Amended Petition for Judicial Review of Election Laws

October 17, 1996

.

.


              Before the Missouri Supreme Court
                 in Jefferson City, Missouri
                              
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT,                      )
                  Relator/Appellant,      )
                                          )
vs.                                       )   Case No. 79367
                                          )   
Newton County Clerk KAY BAUM,             )
Chief Election Official of Newton County, )
and Missouri Secretary of State,          )
Chief Election Official of Missouri       )
REBECCA COOK                              )
                   Respondents            )



    AMENDED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTION LAWS
                              
                              
   Comes now the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, before this court of final 
jurisdiction in the State of Missouri, to petition that election laws 
contrary to the democratic principles alluded to in the United States' 
and Missouri's Constitution be overturned and set aside as being null 
and void and that Respondents Baum and Cook be compelled to place 
Relator/Appellant's name on the general election ballot of November 5, 
1996 as the Libertarian Party candidate for the office of Newton County 
Sheriff.
   This Court belatedly recognizes its jurisdiction and duty to finally 
rule on this matter as witnessed by its letter of October 11, 1996 
assigning this matter a case number of 79367 and this Court also has 
jurisdiction because the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District 
denied Relator/Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus (without
giving legal justification for that denial) on October 10, 1996.
   Since the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Judicial Review of 
Election Law written by Plaintiff on October 4 and updated on October 
8, 1996 has never been fully addressed by any state court, 
Relator/Appellant will not print out and resubmit another eight copies 
to this Court. Relator will let it stand and hereby asks for the 
October 4, 1996 Petition to be ruled upon its merits.
   This Amended Petition for Judicial Review of Election Laws is meant 
to additionally cover the unconstitutionality of certain Missouri 
election laws and to ask this court to overturn them as 
unconstitutional, thus null and void. If they are unconstitutional, 
then the writ of mandamus would have to follow.

            Additional Facts since Oct. 4, 1996
                              
   This Court has been kept advised of  events since October 4, 1996. 
Relator/Appellant  mailed to this Court a Petition of Grievance 
complaining about its conduct in this matter on October 8. Relator 
submitted a substantially similar Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 
Missouri Court of Appeals on October 8, 1996. On October 10, the 
Missouri Court of Appeals denied Relator/Appellant's application. On
October 11, Relator demanded to know the legal basis of the Missouri 
Court of Appeal's decision. The Missouri Court of Appeals has refused 
to inform Relator so far of that legal basis. On October 11, this 
Court assigned this case a docket number of 79367.
   Relator/Appellant is still a pauper. Relator takes this Court up on 
its belated invitation of October 11 to finally rule on this matter 
once and for all at the state judicial level.
     
                         
      Arguments Supporting Judicial Review of Election Laws.
                              
1. In its decision of October 10, 1996, all the Missouri Court of 
Appeals did was to "deny said application" for a writ of mandamus. The 
Missouri Court of Appeals did not  rule upon the constitutionality of 
Missouri 'election laws', thus leaving it up by default to this Court 
to do so.

2. Relator/Appellant has never, ever violated any election law by 
wishing to run for Sheriff as a Libertarian Party Candidate since there 
is no law specifically prohibiting Relator/Appellant or his political 
party from doing so. There are only a number of election laws purporting 
to regulate internal political party matters in the hope that 
Relator/Appellant will be deceived into thinking that election laws 
prevent him from exercising his political rights.
   RSMo 115.343, 115.333, 115.339, 115.363, 115.377 have all been 
misquoted by the Respondents or their lawyers, or the Missouri court 
system as having relevance in denying Relator/Appellant a place on the 
ballot as his political party's nominee. These statutes are irrelevant 
because Relator/Appellant is not seeking to run as an Independent
candidate, is not seeking to form a new political party, is not running 
in a contested primary race against political opposition within his 
political party. To say that above statutes prevent Relator and his 
Party from exercising their rights in running for political office is 
a form of legal and judicial fraud.

3. In addition to being fraudulently applied against Relator/Appellant, 
the above-mentioned 'election laws' are an unconstitutional trespass 
upon the associational and free speech rights of  Relator/Appellant and 
his political party. They are not 'election laws,' they are 
candidate-denial laws, meant to disenfranchise minor party candidates 
from being 'recycled' in small political parties which have a shortage 
of political candidates in relationship to the number of elective 
offices available. It maintains the current political monopolies and 
electoral stranglehold of the very self-interested politicians who made 
up these 'election laws.'
   What compelling state interest will this court cite as a reason to 
prevent Relator/Appellant from running as Sheriff of Newton County as 
a Libertarian candidate? The political interests of the politicians who 
placed you on the bench? Maintaining the political oligarchies of the 
Republicans in Newton County and the Democrats in urban areas? Will you
continue to deliberately confuse private interests with the public 
interest?

4. Respondents, their Lawyers, Incumbent Sheriff, the Newton County 
Republican Party, or the Missouri judicial system have never, ever, 
explained or come up with legitimate reasons as to how and why 
Relator/Appellant's getting to run as a Libertarian Candidate for 
Sheriff and getting his name printed on the ballot harms them in any 
way. What is their standing behind this denial of Relator/Appellant's, 
the Newton County Libertarian Party's or unknown Newton County voter's 
rights?

