This is not the document you are looking for? Use the search form below to find more!
Brief before the 7th Circuit
0.00 (0 votes)
Document Description
The Legacy of the Mission: “To Right Wrong. To do Justice”
President's Johnson's “We Shall Overcome Speech” before the Special Session of the Congress and the assembled Supreme Court of the United States was a day of transformation of voting as a legislative grace to that of a verification of voting as a right of the People
That moment in time marked a pinnacle in the freedoms of Americans and mankind. The President provided executive authority to the long standing state statutes and practices which prevented racial minorities from the representation in the American government in the speech,
and introduced legislation that would “strike down all restrictions in Federal, State and local elections”
That hour in time marked that opportunity would be extended to all segments of the American society.
And in those hours there was built the foundation of the Constitutional promise: that equal was equal upon each and all citizens, whether it was in California, or Maine ot Texas or Illinois or any of the other states and territories of the United States.
Unfortunately, several confederate statutes lay hidden in suspension behind the statutes,words and practices of state laws while the debate upon the precision of the bill and of federal authority continued.
When the bill finally did pass, court challenges arose and persisted the term of President Johnson. It was a sad day that passed when the executive authority and strength behind the words of legislation transferred to the hands of others as several of the devises persisted.
One which came back to regular ( pre-1965 ) practice is in Illinois' election code, now found at
Illinois 5-10. It used to be Chapter 46 of the Illinois statutes, and it is a bit ironic that more time was spent toward revising the organization of the statutes than the internals of the statutes. Originally enacted in 1871, state code provides for a “citizen challenge” for statutory provisions including repeated certifications, punctuations, legibility, confusion, along with proper candidate statements and
qualified voters being submitted to election authority for (equal) placement upon ballots. It was enacted to evade the state's prohibition of Amendment XV and the first civil rights bill. It did so by allowing a private citizen challenge a candidacy for 'qualified voters' and sufficiency. These challenges were most visible carried out along racial lines, but were as much used by an incumbency to eliminate opposition before an election. (This practice of contouring the ballot and gaining election without or by nominal opposition is a practice that extends beyond the party lines of the established political parties though it is not a practice adopted by all established candidates. It has however taken new forms where established political organizations hire infiltrators to manufacture signatures for the opposition, thus providing for the disqualification of the opposition based upon sustainable challenge: “the signature submitted is fraudulent”.)
I must admit that upon the events in the election to the United States Senate from Illinois in the 2010 elections, I filed a suit based upon the simplicity of the ideal: That voting is a liberty right of candidacy, extended to individuals, upon equal qualifications which are natural and non-discriminatory. Voting is not apportioned to the political parties or a reserved right of the States, but to be preserved for
for all Americans.
My suit wasn't upon race or upon President's emphasis of the racial polarities or upon the barriers to registration, but upon the events in the processes leading to the election of the Federal office and its effect upon the liberty right I hold in deciding as to whether or not to seek public office. Clearly the statutes include a tiered method of nomination, whereby “ established parties” submit 5,000 but no more than 10,000 (party) signatures”and independent and “new party” candidates are required to submit 25, 000 qualified signatures. This is not quite the principle of one person one vote, at least statistically. But as it seemingly reasonable to maintain the state's rights of administering elections,it has been the accepted practice .1
But it is an invidious process. Not much different than that lower fruit of registration delays and frustrations the President spoke of in the parallel of registration: “The day is long. The hour is late. The official in charge is absent.”
After a tedious and illusionary process of litigation before the state courts, the matter is dismissed as
moot: “the statute is the intent of the Legislature” “the day has passed for the issue to be justiciable”
“try again next time”.
Providing authority to a state enactment absent the constitutional moorings, and upon the existence of the statute is part of the mechanism of detachment. It defies and evades review. “Every devise of which human ingenuity is capable,has been used to deny this right.”In the cases of 2010, several of the candidates submitted more than 25,000 signatures, yet the process of attrition by the citizen challenges “reduced that number” which was then reported to the Board as “insufficient to statutory requirement”. The candidates were each issued a letter stating that their submission was insufficient to statutory requirement . It was rubber stamped by the Chairman of the Board of Elections, and removed from equal placement on the ballots. In all, over 250,000 signatures amongst the several independent candidates were nullified by a rule of invalidation of the 25,000 plus submitted signatures.
