H&1  Williamsv.Rhodes ,supra,393U.S.,at30-31,89_S.Ct_.,at10; Bullockv. +'2 Carter ,supra,405U.S.,at142-143,92_S.Ct_.,at855; AmericanPartyof ,'3 Texasv.White ,415U.S.767,780-781,94_S.Ct_.1296,1305-1306,39  _L.Ed_.2d744(1974); IllinoisElectionsBd.v.SocialistWorkersParty ,440 x U.S.173,183,99_S.Ct_.983,989,59_L.Ed_.2d230(1979).Theresultsofthis @ evaluationwillnotbeautomatic;aswehaverecognized,thereis"no X substituteforthehardjudgmentsthatmustbemade." _Storer_Ԁv.Brown ,   supra,415U.S.,at730,94_S.Ct_.,at1279.H!H! 460U.S.at78990. ( x   Here,Defendanthasprofferednocrediblestateinterestandhasfailedtoeven    addresswhetherhissystemisnarrowlytailoredtoachieveanylegitimateinterest. H   Whatpreciselyisthecompellingorimportantstateinterestinsequentialnumberingof (  signaturesheetssubmittedtothecountiesforanominatingpetition(addressedlaterin h  thisApplication)?Whatisthestateinterestinrejectingsignaturesheetsbecausethe H  SecretaryofStatedoesnothappentolikethelookofthe_circulator_'ssignatureorthe  wayheorshedatedtheirsignature?Nocogent(muchlesscompelling)justifications h havebeenoffered.    Itistheburdenofthestatetoofferandprovesuchjustifications.In 8  McCarthyv.SecretaryoftheCommonwealth ,359NE2d291,294(Mass1977),the  MassachusettsSupremeCourtstated: X 8  Thisconclusionisparticularlyevidentinacasesuchasthisonewherethere 8 isnoevidenceregardingthereasonsforrejectionofsignaturesbylocal   registrarsand,indeed,noevidencethattheregistrarsfullyperformedtheir x! checkingfunctionatall.Giventhefundamentalimportanceofaffordinga @" fairandreasonablemeansofballotaccesstoindependentcandidates,we  X# furtherholdthatjudicialreviewofthesignaturecertificationprocessis  $ necessarytosafeguardtheintegrityoftheelectoralprocessandto !% effectuatethelegislativeintenttoaffordsuchaccess.Furthermore,the `"& burdenofproofmustbeplacedontheSecretaryoftheCommonwealthto (#x' demonstratethattherewerevalidreasonsfor_noncertification_Ԁofsignatures, #@( ratherthanforcingthecandidatetonegateallpotent_ial_Ԁreasonsforrejection $ ) foreachparticularcontestedsignature.% *H!H!      2   B  .3  0 p STATEACTIONSIMPAIRINGTHENOMINATIONOFCANDIDATESBY '(#- MEANSOFPETITIONINGMUSTBENARROWLYTAILOREDTO (#. ACHIEVEACOMPELLINGSTATEINTEREST. .% h)$/p(#p(#   Intheyearsafter Andersonv._Celebrezze_ ,thisCourtadoptedevengreater *H&1 constitutionalprotectionforthepoliticalaimsofpersonsgatheringsignatureson ,'3 petitions,holdingthattheFirstAmendmentprotectstherightsofpetitionersto  communicatewithvoters. Buckleyv.AmericanConstitutionalLawFound. ,525U.S. @ 182,119_S.Ct_.636,142_L.Ed_.2d599(1999)[hereinafter" _ACLF_ "]; McIntyrev.Ohio   Elections_Comm'n_ ,514U.S.334,115_S.Ct_.1511,131_L.Ed_.2d426(1995); Meyerv. `  Grant ,486U.S.414,108_S.Ct_.1886,100_L.Ed_.2d425(1988).Suchcommunication  @ frompetitionerstovotersisthemosthighlyprotectedspeechandcanberestrictedonly    bymeansnarrowlytailoredtomeetacriticalstateinterest.Simplyput,thestate `  provisionaffectingpetitioningmustsurvive"exactingscrutiny"fordeterminationof   whether"itisnarrowlytailoredtoserveanoverridingstateinterest." McIntyrev.Ohio 0  Elections_Comm'n_ ,514U.S.334,347,115_S.Ct_.1511,131_L.Ed_.2d426(1995); First  Nat.BankofBostonv._Bellotti_ ,435U.S.765,776-777,98_S.Ct_.1407,1415-1416,55 P _L.Ed_.2d707(1978). 0   Here,alloftherestrictionsappliedbyDefendantsimilarlyimpairtheFirst p AmendmentrightsofPlaintiffs.Thisisparticularlytrueforthoseseekingtoappearon P theballotforPresidentandVicePresident,astheU.S.Constitutionprecludestheuse  ofwriteinvotes(sincetechnicallyallvotesarecastforthe"electors"totheelectoral  p college). Williamsv.Rhodes ,supra,393U.S.at37.     