April 2, 2009
Dear Judge Browning and Counsel,
Re: United States District Court for New Mexico Gould et al. v Richardson, et al. No 08 505 JB/DJS
Please find the following as a (ProSe) "Notice of Intent to File and Reservation under Rule 22 of theSupreme Court of the United States. "
While I have yet to receive the Court's Memorandum and Order of Dismissal ( Doc 85),I have received Doc. 86 Dismissing upon Governor Richardson as moot, and an order which bears that the Complaint ( Doc. 1) provides that the claims upon Mr. Campbell 'are substantially the same as that as those upon Governor Richardson and Secretary Herrera.
I again repeat that this is no abstract exercise. Elections as free and proper are the sould of the Constitution: and the provision in fact that the people sre represented. The claim is a "voter Rights question" and the participation as assured as a liberty interest of a citizen of the United States in the equal protection from "specious statutes" "confederate practices" and the foreclosure of opportunity for election and representation to a constitutional office for a "term and salary". These were addressed at the "motions Hearing" and the "Hearing to quash Subpoenas issued" and in the ( Amended) Memorandum
The qualifications for the for the public office of First Judicial District Attorney were met with sufficient signatures and declaration to issue a certificate for ballot placement . The "learned in the law" qualification as is the State's Amendment X right to examine was met upon the answer of to the state district court complaint.
The line of examination was crossed in several degrees as the Complaint presented. The 'alligators" were prohibited persons. Most simply "Campbell" as an Assistant district attorney , while he may seek public office while in duty as a district attorney, he cannot Prosecute the challenge and serve as assistant district attorney for several conflicts of laws, including statutory governmental ethics of the State. The Sena complaint was as ill wrought being a composition of a professionalized "conspiracy to deprive" rather than "good faith application". Those were articulated presented and exhibited in the record of this Court and to the State officials. And the State Officials took no action.
As the State Official took my name off the ballots, and provided no legitimate state interest in so doing, there is an element of personal. But the Complaint is beyond personal. It is a complaint that bears that New Mexico's acts and practices deny the liberty right of a citizen protected under the state's equal protection clause and concurrent Federal equal protection. In this case, in this moment, the Federal jurisdiction is asserted after abdication of a bonafide application for a mandamus to the State Supreme Court by that Court.
This Court may wish to substitute the value of Constitutional integrity with the dismissal that the claims are not moot, but the relief requested cannot be granted or is cryptic. Let me be perfectly clear. As stated in the hearing, there is likelihood of repetition. This likelihood is without doubt e increased with a "final order" providing immunity to the State officials.
Unequivocally, the statutes the rules governing challenges of the State court and the statutes providing for challenges in New Mexico predate Reynolds v. Sims, Harper, and the Voting Rights Act and the Twenty Fourth Amendment. Both the rule and the statutes existed in 1943 exactly as they do today. That , course was a period, when this United States was a "nation separate but equal", and as introduced in Justice Butler's opinion in Breedlove holding the concept that voting was a privilege ( 1936).
In a guttural, "Jim Crow had taken secret residence" in New Mexico. A dismissal under such conditions as are being issued is not a true option. It invites the State and other states to evade the fundamental core of the Constitution, and the rights of the People. As presented repeatedly in the documents, the state's expansive powers under Amendment X are limited by the prohibitions within the truism of the Amendment. That limit is crossed when 'totality of circumstances' are a showing that provides that the processes leading to a nomination or general election are not equally open. "the precise language of §2 provides that a violation is established if the members of a protected class 'have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice".
This is a refined condition from the "racial characteristics" seem to overshadow the civil rights acts. The keywood is "citizen"-no more, nor less above or below the law of the land but equally shared upon each individual. And the keyword of "duty" to protect "the citizen" be it defined through the state or Federal bills of Rights and equal protection clause. What else is "faithful service"? Or a solemn obligation?
The Federal Court's are given broad leeway to examine and resolve election franchise questions. The Complaint presented the relief of a "special election" ( perhaps "cryptically") but certain that the holding of a special election for the District attorney would serve the interests of justice and as a preventative from future specious applications.
In providing a dismissal the Court seemingly is substituting its "interpretation" of an excerptof an obsolete piece of state law rather than addressing that which the Complaint provided directly: that the acts and practices of New Mexico are 'specious" and prohibited by modern Federal law.