The concept of “citizen challenges” has lead developed a character of sanctioned abuse .Parties and candidates hire complaintants and their attorneys with the express purpose of challenging opponents. There are several instances in which “the opponents signatures are manufactured for the express purpose of providing evidences for the removal of the opponents”. “No law we now have on the books,
and I have put three of them there, can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it”. Of the challenged candidates for 2010 in the United States Senate, none survived the process to see their names equally on the ballots. Four were from distinct racial minorities, and the remainder were “fringe candidates”.
Taking the process to the Federal court, there are the several burdens. Not the last of which are defining the constitutional imbalance and processing the complaint at the state level. The sufficiency
that the process resulted in the removal of several (all objected upon) independent candidates is not enough. Hard to believe that such happens forty years after the President declared “ Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote”
It may well be best to lay aside the processes of contouring the elections and await another President
that would renew vision that President Johnson invoked “And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For, with a country as with a person, "what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
File Details- Added: June, 01st 2011
- Reads: 267
- Downloads: 0
- File size: 531.62kb
- Pages: 57
- content preview
- Username: eliot
- Name: eliot
- Documents: 2
Embed Code:
Related Documents
Always Darkest Before the Dawn
by: alecx5, 88 pagesJared and Jensen have not seen one another since high school. A chance meeting in a bar one night leads to so much more than what either could have hoped for. What do you do when you know you are ...
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT :
by: niklas, 59 pagesSince 1977, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided many cases involving the Second Amendment. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller ,1 it appears ...
Analysis of the anatomy of the Papez circuit and adjoining limbic system by fiber dissection techniques
by: neurocienciasnews, 10 pagesAnalysis of the anatomy of the Papez circuit and adjoining limbic system by fiber dissection techniques
Analysis of the anatomy of the Papez circuit and adjoining limbic system by fiber dissection techniques
by: neurociencianews, 10 pagesAnalysis of the anatomy of the Papez circuit and adjoining limbic system by fiber dissection techniques
As Brazil team sponsor NIKE, of course, will not miss this "Rob" good opportunity before the World Cup
by: polandletter82, 1 pagesAs Brazil team sponsor NIKE, of course, will not miss this "Rob" good opportunity before the World C...
Brief of the Appellant 7th Circuit No.11-1637
by: eliot, 95 pagesThis is a lengthy description of the events of the election processes. They are addressed as
Illinois 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Slowly Defining What Constitutes Retaliation in the Workplace
by: lawfirmnewswire, 1 pagesChicago, IL (Law Firm Newswire) November 6, 2012 Retaliation in the workplace is an issue that often generates acrimonious debate.
Everyone is equal before the Greatest Creator-Confessions of Lifechanyuan
by: baican, 10 pagesThe physical energy or Tao of the Greatest Creator treats everything of the universe equally with no preference on any population or individual. Everything depends on the operation of Tao, such as ...
Learn How To Earn The Actual Lottery Before The Subsequent Draw !
by: simonreek76, 1 pageschoose their particular numbers based away from birthday celebrations , holiday seasons , wedding
STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL COST OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
by: shinta, 70 pagesPursuant to the terms of our engagement, Wise, Blackmanhas prepared a report on the historicalcosts incurred by the Competition Bureau (“Bureau”) in investigating and prosecuting cases ...
Content Preview
United States Court of Appeals
for the
Seventh Circuit
In the appeal of
Eliot Paul Gould )
Plaintiff-Appellant )
) No. 11-1637
v. )
)
Byron A. Schneider, in his capacity as )
Chairman, Illinois State Board of Elections, )
)
Interested Party, Honorable Thomas A. Kilbride, )
Chief Justice,State Supreme Court of Illinois )
)
Interested Party, Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor )
General State of the Attorney General )
Defendants/Appellees
Originating in Central District of Illinois
District Court No.3-10-cv-3265
Brief of the Appellant
Eliot P. Gould
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
PO Box 8987
Springfield, IL 62791-8987
(217) 953-0646
info@eliotgould.com
Request for Oral Hearing is hereby Reserved
. Rule 26 Statement/ Statement of Good Faith
The Petitioner/Appellant is a private citizen and taxpayer who has been assured by the Constitution of
the United States of free and equal process and protection should he decide to seek Federal office.
As set forth in the Complaint, he holds the nomination processes of the Illinois ('state enactments")
state statutes as "confederate as an oath by Jim Crow". The right to vote is either a liberty right or it
is a legislative grace , but it cannot be both.