Defendant'sburdensviolatetherightsbothofprospectivecandidates,suchas @" plaintiff_Kucera_,ofpetition_circulators_,andofvoters.ElectorsofOregonhavetheright  $ tosignpetitionsforinitiatives,referenda,recall,andcandidatenominations.Oncethe `"& Statehasadoptedtheseprocessesforpoliticalchange,theprotectionsoftheU.S. #@( Constitutionapplywhenvotersseektoexercisethisformoffranchise.Inadditionto % * FirstAmendmentprotections,theopportunitytoeffectivelysigninitiativesisalso '`", protectedbytheFifthandFourteenthAmendments.In IdahoCoalitionUnitedfor (#.  Bearsv._Cenarussa_ ,342F.3d1073,1076(9thCir.2003),thecourtrecognizedthat 0*%0 votingoninitiativemeasuresisafundamentalrightsubjecttoFifthandFourteenth  Amendmentguarantees. @  8  Votingisafundamentalrightsubjecttoequalprotectionguaranteesunder   theFourteenthAmendment.SeeReynoldsv.Sims,377U.S.533,561-62,  84_S.Ct_.1362,12_L.Ed_.2d506(1964)("Undoubtedly,therightofsuffrageis `  afundamentalmatterinafreeanddemocraticsociety.").Theballotinitiative, ( x liketheelectionofpublicofficials,isa"'basicinstrumentofdemocratic  @ government,'"_Cuyahoga_ԀFallsv.BuckeyeComm.HopeFound.,538U.S.    188,123_S.Ct_.1389,1395,155_L.Ed_.2d349(2003)(quoting_Eastlake_Ԁv.    ForestCityEnters.,Inc.,426U.S.668,679,96_S.Ct_.2358,49_L.Ed_.2d132 H   (1976)),andisthereforesubjecttoequalprotectionguarantees.` H!H!     InOregon,beingaregisteredvotercarriestwobasicrightstherighttovoteand   therighttosignpetitions.Botharefundamentalrightswhichcannotbeimpairedby 0  governmentactions,withoutnarrowlytailoredapproachtoachievingacompellingstate  interest. P 8  Indeed,theSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatinitiativesandelectionsfor 0 publicofficearetheonlytwomeansbywhich"voterscanasserttheir  preferences,"andlawsthatoperatetorestrictballotaccessimplicatethe p righttovote. IllinoisStateBoardofElectionsv.SocialistWorkersParty , 8 440U.S.173,184,99_S.Ct_.983,990,59_L.Ed_.2d230(1979)(internal P quotationmarksomitted);seealso Buckley ,525U.S.182,119_S.Ct_.at  641-42("Initiative-petition_circulators_Ԁalsoresemblecandidate-petition  signaturegatherers,...forbothseekballotaccess").XH!H!  Molinariv.Powers ,82_F.Supp_.2d57,76(_E.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000) 8   Further,iftherighttopetitiongovernmentforredressofgrievancesmeans x! anything,itmustmeanthatthepetitioningprocessdoesnotconfrontpotentialand  X# actualsignorswiththeprospectofhavingtheirsignaturesonpetitionsinvalidated, !% regardlessofthecorrectnessoftheiractionsinsigning,becauseoftrivialalleged (#x' "errors"by_circulators_.Therighttopeaceablypetitionforredressofgrievances,the $ ) righttoassemble,andtherightoffreespeechare cognaterights. Thomasv. H&!+ Collins ,323U.S.516,530(1945).Bornofthesameheritage,theyareinseparable '(#-  andshouldbetreatedwithequalregard. McDonaldv.Smith ,472U.S.479,485 h)$/ _(1985).-   23      ׀AsisCourtheldin Meyerv.Grant ,restrictionsonsuch corepoliticalrights   aresubjecttoexactingscrutiny.FirstAmendmentrightshaveapriority. @ 8   p Thatprioritygivestheselibertiesasanctityandasanctionnot   permitteddubiousintrusions.Anditisthecharacteroftheright,notofthe  limitation,whichdetermineswhatstandardgovernsthechoice[where `  individualfreedomendsandwherestatepowerbegins].( xH!H!  Thomas ,323U.S.at530.      