News Release: "Moderate Progressive Republican" candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis serves complaint on City of Minneapolis in Ballot dispute

 

Candidate was threatened with denial of ballot access unless a second affidavit was filed

 

Candidate's "political principle" is currently stated as "Moderate Progressive Censored"

 

Second lawsuit challenging unallotment of Minnesota's Political Contribution Refund program also advances

 

Ballot dispute complaint is online at www.republicancontract.com

 

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

Note: City of Minneapolis Elections Director Patrick O'Connor may be reached at: 612-673-2073

 

For immediate release                                                                              

 

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

 

Minneapolis, MN, September 1, 2009 -- On Friday, August 28th, Minneapolis Mayoral candidate Bob Carney Jr., served a summons and complaint on the City of Minneapolis, challenging the City's rejection of his first affidavit of candidacy for Mayor, which stated "Moderate Progressive Republican" as Carney's political principle.  In a July 16, 2009 letter to Carney, Minneapolis Elections Director Patrick O'Connor wrote: "The Minneapolis City Charter clearly states that the candidate must state either political party or principle, but not both."

 

Under protest, Carney filed a second affidavit, stating his political principle as "Moderate Progressive Censored." 

 

"The City of Minneapolis threatened me with the prospect of not being on the ballot at all unless I filed a second affidavit," Carney said.  "The City agreed to accept the substitution of the word 'Censored' for the word 'Republican' on the second affidavit", Carney added.  In his lawsuit, Carney is seeking to require the city to restore his political principle to his original filing: "Moderate Progressive Republican".

 

Carney's complaint is available as a download at www.republicancontract.com

 

"The position of the City of Minneapolis on this is clearly wrong," Carney said.  Carney's position is detailed in the complaint, from which this paragraph is quoted:

In Quealy v. Warweg (1908) Mr. Louis Warweg  had sought by nominating petition to be placed on the ballot as (quoting the Court's opinion): “... a nominee of the Independent party...” The Minnesota Supreme Court first addressed “...the propriety of any attempted statement of a party or political principle...” as follows: “The question is a new one in this state. The statute must be liberally construed so as to effectuate legislative intention and to fully secure to the people their right to express their choice. A technical construction of the language used would be objectionable on general principles, and tend to subvert the purposes sought to be attained... All that the statute requires in this regard is a declaration of political principle. Independence in politics is a familiar and recognized principle. Accordingly, when the present candidate used the term 'Independent party,' he was within the spirit of the law. It is not material whether that designation be regarded as describing the 'party,' or whether the word 'party' be regarded as merely surplusage. An appropriate emblem was used.” Notice: while it appears that Mr. Warweg's filing included a statement of a political party, the Court regarded the words of the filing as an appropriate statement of a political principle. Applying the Court's opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court appears to dismiss, as “not material”, Defendant's claim as asserted in Defendant's July 16^th letter: “The Minneapolis City Charter clearly states that the candidate must state either political party or principle, but not both.”

Carney's position is that the City Election Director is without authority or basis to do anything other than copy a candidate's stated political principle onto the ballot.  "There is provision for state law for anyone to challenge what is placed on the ballot, as an error, or a wrongful act," Carney said.  "However, outside the context of the so-called 'party name protection act,' there is no basis for an election official of the City of Minneapolis to engage in what amounts to censorship, or prior restraint, " Carney added.

Carney's complaint cites another Minnesota Supreme Court case (Clifford v. Hoppe, 1984), stating: "As the [Minnesota] secretary of state contends, the Minnesota election laws,... do not authorize or require the secretary of state to police the form of names to appear on election ballots."

Carney also claims his right to state his political principle according to the City Charter is protected by core first amendment rights to freedom of speech, and that the City's action in rejecting his first affidavit also amounts to prior restraint.  "The line of U.S. Supreme Court opinions for both of these rights clearly establishes the City as acting in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," Carney said.

 

Appeal for contributions and legal help

 

"I am prepared to advance the limited costs of this lawsuit, but I am appealing for political contributions to my campaign, which I will accept as earmarked to pay the direct filing cost of $320," Carney said.  I think there may be many people who might not support me for Mayor, but who also feel I should not have to pay the direct cost of bring this legal action," Carney added.  "In addition, if there are any first amendment lawyers out there who are willing and able to help me pro bono on this case, any and all assistance is welcome.  I will call the ACLU today," Carney said  Carney, who is not an attorney, has spent over 60 hours researching and working on the case so far. 

 

Update on Carney's "Minnesota Political Contribution Refund" lawsuit

 

Carney is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit brought against the State of Minnesota, challenging the attempt of the Pawlenty administration to, in effect, eliminate the Minnesota Political Contribution Refund program by using unallotment powers.  This case has been filed, and a hearing is set for October 13th.  An additional news release on this lawsuit will be sent shortly.

 

<end>