The Petitioner/Appellant does not provide any representation on behalf of any other person or
entity;but maintains the access of the right to vote as fully enjoyed as a candidate for the Federal
offices extends upon other citizens and taxpayers of the state.
President Johnson provided "Every devise of which human ingenuity is capable,has been used to
deny this right." Illinois' 5/10-8 has several features which have been declared constitutionally
suspect, some of which have been presented in the complaint and some of which remained reserved as
presentable before the District Court-- and all of which are a complex web of designed legislation to
exclude and discriminate in the access to the public offices.
The degree of ingenuity of the devise is well reflected in that almost 50 years after the
establishment of the principle 'one person one vote' with its twin pillars of equality and inclusion, this
body of state practice still evades review.
The objective of the filing was upon the constitutionality of that body of law. The objective was
heightened as the Northern District provided a 'precedence by example' in the matter of Judge/Quinn
establishing the 2010 Special Election .
Without judicial scrutiny, the procedures would, no doubt, be used in future elections. If so, there
is a great likelihood that the state enactments and practices would provide limitations liberty right of a
citizen to seek election to a federal office.
The Petitioner/Appellant holds no prejudice or reservation in pursuing that mission that the
statutes are contrary to the modern body of election law (post-Harper) but is unequivocal that the body
requires judicial scrutiny. "Equality is a measurement in which all things being equal, (all) ( no) names
would appear on the printed ballots."
As such this appeal is taken in good faith and without intend to delay any cause of justice.
______________________________________
Appellant/Petitioner
Gould v. Schneider, et. al.
No. 11-1637
Table of Contents
1. Rule 26 Statement/ Statement of Good Faith...................................... 2
2. Table of Contents................................................................................ 3
3. Citations and Authorities..................................................................... 4
4. Jurisdictional Statement....................................................................... 7
5. Constitutional Provision...................................................................... 8
6. Standard of Review...............................................................................9
7. Concise Statement of Argument..........................................................10
8. Argument of the Appellant
A. Background................................................................. 11
B. About Nader v. Keith ...................................................13
C. VRA 2(a) Results Test..................................................16
D. Strict Reading Test.......................................................19
E. Totality of Circumstances/ Results Test............... .......21
F. Rational Basis Test...................................................... 27
G. Projection Test..............................................................32
H. Measurement on the Congressional Districts...............34
I. "Dirty Board Game"..................................................... 38
J. Extraordinary Circumstances of Judge v. Quinn........49
9. Conclusion: Judicial Scrutiny need be.................................................52
10. Relief Requested..................................................................................56
Table of Citations and Reference
United States Constitution and Amendments:
Article I, USCA Elections for Congress' House of Representatives
Article VI Supremacy Clause
Amendment I Liberty Rights of the People
Amendment X Reserved Rights of the States
Amendment XIV Sec. 1 Equal protection and Due process
Sec 2 Apportionment requirement
Sec. 3 Excluded Individuals
Amendment XV Prohibition of Governments to prevent
vote on account of race, color or previous servitude
Amendment XVII Direct Election of US Senators
Amendment XXIV Poll Tax Prohibition in the Federal Elections
Congressional Legislation :
Help America Vote Act, 2002
Voter Rights Act, 1965 Guarantee to Provide Comprehensive Solution
Sec. 2(a) prohibits practices that result in denial or
Abridgement of any citizen on account of race
Sec 2(b) provides for a "totality of circumstances"
upon processes not equally open
1982 Amendment Sec. 1973aa: "Test or Device" defined
Sec. 1973 (h) Congressional declaration against
enforced payment of poll taxes
U.S. Cases:
Anderson v. Celebreeze 460 U.S. 780 (1983)
Bartlett v. Strickland 506 U.S. ______ (2009)
Board of Regents v. Roth 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972)
Breedlove v. Suttles 302 U.S. 277 (1937)
Bowe v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Chicago, 614 F.2d 1147, 1149 n. 2 (7th Cir.1980)
Burdick v. Takushi 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059
Burris v. Judge , No. 10-367
Citizen's Committee v. O'Malley , 48 F 3rd 1221) (7th Cir. 1995)
Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections, U.S. Supreme Ct, ___ 2008
East Jefferson Coalition for Leadership & Development v. Jefferson Parrish
691 F.Supp.991 (5th Circuit)
Freeman v. Pitts 503 U,S. 467 (1992)
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965)
Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
Harper v. Young U.S. Tenth Circuit (1995)
Holder v. Hall 512 874,891 (1994)
Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Worker's Party 440 U.S. 173 (1979)
Jenness v. Forston 403 U.S. 431, 432 (1971)
Judge v. Quinn, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 09-C-1231
Judge v. Quinn, U.S. Seventh Circuit, No. 10-2836
Lee v. Keith, 463 F3d 763 (7th Cir. 2006)
McLaughlin v. Florida 379 U.S.
Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162
Moore v. Oglevie 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969)
Nader v. Keith 385 F.3d 7219, 733 (7th Cir. 2004)
New York v. United States, et.al. 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Nixon v. Shrink Mo Gov't PAC 528 U.S. 377
Norman v. Reed 502 U.S. 279, 288-289 (1992)
Raich v. Gonzales 545 U.S. --- - 03-1454 (2005)
Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 (1962)
Slaughtehouse 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Snowden v. Hughes, U.S. Ill.1944, 64 S.Ct. 397, 321 U.S.1, 88 Law Ed 497, rehearing
denied 64 U.S. 778, 321 U.S. 804, 88 Law Ed. 1090
Smith v. Alright 321 U.S. 349 (1944)
Snyder v. Massachusetts 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)
Stevenson v. State Board of Elections 794 F2d 1176 (7th Cir. 1986)
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 479 U.S. 208, 107 S. Ct. 544
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
Wilkerson v. Austin 545 U.S.209, 221 (2005) (10th Circuit)
Williams v. Rhodes 395 U.S. 28 (1968)
Illinois Statutes:
Election Code of Illinois 10 ILCS Act 5
Article 1 General Provisions
Article 2 Time of Holding Elections
Article 8 Nominations
Article 20 Voting by Absent Electors in
Military or Naval Service
5/16-5.01 Federal Safeguard Provision
Additional Readings:
Briffault, Richard, "Bush-Gore as an Equal protection case".Florida State Law Review,
Vol 29:325 (2001)
Johnson, Lyndon Baines. Statement of the President Announcing the Adoption of the
Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Public Papers of the President,
Book 1, 1963-64. U.S. Printing Office, 1965..
Johnson, Lyndon Baines. Address to a Joint Session of the Congress on Voting Legislation.
March 15, 1965.
Madison, James. Introductory Remarks on the Bill of Rights--"The civil rights of none shall be
denied". Congressional Annals, June 18,1789.
Malpas, J. "Donald Davidson", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition),
"claims, privileges,powers and immunities'. Edward N. Zalta, ed.
URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/davidson'>
Mount,S. ed. Constitutional Dictionary . www.USConstitution.net
New Webster's Thesaurus, Vest pocket edition. Lexico Publications, Inc. (1981)
Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. G & C. Merriam Company, 1981.
Yablon, Robert. "Validation Procedures and the burdens of ballot access regulation". Yale Law
Journal, May 1, 2006.
Jurisdictional Statement
Pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appeal of the Judgment of the
United States District Court for the Central District issued on March 2, 2011 was docketed as a matter
of right. .
The controversies brought before the Central District were upon constitutional question(s of the state
enactments in the nomination and election processes for the United States Senate in the the State of
Illinois in 2010. The office of the United States Senator is derived from the Constitution and the events
of the election of the United States Senator from the State of Illinois were not disputed as facts. A prior
state court action had been undertaken ( and was exhausted and fruitless) upon the questions brought as
the processes leading to the nomination and election " are"as confederate as an oath by Jim Crow1 ".
The District Court action was then undertaken pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming the violations
of the Voter Rights Acts, as amended , and codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973.The relief requested was for
injunctive relief from including "no test or devise" as defined under the Federal statutes.
A 28 U.S.C. 2403 statement was attached with the original filing (see also Rule 44 F.R.A.P.)
The Brief is presented pursuant to Rule 28, F.R.A.P. and upon an order of the Seventh Circuit with
to leave for said Brief containing up to 60 pages. Argument within the Brief does not attempt to litigate
the questions of the Complaint, but to provide "that scrutiny is necessary" and absent judicial scrutiny
as a result of the District Court's dismissal,there is a great likelihood of repetition.