Inadditiontoactinginacapacityakintovoting,electorssigningpetitionsare H   engagingincorepoliticalspeechtothewiderpublic.Theyareseekingtoplaceupon (  theballot,fortheconsiderationofallelectors,theircandidates.Theyarethusentitled h  tothesameprotectionsasarepetitioners/circulatorsfromimpairmentbystateactions. H    Here,eachPlaintiffelectorisbeingdeniedtherighttoeffectivelysignpetitionsof  choicebythe"unwrittenrules"oftheSecretaryofState,asdetailedabove.Evenif h theseruleshadbeenwritten,thesepoliciesdeprivethesignorofanyassurancethat  hervalidsignaturewillbecounted.TheSecretaryofState'spoliciesdeprivesignorsof 8 theirrighttovalidlysignpetitions,becauseheisdisqualifyingthosesignaturesonbases  thathavenothingtodowiththevalidityofthevotersignature.Instead,heisthrowing X themoutbecausethecirculatorhasallegedlymadesomeminor"error"inthedateon 8 thesignatureofthecirculatorthattheSecretaryofStatenowdeemstobefataltothe x! signaturesoneverysheetcontainingsuchan"error."Healsorejectedhundredsof  X# sheetswithverifiedvotersignatures,becausehedidnotlikethewaythecirculator's !% signaturelookedandwouldnotacceptanydocumentationregardingthenormal (#x' appearanceofthecirculator'ssignature(apartfromanOregonvoterregistrationcard, $ ) thusdiscriminatingagainstcirculatorswhoarenotOregonregisteredvoters,in_violation H&!+ of Buckleyv._ACLF_ ,525U.S.182,119_S.Ct_.636,142_L.Ed_.2d599(1999),as  discussedbelow. @      2   C  .3  0 p DEFENDANTHASNOTSHOWNANIMPORTANTORCOMPELLING  STATEINTERESTINREJECTINGSIGNATURESHEETSFOR `  "ILLEGIBLE"CIRCULATORSIGNATURES(NEXTTOLEGIBLEPRINTED ( x NAMES)ORCIRCULATORSIGNATURESTHAT"APPEARTOBE  @ INITIALS."     p(#p(#   Defendantsoughttodefendhispoliciesongenericgroundsthathehas"an H   obligationtopreventfraudinelections."Defendant'sMandamusMemorandum,p.24. (  Defendantdoesnotidentifyanysortoffraudthatispreventedbyhisactions.What h  fraudispreventedbyinventingandinconsistentlyapplyingunwrittenrulesrequiringthat H  circulatorsignaturespasssecretandsubjectivetestsas"legible"orasnot"appearing  tobeinitials"?WeawaitanycrediblejustificationforDefendant'sschemeasnarrowly h tailoredtoachieveacompellingstateinterestoranystateinterestatall.    Inaddition,Defendant'sconductininstructingthecountyelectionsofficersto"pull 8 out"andnotverifysignaturesheetsfromcertain_circulators_,supposedlybecauseof  problemswiththe_circulator_'ssignature,alsoviolateddueprocessrights.Defendant's X conductallowedtheNaderCampaigntocontinuetosubmithundredsofsignature 8 sheets,containingover500signatures,collectedbythese"secretlybanned"_circulators_. x! NogovernmentofficialnotifiedtheNaderCampaignofthisban,thusprecludingthe  X# simplestepofthefilingofaffidavitswiththecountiestoremedyanyperceived !% "problem"withthe_circulator_'ssignature. (#x'      2   D  .3  0 p DEFENDANTHASNOTSHOWNANIMPORTANTORCOMPELLING % * STATEINTERESTINREJECTINGSIGNATURESHEETSDUETOTHE H&!+ CORRECTIONOFTRIVIALDATINGERRORSONCIRCULATOR '`", SIGNATURES.   '(#-p(#p(#   Whatfraudispreventedbyinconsistentlyapplyinganunwrittenrulethat,ifa h)$/ circulatorbeginstowriteanincorrectdateonhisownsignature,thereisthennothing *H&1 shecandotoavoidhavingallofthevalidvotersignaturesonthatsheetpermanently ,'3 disqualified?Ifsheinanywaycorrectsthedate,Defendantthrowsawaythesheet.  Evenifshecompletelycrossesoutthedate,putsinthecorrectdateandagainsigns @ thepetitionascirculator,Defendantthrowsawaythesheet.     Hereaswell,weawaitanycrediblejustificationforDefendant'sschemeas `  narrowlytailoredtoachieveacompellingstateinterestoranystateinterestatall.  @    2   IV  .3  0  REJECTINGCIRCULATORSIGNATURESUNLESSTHEYMATCHTHE H   SIGNATURESUPONOREGONVOTERREGISTRATIONCARDSVIOLATES `  PLAINTIFFS'CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDVIOLATESTHEOFDUE (  PROCESSGUARANTEEANDFREEDOMOFTRAVELGUARANTEEOFOUT   OFSTATE_CIRCULATORS_.   h (#(#     Asshownabove,Defendantimplemented"unwrittenrules"thatdiscriminated H  heavilyagainst_circulators_ԀwhoarenotregisteredvotersofOregon.IfDefendantfound  anythingstrangeabouta_circulator_'ssignature("illegible"or"appearstobeinitials"),he h checkedtoseewhetherthecirculatorwasanOregonregisteredvoter.Ifhisvoter  registrationcardshowedasimilarsignature,thenthecirculatorsignaturewas 8 consideredvalid.IfthecirculatorwasnotanOregonregisteredvoter,thenDefendant  merelydiscardedalltheverifiedvotersignaturesthatthecirculatorhadcollected, X becauseDefendanthadno"exemplar"ofthe_circulator_'ssignature(becauseDefendant 8 nevernotifiedthecirculatorortheNaderCampaignthattherewasanyquestionabout x! the_circulator_'ssignatureinthefirstplace).  