5. Continued denial of allowing candidates who timely file a place on 
the ballot sort of puts the lie to the state of Missouri's claim to be 
holding legitimate elections. If the ruling oligarchies can determine 
who gets placed on the ballot, then why not just spare themselves and 
the public the expense of holding elections?
   In fact, a profit could be made by just simply letting all the 
special-interests, corporate and personal, bid on who they want to 
fill these government offices. This way the power of the state can be 
openly used to coerce the general public into doing what they want. 
While it will cut into the profits generated by advertising, no one 
need be fooled into imagining they live in a free country anymore.

6. Sooner or later, the politicized judicial system will have to either 
let Relator/Appellant run for Sheriff of Newton County or admit to the 
fact that there are no such thing as open, honest, legitimate elections 
allowed in this country. This might have to take place at the federal 
level if this court refuses to overturn 'election laws' unconstitutionally 
applied against Relator/Appellant.
   Rather than waste time and money on a special election held to 
resolve this matter, would it not be better for this Court to clean up 
its own mess and allow Relator/Appellant to run as a Libertarian 
candidate for Sheriff of Newton County before the November 5, 1996 
general election?

        Suggestions Supporting Relator/Appellant's Arguments
                              
1. See Oct. 10, 1996 letter from Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern 
District to Relator/Appellant. This letter was a mere Order which did 
nothing more than "deny said application."  No findings of fact or 
conclusions of law were given. To say that judicial review took place 
would be absurd.

2. RSMo 115.343 as quoted by Judge Timothy Perigo on the Sept. 24, 1996 
docket sheet is irrelevant because Relator/Appellant and his party did 
not run a primary race for the office of sheriff or need to do so. The 
implication that RSMo 115.343 overrides the associational and political
rights of Relator/Appellant and his political party is refuted by 
Eu v San Francisco Democratic Committee 489 U.S. 214.
   The other election laws dishonestly quoted by Lawyer Bridges and 
Judge Perigo were also irrelevant. Relator/Appellant was not petitioning 
Respondents to run as an Independent candidate or to form a new 
political party. These 'election laws' implying authority to deny the 
rights of Relator/Appellant and his political party are refuted by
Eu v. San Francisco, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct 1842, and 
numerous other U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

3. The need to prove compelling state interests to override individual 
rights to participate in elections are not only mentioned in 
above-mentioned federal case law, but the Missouri court system even 
paid some lip service to these ideals in the Missouri case, State ex 
rel. Coker-Garcia v. Blunt 849 S.W.2d 81. at 85.

4. This court has heard of the legal concept of Standing to sue, has 
it not?

5. Special interests 'buying' politicians through the use of campaign 
contributions is well known to happen. Still, for this Court to keep 
an alternative candidate like Relator/Appellant and his political party 
out of the election just because they don't want to buy nor sell in
favor of the auctioneers' demand for "spectators to move along if they 
ain't there to do business" is not only
unjust, but foolish.
   You do want the general public's respecting judges and bothering to 
listen to what you say, don't you? See your own Missouri Rules of Court, 
Rule 2. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1 and Canon 2.

6. Relator/Appellant is very likely to make this matter a federal case 
if this Court refuses to do its duty. Remember what happened when this 
Court refused to do its duty and hear Lindstedt v. Missouri Libertarian 
Party, et.al. by sending Lawyer Thompson to stall? Relator refiled the 
case in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
                              
                       Request for Relief
                              
   Wherefore, the Relator/Appellant asks that this Court to: (1) quit 
stalling and settle down and rule that Missouri 'election laws' which 
cut into a political candidate's right to appear on the ballot are 
unconstitutional; (2) look at Relator/Appellant's Petition for Writ of 
Mandamus of October 4, 1996 and today's Amended Petition for Judicial 
Review and order Relator/Appellant placed upon the Newton County
general election ballot as a Libertarian Candidate for the office of 
Sheriff; and (3) grant Relator/Appellant whatever other relief is just, 
proper, and lawful.


-s- Martin Lindstedt                          October 17, 1996
_______________________________             ___________________
        Relator/Appellant                          Date


                     Certificate of Service
                              
   A copy of this petition was mailed to the office of Respondent Kay 
Baum, Newton County Clerk, at the Newton County Courthouse on 
October 17, 1996.
   A copy of this petition was mailed to the office of Secretary of 
State Rebecca Cook, 208 State Capitol, P.O. Box 778, Jefferson City, 
Missouri 65101 on October 17, 1996.
.

.

Commentary: It wasn't more than 45 minutes after I had this in the mail than a female clerk from the Missouri supreme court called me up around 3:15 p.m. Friday, October 18th. She informed me the court had denied my writ of mandamus. When I asked if any Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law had been given, she refused to say.

I asked if any ruling had been made as of yet on the petition for judicial review of election laws. I was informed that no, no ruling had been made. I informed the clerk that I had just mailed an Amended Petition for Judicial Review, eight copies for the court.

She informed me the court's decision would be mailed that afternoon.

On Monday, Oct. 21, 1996, I received the decision on mandamus. On Wednesday, Oct. 23, 1996 I received all eight copies of this petition, the extra copy I wanted file-stamped, the stamped, self-addressed envelope, the invitation to file by the Missouri supreme court, the denial of mandamus by the Missouri court of appeals.

The next step is to file a suit in Federal Court to overthrow these 'election laws' forbidding my candidacy to run for sheriff and to hold a special election.

.

.

Back to Lindstedt for Newton County Sheriff or
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line