Additionally, at all times , Petitioner was a citizen of the United States in excess of nine years, an
inhabitant of the State of Illinois , and over 35 years of age and not disabled to hold a Federal office.
1 The term "Jim Crow"refers to a body of enactments passed in states and localities between 1875 and 1965 which were
de jure segregation. The use of the term in the context of the Complaint was upon the feature of Illinois election law that
provides "separate but equal" access to the ballot access between "established parties",and "new parties and independent
candidates" with an invidious nature of interlocking practices and enactments. While the term became synonymous with
racial segregation and disenfranchisement, almost all states in the period between 1871 and 1889 passed statutes restricting
suffrage. The effect of the election laws as discriminatory were not limited upon race or color. The effect was as much
economic and political.
Standard for Review
A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be
invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.1
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of
government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or
policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote.
The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they
are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government
policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a
plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an arbitrary or irrational decision.
Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the
right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by
strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as
suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.
Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is
unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional.
To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a
compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is
narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
1 Constitutional Dictionary. Mount, S. ed
Concise Statement of Argument
Petitioner/Appellant brings Appeal of the Judgment of the United States District Court for the
Central District issued on March 2, 2011.
State Court processes to resolve were "exhausted" upon the Constitutional questions were sought
prior to District Court action so to not "scurry to the Federal Court". The Complaint was for declaratory
judgment upon the events and controversies evolving through the processes of the Federal election for
the United States Senate from the State of Illinois in 2010 . The Complaint maintained the processes
leading to the " nomination and election " are "as confederate as an oath by Jim Crow", prohibited by
the Amendments I, XIV, XVII, and XXIV of the Constitution, and by the permanent section of the
Voter Rights Act, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 1973). Illinois statutes ( 5/10-8) were in part held to be
reasonable as :
"The Seventh Circuit determined in 2004 that the 25,000 was such a small fraction of the estimated
7.000, 000 registered voters at that time and was constitutional as a reasonable requirement for
access to the ballot. Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 7219, 733 (7th Cir. 2004).
" Section 5/10-8 imposes no greater burdens on the candidates than those imposed by 5/10-3.
Section 5/10-8 only allows to challenge whether candidates have filed the requisite number of valid
signatures on valid petitions. .The state is entitled to verify the legitimacy of the petitions and the
signatures; thus a candidate should always be ready to defend his petitions. A citizen challenge only
puts the matter at issue. The only burden on the candidate is the obligation to participate in an administrative
process to determine whether the candidate has followed the law. The citizen challenge therefore does not
unconstitutionally interfere with either the right to vote or the Seventeenth Amendment's requirement of the
direct election of Senators.
Section 5/10-8 further does not violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Twenty-fourth
Amendment prohibits the imposition of a poll tax. Section 5/10-8 does not impose a tax of any kind
on either voters or anyone else. Gould' s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Gould' s
constitutional challenge should be dismissed.
The District Court need be reversed. If there is any state enactment that interferences with access to
ballot opportunity, this "Thing2 is it. It is but a complex web of statutes,practices and procedures that
foreclose the opportunity by the will of another and for which 25,000 is a definable number. Absent
judicial scrutiny the scheme is likely to repeat.
2The term "confederate" derives from the Article I, 10 (Restrictions on the Powers of the States) in the Constitution of
the United States. It was used as the name of the government the States in rebellion during the American Civil War upon
their enactment of a constitution of the "Confederate States of America" which perpetuated sovereign rights, slavery
and American aristocracy based upon lands and titles. The term "Jim Crow' came to be known as the term to those states
enactments that were enacted between 1876 and 1965 which applied in the 'separate but equal terms " to comply with
the restriction under Article I, Thirteenth , Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The prohibition upon the States of
Amendment XXIV was to eliminate the various devises ( poll and other taxes) in the Federal elections.
2 The term "Thing" derives from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. (Article VI, USCA)
for the
Seventh Circuit
In the appeal of
Eliot Paul Gould )
Plaintiff-Appellant )
) No. 11-1637
v. )
)
Byron A. Schneider, in his capacity as )
Chairman, Illinois State Board of Elections, )
)
Interested Party, Honorable Thomas A. Kilbride, )
Chief Justice,State Supreme Court of Illinois )
)
Interested Party, Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor )
General State of the Attorney General )
Defendants/Appellees
Originating in Central District of Illinois
District Court No.3-10-cv-3265
Brief of the Appellant
Eliot P. Gould
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
PO Box 8987
Springfield, IL 62791-8987
(217) 953-0646
info@eliotgould.com
Request for Oral Hearing is hereby Reserved
. Rule 26 Statement/ Statement of Good Faith
The Petitioner/Appellant is a private citizen and taxpayer who has been assured by the Constitution of
the United States of free and equal process and protection should he decide to seek Federal office.