X#   This"policy"ofDefendantviolatestherightsofPlaintiffswhowere_circulators_Ԁ(but !% notregisteredtovoteinOregon)toparticipateinthenominatingpetitionprocess (#x' withoutburdensontheirrighttotravelacrossstatelinesandtoengageincorepolitical $ ) speechbycirculatingpetitionsheetsonmattersofconcerntothem.Italsoviolates H&!+ theirFirstAmendmentrightsandimpermissiblydiscriminatesagainstthoseOregon '(#- residentswhoarenotregisteredtovoteandinfavorofthoseOregonresidentswhoare h)$/ registeredtovote. Buckleyv._ACLF_ ,525U.S.182,119_S.Ct_.636,142_L.Ed_.2d599 *H&1 (1999). ,'3   Defendant'sapparentpracticeseekstoevadetheedictoftheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtin _ACLF_ thatastatecannotrestrictthegatheringofsignatureson @ petitionstoregisteredvotersofthestate.Byrejectingcirculatorsignaturesthathedoes   nothappentolike,whileresurrectingsuchsignaturesonlyiftheymatchanOregon `  voterregistrationcard,Defendantisviolating _ACLF_ andtheconstitutionalrightsof  @ _circulators_ԀwhoarenotOregonregisteredvoters.         2   V  .3  0  THEWRITTENRULESPERTAININGTOTHESEQUENTIALNUMBEROF (  SIGNATURESHEETSBYTHEPETITIONERDONOTSURVIVESTRICT   SCRUTINYORANYLOWERLEVELOFSCRUTINY. ap h (#(#      2   A  .3  0 p DEFENDANTREJECTEDSHEETSWITH2,354VALIDSIGNATURES H  MERELYBECAUSETHENADERCAMPAIGNDIDNOTAPPLY  SEQUENTIALNUMBERSTOALLOFTHESHEETS. ap@ p(#p(#   Defendantrejected1,062sheetscontaining2,354validandverifiedvoter h signaturesonthegroundthatthesheets,assubmittedtothecountieswerenot  numbered.ThisrejectionviolatesPlaintiffs'rightsundertheFirstandFifth 8 Amendments,formanyreasons.    First,theNaderCampaignhadsubmittedallsignaturesheetstothecounty X electionsofficerssequentiallynumbered,untiltheywereadvisedbyOfficeofthe 8 SecretaryofStatetobeginsubmittingsignaturesheetstovariouscountieswithno x! initialnumberingonthosesheets.SeeAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_Ԁ[_SER_Ԅ28].Second,the  X# countyelectionsofficersacceptedandvalidatedallofthenonnumberedsheetsand !% themselvesplacednumbersonmanyofthesheets.Third,Defendantofferedno (#x' compellingorevenimportantorevenplausiblestateinterestthatisachievedby $ ) rejectingsignaturesheetsthatarenotsequentiallynumberedbythepetitioners. H&!+   AsstatedintheAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_,theNaderCampaignwascomplying '(#- withtheonlylegalrequirementforthesequentialnumberingofthesignaturesheets, h)$/ whichiscontainedinthe2004StateCandidate'sManual:IndividualElectors,p.4, *H&1 whichstates: ,'3   8 p Withineachindividualcounty,sequentiallynumbereachsignature  sheetinthespaceprovided;andxphph   8 p Submitsignaturesheetstotheappropriatecountyelections X officesforverification*** phph TheNaderCampaigndidthis,untilverylateinthepetitioningeffort,whentheylearned `  thattheSecretaryofStatewasdirectingsomeofthecountyelectionsofficersto"pull  @ out"andrejectanunknownnumberofsignaturesheetsduetotheSecretaryofState's    perceptionofproblemswiththesignaturesofthe_circulators_Ԁorthedatesaccompanying `  thosesignatures.     