News Release: Studious, Principled Candidate sent to "Principles Office"  -- City of Minneapolis rejects filing of Republican activist for Mayor of Minneapolis -- City claims candidate is not permitted to use the word "Republican" to describe "political principle" -- Candidate re-files with stated political principle: "Moderate Progressive Censored"  -- second lawsuit planned -- Political Contribution Refund lawsuit advances

 

Contact: Bob Carney Jr. -- (612)-803-9084 -- bob@republicancontract.com

 

Media availability; Thursday, July 23, 2009 Capitol press room, 10:00 to 10:30 AM

 

For immediate release                                                                              

 

-------------------

 

Minneapolis, MN, July 23, 2009 -- Republican activist Bob Carney Jr., editor, publisher and owner of www.republicancontract.com, political entrepreneur, and "Moderate Progressive Republican" candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis, re-filed as a candidate July 21st.  Carney's affidavit of candidacy was filed under protest, with the stated principle "Moderate Progressive Censored", (capitalization is as rendered by the City of Minneapolis.) 

 

Last week, Carney received a letter from Mr. Patrick O'Connor, Elections Director for the City of Minneapolis, informing him his first affidavit of candidacy had been rejected. Regarding Carney's stated political principle: "Moderate Progressive Republican", Mr. O'Connor wrote: "The Minneapolis City Charter clearly states that the candidate must state either political party or principle, but not both."

 

Mr. O'Connor cited the Minneapolis Charter, Chapter 2 section 5A, which provides: "...all such candidates shall, however, state the name of their political party or political principle, stated in three words or less,..."

 

Mr. O'Connor also cited Minnesota Statute 202A.11 subd. 2, which states:

"A major political party which has adopted a party name is entitled to the exclusive use of that name for the designation of its candidates on all ballots, and no candidate of any other political party is entitled to have printed on a ballot as a party designation any part of that name."

"The Statute says: '...the exclusive use of that name...' not '...the exclusive use of part of that name...'  As we shall see, this is an important distinction," Carney said.

 

According to the Republican Party of Minnesota Constitution, (Article I, Section I): "The name of this organization shall be Republican Party of Minnesota." According to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, (Article I, Section I): "The name of this organization is the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota."  Other official names of Minnesota political parties include: the "Green Party of Minnesota" and the "Libertarian Party of Minnesota." (Note: the word "the" might be construed to be part of the name of all of these parties except "Republican Party of Minnesota.")

 

"I can't help but notice that both major parties have the phrase 'Party of Minnesota' in their name.  It seems clear from the Statute then, that no candidate of either party may properly state their party's name on an election ballot, since to do so they must include the phrase 'Party of Minnesota', and this would infringe on the exclusive right of the other party to the use of three words," Carney stated.  "Of course, if the use of some but not all of the name of a major party is in the context of a stated political principle, rather than a stated political party, the Statute does not apply," Carney observed.

 

"I do not see how Mr. O'Connor has reached the conclusion that a political principle cannot contain a word used as part of the name of a political party," Carney said.  "'Moderate Progressive Republican' is my political principle in three words or less.  If the City of Minneapolis is going to provide for stating a political principle on the ballot, excluding words like: 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'Labor', and so forth is like announcing you are sponsoring a scrabble tournament and then -- when everyone is ready start -- announcing: 'oh, by the way, no vowels may be used,'" Carney argued.  "I claim a right to the use of all English words," Carney asserted, leaving aside for the moment Spanish and Latin.

 

Regarding Statute 202A.11 provision for the exclusive use of a party name, Carney asserted: "I am not using the party name as adopted by the State Constitution -- among other reasons (one noted above), it is four words, and as I read the Minneapolis Charter, I am restricted to a maximum of three words." Carney said:  "I don't object to giving a political party the right to the exclusive use of their name, if it is made clear either that we are speaking of a political party, or that the entire name is used.  I think a ballot with renderings like: 'Political Party: DFL,' or 'Republican Party of Minnesota' would be a reasonable way to protect the exclusive use of a party's name, if Statute 202A.11 were revised to obviate the problems associated with the words 'Party', 'of' and 'Minnesota.'   However, what's being claimed here by the City of Minneapolis goes far beyond that -- to a generic claim to the english words themselves."