As set forth in the Complaint, he holds the nomination processes of the Illinois ('state enactments")
state statutes as "confederate as an oath by Jim Crow". The right to vote is either a liberty right or it
is a legislative grace , but it cannot be both.
The Petitioner/Appellant does not provide any representation on behalf of any other person or
entity;but maintains the access of the right to vote as fully enjoyed as a candidate for the Federal
offices extends upon other citizens and taxpayers of the state.
President Johnson provided "Every devise of which human ingenuity is capable,has been used to
deny this right." Illinois' 5/10-8 has several features which have been declared constitutionally
suspect, some of which have been presented in the complaint and some of which remained reserved as
presentable before the District Court-- and all of which are a complex web of designed legislation to
exclude and discriminate in the access to the public offices.
The degree of ingenuity of the devise is well reflected in that almost 50 years after the
establishment of the principle 'one person one vote' with its twin pillars of equality and inclusion, this
body of state practice still evades review.
The objective of the filing was upon the constitutionality of that body of law. The objective was
heightened as the Northern District provided a 'precedence by example' in the matter of Judge/Quinn
establishing the 2010 Special Election .
Without judicial scrutiny, the procedures would, no doubt, be used in future elections. If so, there
is a great likelihood that the state enactments and practices would provide limitations liberty right of a
citizen to seek election to a federal office.
The Petitioner/Appellant holds no prejudice or reservation in pursuing that mission that the
statutes are contrary to the modern body of election law (post-Harper) but is unequivocal that the body
requires judicial scrutiny. "Equality is a measurement in which all things being equal, (all) ( no) names
would appear on the printed ballots."
As such this appeal is taken in good faith and without intend to delay any cause of justice.
______________________________________
Appellant/Petitioner
Gould v. Schneider, et. al.
No. 11-1637
Table of Contents
1. Rule 26 Statement/ Statement of Good Faith...................................... 2
2. Table of Contents................................................................................ 3
3. Citations and Authorities..................................................................... 4
4. Jurisdictional Statement....................................................................... 7
5. Constitutional Provision...................................................................... 8
6. Standard of Review...............................................................................9
7. Concise Statement of Argument..........................................................10
8. Argument of the Appellant
A. Background................................................................. 11
B. About Nader v. Keith ...................................................13
C. VRA 2(a) Results Test..................................................16
D. Strict Reading Test.......................................................19
E. Totality of Circumstances/ Results Test............... .......21
F. Rational Basis Test...................................................... 27
G. Projection Test..............................................................32
H. Measurement on the Congressional Districts...............34
I. "Dirty Board Game"..................................................... 38
J. Extraordinary Circumstances of Judge v. Quinn........49
9. Conclusion: Judicial Scrutiny need be.................................................52
10. Relief Requested..................................................................................56
Table of Citations and Reference
United States Constitution and Amendments:
Article I, USCA Elections for Congress' House of Representatives
Article VI Supremacy Clause
Amendment I Liberty Rights of the People
Amendment X Reserved Rights of the States
Amendment XIV Sec. 1 Equal protection and Due process
Sec 2 Apportionment requirement
Sec. 3 Excluded Individuals
Amendment XV Prohibition of Governments to prevent
vote on account of race, color or previous servitude
Amendment XVII Direct Election of US Senators
Amendment XXIV Poll Tax Prohibition in the Federal Elections
Congressional Legislation :
Help America Vote Act, 2002
Voter Rights Act, 1965 Guarantee to Provide Comprehensive Solution
Sec. 2(a) prohibits practices that result in denial or
Abridgement of any citizen on account of race
Sec 2(b) provides for a "totality of circumstances"
upon processes not equally open
1982 Amendment Sec. 1973aa: "Test or Device" defined
Sec. 1973 (h) Congressional declaration against
enforced payment of poll taxes
U.S. Cases:
Anderson v. Celebreeze 460 U.S. 780 (1983)
Bartlett v. Strickland 506 U.S. ______ (2009)
Board of Regents v. Roth 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972)
Breedlove v. Suttles 302 U.S. 277 (1937)
Bowe v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Chicago, 614 F.2d 1147, 1149 n. 2 (7th Cir.1980)
Burdick v. Takushi 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059
Burris v. Judge , No. 10-367
Citizen's Committee v. O'Malley , 48 F 3rd 1221) (7th Cir. 1995)
Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections, U.S. Supreme Ct, ___ 2008
East Jefferson Coalition for Leadership & Development v. Jefferson Parrish
691 F.Supp.991 (5th Circuit)
Freeman v. Pitts 503 U,S. 467 (1992)
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965)
Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
Harper v. Young U.S. Tenth Circuit (1995)
Holder v. Hall 512 874,891 (1994)
Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Worker's Party 440 U.S. 173 (1979)
Jenness v. Forston 403 U.S. 431, 432 (1971)
Judge v. Quinn, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 09-C-1231
Judge v. Quinn, U.S. Seventh Circuit, No. 10-2836
Lee v. Keith, 463 F3d 763 (7th Cir. 2006)
McLaughlin v. Florida 379 U.S.
Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162
Moore v. Oglevie 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969)
Nader v. Keith 385 F.3d 7219, 733 (7th Cir. 2004)
New York v. United States, et.al. 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Nixon v. Shrink Mo Gov't PAC 528 U.S. 377
Norman v. Reed 502 U.S. 279, 288-289 (1992)
Raich v. Gonzales 545 U.S. --- - 03-1454 (2005)
Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533 (1962)
Slaughtehouse 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Snowden v. Hughes, U.S. Ill.1944, 64 S.Ct. 397, 321 U.S.1, 88 Law Ed 497, rehearing
denied 64 U.S. 778, 321 U.S. 804, 88 Law Ed. 1090
Smith v. Alright 321 U.S. 349 (1944)
Snyder v. Massachusetts 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)
Stevenson v. State Board of Elections 794 F2d 1176 (7th Cir. 1986)
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 479 U.S. 208, 107 S. Ct. 544
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
Wilkerson v. Austin 545 U.S.209, 221 (2005) (10th Circuit)
Williams v. Rhodes 395 U.S. 28 (1968)
Illinois Statutes:
Election Code of Illinois 10 ILCS Act 5
Article 1 General Provisions
Article 2 Time of Holding Elections
Article 8 Nominations
Article 20 Voting by Absent Electors in
Military or Naval Service
5/16-5.01 Federal Safeguard Provision
Additional Readings:
Briffault, Richard, "Bush-Gore as an Equal protection case".Florida State Law Review,
Vol 29:325 (2001)
Johnson, Lyndon Baines. Statement of the President Announcing the Adoption of the
Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Public Papers of the President,
Book 1, 1963-64. U.S. Printing Office, 1965..
Johnson, Lyndon Baines. Address to a Joint Session of the Congress on Voting Legislation.
March 15, 1965.
Madison, James. Introductory Remarks on the Bill of Rights--"The civil rights of none shall be
denied". Congressional Annals, June 18,1789.
Malpas, J. "Donald Davidson", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition),
"claims, privileges,powers and immunities'. Edward N. Zalta, ed.
URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/davidson'>
Mount,S. ed. Constitutional Dictionary . www.USConstitution.net
New Webster's Thesaurus, Vest pocket edition. Lexico Publications, Inc. (1981)
Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. G & C. Merriam Company, 1981.
Yablon, Robert. "Validation Procedures and the burdens of ballot access regulation". Yale Law
Journal, May 1, 2006.
Jurisdictional Statement
Pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appeal of the Judgment of the
United States District Court for the Central District issued on March 2, 2011 was docketed as a matter
of right. .
The controversies brought before the Central District were upon constitutional question(s of the state
enactments in the nomination and election processes for the United States Senate in the the State of
Illinois in 2010. The office of the United States Senator is derived from the Constitution and the events
of the election of the United States Senator from the State of Illinois were not disputed as facts. A prior
state court action had been undertaken ( and was exhausted and fruitless) upon the questions brought as
the processes leading to the nomination and election " are"as confederate as an oath by Jim Crow1 ".
The District Court action was then undertaken pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming the violations
of the Voter Rights Acts, as amended , and codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973.The relief requested was for
injunctive relief from including "no test or devise" as defined under the Federal statutes.