Outofasuperabundanceofcaution,theNaderCampaignwishedtosubmitthe 0  signaturesheetstotheSecretaryofStatewithsequentialnumberingwithineachcounty  packet,withno"gaps"inthenumbers.Thisisnotrequiredbyanylaworanyrule,as P therequirementquotedaboveappliesonlytothesubmittalofsignaturesheetstothe 0 countyandnotlatertotheSecretaryofState,buttheNaderCampaignwishedtoavoid p givingtheSecretaryofStateanypossibleexcuseforrejectingthesignaturesheets. P   Nevertheless,toavoidanypossibleproblems,representativesoftheNader  Campaign,includingTravis_Diskin_,soughtadvicefromtheSecretaryofStatesothat  p theNaderCampaigncouldavoidorfillthe"gaps"inthecountybycountysequential   numberingsystemthatwasbeingdisruptedbytheSecretaryofState'sowninstructions @" tothecountiesto"pullout"fromthosesequencesanunknownnumberofsignature  $ sheets.AsstatedintheAffidavitofTravis_Diskin_,hewasreferredtoSummerDavisas `"& theappropriateemployeeintheOfficeoftheSecretaryofStatetoresolvethisquestion. #@(   AsshownbyMr._Diskin_'scontemporaneousnotesofthephonecall[_SER_Ԅ32],Ms. % * Davisadvisedhim thattheNaderCampaignshouldsubmitadditionalcompleted '`", signaturesheetstothecountieswithoutsheetnumbersatall,sothatthesequential (#. numberingsystemcouldberestoredbypluggingthenew,nonnumberedverified 0*%0 sheetsintothe"gaps"createdbyDefendant'sdirectiontocountyelectionsofficersthat +'2 they"pullout"signaturesheetsfromtheoriginalsequence.Thisadvicefully  contemplatedthatthecountyelectionsofficersortheNaderCampaignwouldlaterwrite @ sheetnumbersupontheseunnumberedsheets,afterreceivingthembackinverified   formfromthecountyelectionsofficers..   24       `    PursuanttothisadvicefromtheOfficeoftheSecretaryofState,theNader  @ Campaignproceededtosubmitsignaturesheetstocountieswithoutsheetnumbers,    andthecountyelectionsofficersacceptedthosesheetsandverifiedthesignatureson `  thosesheets,allwithoutobjection./   25      ׀Uponreceivingtheverifiedsheetsbackfromthe   countyelectionsofficers,theNaderCampaignthensoughttorestoreasequential, 0  consecutivenumberingsystemforeachcounty,beforesubmittingtheverifiedsheetsto  theSecretaryofState(eventhoughthereisnolegalrequirementforapplyingeither P consecutiveormerelysequentialnumberstosuchsheets).Theteamdidsoby 0 numberingtheunnumberedverifiedsheetsandpluggingthemintothe"gaps."Where p thereendedupbeingtoofewunnumberedverifiedsheetstofullyplugthe"gaps,"the P NaderCampaigntookhighnumberedsheetsoffthebottomofthecountystackand  renumberedthemtoplugtheremaining"gaps."0   26      ׀Bothnumbersremainedlegible;the  p original#hadasinglelinedrawnthroughit.     And,whileDefendantinthe2004StateInitiativeandReferendumManual @"   ["_SIRM_"](asquotedabove)statesthatfailuretonumbertheinitiativeorreferendum  $ sheetssequentially,whensubmittedtoDefendant,canresultinrejectionofthose `"& sheets,Defendantmakesnosuchstatementinthe2004StateCandidate'sManual:  IndividualElectorsaboutfailingtonumberthesheetsforanominatingpetition.In @ fact,theonlywarningapplicableto_circulators_ԀintheManualisthis:   8  Warning:Violationsofthecirculatorrequirementsmayresultinconvictionof `  afelonywithafineofupto$100,000and/orprisonforuptofiveyears.( xH!H! Manual,p.13.ConcludingthatDefendantsomehowintendedhiswarninginthe_SIRM_    toapplyalsototheManualviolatesthetenetthat,whenagovernmentactorwishesto H   imposearequirement,andshowsthatitknowshowtoexpressthatintention,thelack (  ofsuchanexpressionnegatestheintention. _Gladhart_Ԁv.OregonVineyardSupply h  Co. ,332Or226,23334,26P3d817(2001). H    Inaddition,evenwherenumberingofpetitionsheetsisrequiredbyrule,asinthe  verificationprocessforstatewideinitiativepetitions,thenumberingrulehasneverbeen h appliedorimplementedtodisqualifysheetsofelectorsignatures.AffidavitofRuth  _Bendl_Ԁ[Tab12,_SER_Ԅ389].NordidDefendantshowthathehadeverdisqualifiedbefore 8 asignaturesheetonacandidatenominatingpetitiononthisbasis.    