At hearing it was presented that Amendment XXIV was promoted because Amendment XV was "not working" and the several states had developed acts and practices ( "devises") which had arisen in the century following the civil war. The Twenty Fourth Amendment marks upon the means and mechanisms with which (Federal) elections are conducted.
That Amendment has no mention of race, creed, color, or place of orgin, but adopts that "poll taxes" are prohibited. That amendment protects by prohibition upon the State's rights under Amendment X the use of such devises upon the "factions" ( Madison)-and for which racial divide is one of the more obvious of minorities.
"Factions" as they exist are diverse-growing from social, economic and religious interests. Mercantile or farm interest, "rich and poor", natural or manufactured, creditor or debtor and numerous other "factions" each existed. In large part, these "factions" traditionally served their own interests. Examples are throughout the States and within the nation's history. "Charter governments" "secret compacts" and "party rights" over the generalrights of the people to participate took many forms.
The rights of the people is secured on a individual case basis and wrapped in a bundle of the right of every American citizen. The exhibits and evidences showed that New Mexico's scheme directly and indirectly extended beyond the State's right to administer elections. The excesses are such that "fraud cannot be examined" and "subjective barriers are arbitrarily imposed. The excesses serve injustice, prejudice and selected interests.
The right of every citizen to "equal protection' is in that bundle. "If we in anger or disgust throw out the bundle, we also cast aside protection for the liberties of more worthy critics who may be in opposition to the government of some future day" ( Justice Jackson in Williamson v. United States , referenced by Justice Powell in "Learned Hand").
Governor Richardson or any governor are given constitutional authority to "uphold the constitution". States are not given authority to preserve laws and means that are obsolete, outmoded and prohibited. The State's actors remain in denial to the effect that the composition of the 'challenge procedures' are one in the same that brought to bear Voter rights Act. Even under the most stringent of standards "Only a "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure" can be challenged under §2" (Justice Thomas , concurring, in Holder v. Hall)New Mexico's scheme has it all. The practices are residual segregation statutes that are by designwere established to exclude.
Unequivocally, the challenge procedures of New Mexico were cited in the complaint and the (Amended)memorandum as targeting "less than serious candidates" and promoting the basis of challenges upon issues which do not include fraud nor corruption nor any compelling state interest toward the applications.
Setting aside the "additional qualifications, or complex apportionment structure ("modified agreement") and "official practices of state officials looking the other way", each of which were exhibited in the record, we can note that the complaint is distinct for the claims upon Secretary Herrera and Governor Richardson as "passive" ( and negligent in administration )than that of Campbell as an active agent.
Campbell's ,on the one hand, is a clear-cut submission of fraudulent signatures and false declarations to seek the public office of First Judicial District attorney.
On the other hand, Campbell at all times served as the "state's (assistant) District attorney" and his measure to "challenge in the state Court" incorporates not only the temperament of circumstance, but adds an "iota" of Federal expenditure into the "political processes". ( Service upon Mr. Campbell was at the Office of the First Judicial District Attorney).
Given all those factors, dismissal under such conditions the "final Judgment" as "dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice, and a grant of immunity to the Defendants , condition "that Jim Crow may take up permanent residence in the Statutes of New Mexico. The "factions" that control the outcomes have no incentive to review. The "state Officials" despite the evidences presented can fawn an unawareness. The next candidate /respondent can at best look forward to long and tedious litigation
Better would have been to assign the numerous cited statutes to a scheduling of the particular review.
As rule 1-096 (unchanged since 1943 and reliant upon the legal precedence which includes the Georgia Constitution of 1797 ) of the State Rules is vehicle which "results in disenfranchisement" without compliance by the interwoven statutes for proper notice and judicial review, it is , by axiom,a voter qualification or prerequisite that is prohibited under the Voter rights act §2 .
As the "interpretation of " Chavez v. Evans"(1968) is a matter of State law, and the "interpretor of the state law, Chief Justice Chavez was called under subpoena and stayed by the Court, the true authority of both "Chavez v. Evans" and Rule 1-096 could be duly explored by its natural Constitutional authority. That obligation was abdicated by the state supreme previously. As in the Compliant. Better would have been to maintain the review by with judicial discretion.
The likelihood of repetition remains. The statutes , as now free and immune as the Defendants, are valid procedures and practices.
Good Night, Jim Crow. Perhaps America will notice when you rise again .