A 28 U.S.C. 2403 statement was attached with the original filing (see also Rule 44 F.R.A.P.)
The Brief is presented pursuant to Rule 28, F.R.A.P. and upon an order of the Seventh Circuit with
to leave for said Brief containing up to 60 pages. Argument within the Brief does not attempt to litigate
the questions of the Complaint, but to provide "that scrutiny is necessary" and absent judicial scrutiny
as a result of the District Court's dismissal,there is a great likelihood of repetition.
Additionally, at all times , Petitioner was a citizen of the United States in excess of nine years, an
inhabitant of the State of Illinois , and over 35 years of age and not disabled to hold a Federal office.
1 The term "Jim Crow"refers to a body of enactments passed in states and localities between 1875 and 1965 which were
de jure segregation. The use of the term in the context of the Complaint was upon the feature of Illinois election law that
provides "separate but equal" access to the ballot access between "established parties",and "new parties and independent
candidates" with an invidious nature of interlocking practices and enactments. While the term became synonymous with
racial segregation and disenfranchisement, almost all states in the period between 1871 and 1889 passed statutes restricting
suffrage. The effect of the election laws as discriminatory were not limited upon race or color. The effect was as much
economic and political.
Standard for Review
A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be
invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.1
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of
government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or
policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote.
The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they
are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government
policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a
plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an arbitrary or irrational decision.
Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the
right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by
strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as
suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.
Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is
unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional.
To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a
compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is
narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
1 Constitutional Dictionary. Mount, S. ed
Concise Statement of Argument
Petitioner/Appellant brings Appeal of the Judgment of the United States District Court for the
Central District issued on March 2, 2011.
State Court processes to resolve were "exhausted" upon the Constitutional questions were sought
prior to District Court action so to not "scurry to the Federal Court". The Complaint was for declaratory
judgment upon the events and controversies evolving through the processes of the Federal election for
the United States Senate from the State of Illinois in 2010 . The Complaint maintained the processes
leading to the " nomination and election " are "as confederate as an oath by Jim Crow", prohibited by
the Amendments I, XIV, XVII, and XXIV of the Constitution, and by the permanent section of the
Voter Rights Act, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 1973). Illinois statutes ( 5/10-8) were in part held to be
reasonable as :
"The Seventh Circuit determined in 2004 that the 25,000 was such a small fraction of the estimated
7.000, 000 registered voters at that time and was constitutional as a reasonable requirement for
access to the ballot. Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 7219, 733 (7th Cir. 2004).
" Section 5/10-8 imposes no greater burdens on the candidates than those imposed by 5/10-3.
Section 5/10-8 only allows to challenge whether candidates have filed the requisite number of valid
signatures on valid petitions. .The state is entitled to verify the legitimacy of the petitions and the
signatures; thus a candidate should always be ready to defend his petitions. A citizen challenge only
puts the matter at issue. The only burden on the candidate is the obligation to participate in an administrative
process to determine whether the candidate has followed the law. The citizen challenge therefore does not
unconstitutionally interfere with either the right to vote or the Seventeenth Amendment's requirement of the
direct election of Senators.
Section 5/10-8 further does not violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Twenty-fourth
Amendment prohibits the imposition of a poll tax. Section 5/10-8 does not impose a tax of any kind
on either voters or anyone else. Gould' s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Gould' s
constitutional challenge should be dismissed.
The District Court need be reversed. If there is any state enactment that interferences with access to
ballot opportunity, this "Thing2 is it. It is but a complex web of statutes,practices and procedures that
foreclose the opportunity by the will of another and for which 25,000 is a definable number. Absent
judicial scrutiny the scheme is likely to repeat.
2The term "confederate" derives from the Article I, 10 (Restrictions on the Powers of the States) in the Constitution of
the United States. It was used as the name of the government the States in rebellion during the American Civil War upon
their enactment of a constitution of the "Confederate States of America" which perpetuated sovereign rights, slavery
and American aristocracy based upon lands and titles. The term "Jim Crow' came to be known as the term to those states
enactments that were enacted between 1876 and 1965 which applied in the 'separate but equal terms " to comply with
the restriction under Article I, Thirteenth , Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The prohibition upon the States of
Amendment XXIV was to eliminate the various devises ( poll and other taxes) in the Federal elections.
2 The term "Thing" derives from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. (Article VI, USCA)
Add New Comment