 

Carney argued further that Statute 202A.11 does not restrict him from the use of the word 'Republican' as part of his political principle. The Statute restrictions are with reference to political party designation -- as noted, Carney's ballot phrase is a political principle, not a party designation per se. Even if Carney's original filing were held to be both a political principle, and to contain an element of a name of a major political party, while the Statute restricts only a '...candidate of any other political party,...' Carney is a duly elected Republican precinct delegate, and therefore the particular restriction does not apply to him even if it were held to be in part a reference to a party. 

 

 

Lawsuit Planned (the second lawsuit)

 

"Under the circumstances, I felt I had no choice but to file yesterday as "Moderate Progressive Censored," to ensure a place on the ballot this fall," Carney said.  Carney and O'Connor had reached an understanding last week that from the City's point of view such a filing would be permissible as a statement of political principle.   "However, I noted on the second affidavit that it was filed under protest, and I delivered a letter to O'Connor elaborating my protest the day I filed the second affidavit," Carney said.  "Mr. O'Connor and I are friendly and cooperative in our communications, and neither of us is taking this personally, but nonetheless I plan to initiate a lawsuit asking the court to order that my political principle be printed on this fall's ballot as I originally stated it: 'Moderate Progressive Republican.'  I believe the right I am claiming is central to what free speech is all about," Carney concluded.

 

"I would like to note one thing further.  With respect to the problems with Statute, 202A.11, if we accept that a political principle can contain a word or words used in the name of a political party, all of the serious difficulties that arise from applying the Statute to Minneapolis City ballot filings are overcome: any ballot statement can be understood to be a statement of a political principle.  This construction gets the City out of the business of editing and censoring -- and to me that's a good thing.  I see this as further evidence that the phrase 'Moderate Progressive Republican' can and should properly be understood as a valid statement of a political principle," Carney concluded.

 

 

Update on the Political Contribution Lawsuit (the first lawsuit)

 

Carney contributed $50 to the 5th District Green Party, and will present his receipt and form at the Minnesota Department of Revenue Thursday, July 23rd.  One required form, titled "Political Contribution Refund Application 2009", includes new language stating: "Complete this form to claim a refund of contributions made between January 1 through June 30, 2009, to Minnesota political parties and candidates for Minnesota state offices."  "There is no basis in Minnesota law for the date restriction on the contribution," Carney said.  "The Revenue Commissioner is going beyond acting in a functionary capacity, and is attempting to effect policy changes in the tax law -- something that can only be legally done by the Legislature," Carney argued.  Carney anticipates the forms might be taken without comment, or that he might be advised the must be refused, or that he might be advised the refund will not be paid.  A summons and complaint has been prepared by the law firm that will represent Carney, and is ready to file.  Carney will provide copies of his contribution and refund filing documents to the law firm today.  Carney plans to proceed from the Minnesota Department of Revenue building to the Capitol press room for a media availability from 10:00 to 10:30 AM.  "I concluded with regret that attempting to make a contribution to a Republican's campaign, or to some entity within the Republican Party of Minnesota, might get people in trouble for accepting it and providing the receipt," Carney noted.  "When I look at the retaliation that was visited on those who voted to override Governor Pawlenty's transportation bill in 2008, possible retaliation for 'troublemaking' must be seen as a reality," Carney said.

 

Historical Recap (re-run from an earlier news release) -- Minnesota's history regarding the relationship between these two dangerous, volatile, conspiring words ("Progressive" and "Republican") goes back at least to what appears to be an underlying cause of the origin of Minnesota's non-partisan Legislature, as analyzed by Charles Adrian in an article in Minnesota History 33 (Winter, 1952).  Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive party -- often called the 'Bull Moose party' -- was active at the time, and many Minnesota legislators of that time apparently didn't want to have to choose between the word 'Republican' and the word 'Progressive' as a party identifier for themselves on the next election ballot.  The non-partisan ballot for legislators, introduced in 1913, made the choice unnecessary.  "I believe my solution is better, but it's interesting to note that for various 'establishments', ('vast [insert direction] wing conspiracies?'), allowing these two words ('Republican' and 'Progressive') to associate with one another seems to be almost an existential threat," Carney concluded.

<end>