Further,eveniftherewereviolationsofthesheetnumberingrule,such X inconsequentialpetitiondeficienciesarenotdisqualifying.In Sternv.Boardof 8 Elections ,237NE2d313,14OhioSt2d175(1968),certainnominatingpetitions x! showed"sufficientsubstantialcompliancewithstatutoryrequirements,"despitethefact  X# therequiredjuratofthenotarywasincompletesincethenotaryomittedhishandwritten !% signatureandhisseal,buttherewasnoevidenceoffraud,deceptionorillegality,and (#x' thepetitionwasotherwiseproperandwasdated. $ )   Illinoislawsrequiresequentialpagenumberingofcandidatenominationpetition H&!+ sheets.In Stevensonv.CountyOfficersElectoralBoard ,58IllApp3d24,26,15Ill '(#- Dec571,373NE2d1043(1978),thecourtheldthatacandidate'sfailuretonumberthe h)$/ pagesofhis48pagenominatingpetitionwasatechnicalviolationoftheElectionCode *H&1 and,thus,thecandidatewasentitledtohavehisnameontheballotinspiteofhis ,'3 nonconformancewiththeprovision.Inreachingitsholding,thecourtin Stevenson   reliedon Williamsv.Butler ,35IllApp3d532,341NE2d394(1976).In Williams ,the @ courtheldthat"[_n]oncompliance_Ԁwiththeprovisioninthefailuretoinsertornumbera   pageisameretechnicalityandcannotinvalidateapetition."35IllApp3dat535._1   27      _ `       2   B  .3  0 p DEFENDANTVIOLATEDTHERIGHTSOFPLAINTIFFS'INREJECTING    SIGNATURESHEETSFORLACKOFNADERAPPLIEDSEQUENTIAL    NUMBERING. d0 H  p(#p(#   AfteradvisingtheNaderCampaigntostopnumberingthesheetsbeingsubmitted (  tothecounties,Defendant_violateD_Ԁtherightsofthepetitioners,_circulators_,andvoters h  bythentossingawaysome2,354validandverifiedvotersignaturesonsheets H  submittedwithoutnumberstothecounties. Williamsv._Sclafani_ ,supra,presenteda  similarsituationofrelianceupontheadviceofelectionofficials.Here,theNader h Campaignwascomplyingwiththesequentialnumberingrequirement,untiladvisedby  Defendant'semployeenottodoso.TheNaderCampaignhadutterlynoreasontostop 8 complying,apartfromtheadvicereceivedfromDefendant'soffice.    Independently,Plaintiffs'rightswereviolatedbyimpositionofasequential X numberingrequirementforwhichDefendantcanoffernocompellingorevenimportant 8 stateinterest. DefendanthasnotstatedanycrediblereasonthatlackofNaderapplied x! sequentialnumberingofsheetsiswaynecessary.Attrial,John_Lindback_Ԁadmittedthat  X# thecountyelectionsofficersthemselvesplacednumbersonthesignaturesheetsthat !% thecampaignhadfiledwiththecountieswithoutnumbers.Hearing11:47:03.Infact, (#x' hetestified,"Wedidnotknowwhohadnumberedwhat."Hearing11:49:48.This $ ) admissionprecludesDefendant'simplicitfindingthattheNaderCampaigndidnot H&!+ numberacertainnumberofsheetssubmittedtothecounties._Lindback_Ԁalsoadmitted '(#- that,ifthesheetsthatwerenumberedbythecountyofficialshadnotbeenrejected,  thenNaderwouldqualifyfortheballot.Hearing11:55:15,11:55:43.Whenaskedby @ thetrialjudgewhetherDefendanthadpreviouslyacceptedsuchpetitionswithsheet   numbersplacedbythecountyofficials,_Lindback_Ԁcouldnotrecallthatissueevercoming `  upinthepast.12:06:45.  @   Thecountieshadnoproblemwithverifyingthesignaturesonsheets,withor    withoutNaderappliedsheetnumbersandinfactverified2,354signaturesonthose `  petitions.DefendanthadutterlynoreasontoinsistonNaderappliedsheetnumberson   allofthesheetssubmittedtoDefendant,particularlysincethecountieshadalreadyput 0  theirownnumbersonthesheetsandsinceeverysheetwasalsoanoriginalsignedby  acountyofficial,attestingtothenumberofverifiedvotersignaturesonthatsheet. P   Inaddition,thefactthatDefendantallowedthecountyelectionsofficersto 0 continuetoaccept,withoutobjection,nonnumberedsignaturesheets,andentirely p failedtonotifytheNaderCampaignthatsuchsheetswouldlaterberejected,violated P Plaintiffs'rightstodueprocessnoticepriortothedeprivationofaprotectedliberty  interest.Merely_shepardizing_Ԁ Bellv._Burson_ ,402U.S.535,542,91_S.Ct_.1586,1591,  p 29_L.Ed_.2d90(1971)turnsuphundredsofcasesinwhichthecourtshaveruledinvalid   thedeprivationoflibertyorpropertyinterestsnotprecededbynoticeandopportunityto @" avoidthedeprivation. Fuentesv._Shevin_ ,407U.S.67,82,92_S.Ct_.1983,32_L.Ed_.2d  $ 556(1983),stated: `"& 8  Thisisnonewprincipleofconstitutionallaw.Therighttoapriorhearinghas #@( longbeenrecognizedbythisCourtundertheFourteenthandFifth $ ) Amendments.AlthoughtheCourthasheldthatdueprocesstolerates % * variancesintheformofahearing'appropriatetothenatureofthecase,' H&!+  _Mullane_Ԁv.CentralHanoverTr.Co. ,339U.S.306,313,70_S.Ct_.652,657, '`", 94_L.Ed_.865,and'dependingupontheimportanceoftheinterestsinvolved '(#- andthenatureofthesubsequentproceedings(ifany),' _Boddie_Ԁv. (#. Connecticut ,401U.S.371,378,91_S.Ct_.780,786,28_L.Ed_.2d113,the h)$/ Courthastraditionallyinsistedthat,whateveritsform,opportunityforthat 0*%0 hearingmustbeprovidedbeforethedeprivationatissuetakeseffect.E.g., *H&1  Bellv._Burson_ ,402U.S.535,542,91_S.Ct_.1586,1591,29_L.Ed_.2d90; +'2  Wisconsinv._Constantineau_ ,400U.S.433,437,91_S.Ct_.507,510,27L. ,'3 Ed.2d515; Goldbergv.Kelly ,397U.S.254,90_S.Ct_.1011,25_L.Ed_.2d  287; Armstrongv._Manzo_ ,380U.S.,at551,85_S.Ct_.,at1191; _Mullane_Ԁv. x CentralHanoverTr.Co. ,supra,339U.S.at313,70_S.Ct_.at656; Opp @ CottonMillsv.Administrator ,312U.S.126,152153,61_S.Ct_.524,535 X 536,85_L.Ed_.624; UnitedStatesv._Illnois_ԀCentralR.Co. ,291U.S.457,   463,54_S.Ct_.471,473,78_L.Ed_.909; Londonerv.City&Countyof  Denver ,210U.S.373,385386,28_S.Ct_.708,713714,52_L.Ed_.1103.` H!H!   Thereisnoquestionthattheopportunitytobeachiefpetitioneronaninitiative,to  @ circulateaninitiative,ortosignaninitiativeisafundamentallibertyinterest.Noris    theredoubtthatsuchinterestsrequirenoticeandopportunitytocontextpriorto `  deprivation.Anexceptiontothegeneralrulerequiring_predeprivation_Ԁnoticeand   hearingisjustifiedonlyinextraordinarysituations. UnitedStatesv.JamesDaniel 0  GoodRealProperty ,510U.S.43,44,114_S.Ct_.492,126_L.Ed_.2d490(1993).There  wasnoemergencyhere.Thecaseinthecontextmostresemblingthecurrent P circumstancesisperhaps _Raetzel_Ԁv.Parks ,762F.Supp.1354(D.Ariz1990),inwhich 0 thecourtinvalidatedthestate'sprocessforhandlingchallengestoabsenteevotes p withoutnoticetothedisqualifiedvoter. P    2   VI  .3  0  DISCARDINGVALID,VERIFIEDVOTERSIGNATURESDUETOALLEGED X "ERRORS"BYACIRCULATORDENIESVOTERSEQUALPROTECTION  p UNDERTHELAW. enQ 8(#(#   TheEqualProtectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresthatsimilarly x! situatedpeoplebetreatedalike. Cityof_Cleburne_Ԁv._Cleburne_ԀLivingCenter ,473  X# U.S.432,439,105_S.Ct_.3249,3254,87_L.Ed_.2d313(1985).Itgenerally"protects !% citizensfromarbitraryorirrationalstateaction." _Batra_Ԁv.BoardofRegentsofthe (#x' Univ.ofNebraska ,79F.3d717,721(8thCir.1996).2   28       $ )   Here,Defendantdiscardedover3,000votersignaturesalreadyverifiedasvalidby H&!+ countyelectionsofficers.ThedisqualifiedvoterswerealldulyregisteredOregon '(#- voters.Yet,aminimumof3,072ofthosevoters(718plus2,354)losttheirrightsto  expresstheirpoliticalviewsbecauseofallegedminorcirculatorerrorstotallyunrelated @ toanyconductbythevoters.Inthiscasetheclassofvoterswhosesignatureswere   tossedfortrivialandarbitrary"errors"inthedateorsignatureornumberingmaybe `  smallbutiscrucialtotherightsofallothersignersandthecandidates."Aclassofone  @ islikelytobethemostvulnerableofall,"andaccordingly,suchaclassshouldnotbe    deniedtheprotectionoftheequalprotectionclause. _Esmail_Ԁv._Macrane_ ,53F.3d176, `  180(7thCir.1995).     Thesedisenfranchisedvoterssuffered"intentional"discriminationwithinthe 0  meaningofanequalprotectionjurisprudence:  8  'Discriminatorypurpose,'***impliesthata_decisionmaker_Ԁ'selectedor P reaffirmedaparticularcourseofactionatleastinpart'becauseof,'not h merely'inspiteof,'itsadverseeffectsuponanidentifiablegroup.'0H!H!  Lewisv.CityofFortCollins, 903F.2d752,755n.1(10thCir.1990)(footnote p omitted),quotedwithapproval, Welshv.CityofTulsa .,977F.2d1415,1420(10thCir. P 1992).Thustheequalprotectionclausemaybeviolatedwheneverregulationsarenot  rationallyrelatedtoalegitimategovernmentinterest.See _Schweiker_Ԁv.Wilson ,450  p U.S.221,230(1981).     Moreover,"anumberoffaciallyvalidelectionlawsmayoperateintandemto @" produceimpermissiblebarrierstoconstitutionalrights." _Storer_Ԁv.Brown ,415U.S.  $ 724,737,94_S.Ct_.1274,39_L.Ed_.2d714(1974).Thatiswhatoccursinthiscase. `"& Therefore,"areviewingcourtmustdeterminewhether'thetotalityofthe[state's] #@( restrictivelawstakenasawholeimposes_a[n_Ԁunconstitutional]burdenonvotingand % * associationalrights." Williamsv.Rhodes ,393U.S.23,34,89_S.Ct_.5,21_L.Ed_.2d24 '`", (1968). (#.   0*%0     2   VII  .3  0  REQUESTEDRELIEF. enfb (#(#   Plaintiffs'requestthatthisCourt: @    p 2   1  .3  0 P StaythePeremptoryWritofMandamusandAppellateJudgment   issuedonSeptember22bytheOregonSupremeCourt,thereby  reinstatingthejudgmentoftheMarionCountyCircuitCourtrequiring `  DefendanttocertifyRalphNaderasacandidateforPresidentofthe ( x UnitedStatesontheNovember2,2004,Oregonballot; @P (#P (#    p 2   2  .3  0 P GrantreviewofthejudgmentoftheOregonSupremeCourtby    certiorarioranyotherappropriateprocedure;H  P (#P (#    p 2   3  .3  0 P OrderDefendantSecretaryofStateofOregontorecognizetheverified (  votersignaturesonsheetshehasrejectedforreasonswhichviolate   therightsofanyof_Plaintiffs_________ԀundertheU.S.Constitution;h P (#P (#    p 2   4  .3  0 P GrantsuchotherreliefastheCourtdeemsappropriate,whichmay H  includetheawardofattorneyfeesandcosttoPlaintiffs.P (#P (# *45 ddO dd O dd dd  (#(#, dd ,dd , dd +  A7hh ,ADated:September24,2004 >4h##$$ > E4h##$$ ERespectfullySubmitted, h  e[3p , ##$$ e >48##$$ > >48##$$ >DANIELW.MEEK 8 OregonBarNo.79124 P 10949S.W.4thAvenue   Portland,OR97219 ! (503)29390210  voiceX"(#(# (503)29390990  fax p#(#(# dan@meek.net 8$ OfAttorneysforPlaintiffs=31x&   ##$$ =*67 dd dd dd  dd 45(#(#,dd ,dd , dd +  H7 (  HDated:July23,2004  ) MarkMcDougal MC((#x,##$$ M E4 -##$$ ERespectfullySubmitted,  . DanielW.Meek e[3(#x1  ##$$ 1eMARKMcDOUGAL #@2 Kafoury&McDougal $ 3 320S.W.StarkStreet % 4 Suite202 H&!5 (503)22426470 P voice'`"6P UP U (503)22426730 P fax'(#7P UP U mcdougal@kafourymcdougal.com (#8 OfAttorneysforPlaintiffs >40*%:##$$ > >4#@;##$$ >DANIELW.MEEK #@< OSBNo.79124 $ = 10949S.W.4thAvenue % > Portland,OR97219 H&!? (503)29390210  voice'`"@(#(# (503)29390990  fax'(#A(#(# dan@meek.net (#B OfAttorneysforPlaintiffs=310*%D 1  ##$$ =  *H&D Ѐ @5CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE   IherebycertifythatIservedtheforegoingAPPLICATIONFORSTAYOFOREGON @ SUPREMECOURTORDER,PENDINGCERTIORARIREVIEW8Ԁbydepositingwiththe L UnitedStatesPostalService,firstclasspostageprepaid,atruecopytotheattorneys  listedbelow:  KatherineGeorges ( l  AssistantAttorneyGeneral  4  400JusticeBuilding    Salem,OR97310   Roy_Pulvers_ T  Lindsay,Hart,Neil_Weigler_   1300S.W.5thAvenue#3400   Portland,OR97201 h  IalsocertifythatIemailedtheforegoingdocumentinPDFformattothefollowingemail  addresses:  KayeMcDonald 0 kaye.mcdonald@doj.state.or.us \ David_Leith_0 P 00 P (#P (#david.Leith@state.or.us$0 (#0 (# DonMarmaduke0 0 don@Tonkon.com0 (#0 (# KatherineGeorges0 0 kate.georges@doj.state.or.usp0 (#0 (# Margaret_Olney_ P 0 0 margaret@sgdo.com8|0 (#0 (# MarkMcDougal0 0 mcdougal@kafourymcdougal.comD0 (#0 (# RoyE._Pulvers_0 P 00 P (#P (#rpulvers@lindsayhart.com 0 (#0 (# Dated:September24,2004@@ ," @@DanielMeek @% @@__________________________  L& @@DanielW.Meek  '