8/2/2019 04.30.12.TX.SoS.Meeting

1/2

April 30, 2012

Mr. Keith Ingram, Director of ElectionsOffice of the Secretary of State of TexasP.O. Box 12060

Austin, TX 78711-2060

SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO RECTIFY VOTER INFORMATION DEFICIT IN TIME FOR THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Dear Mr. Ingram:

I came here to address the huge chasm that exists between the information now provided to voters by the office of the Secretary ofState of Texas; and the information required by these same voters which would enable each of us to cast a truly informed vote in theupcoming Presidential election. Consistent with statements contained in the Compact With Texans posted on the Secretary's officialweb site; voters count on the Office not only to be the "reliable" repository of state records; but also to provide "accurate" and "timely"access to such records as are necessary to ensure the "uniformity and integrity in the conduct of elections statewide." Throughout thisdiscussion, I will identify not only specific examples pointing to my findings, the Secretarys promises to fully inform the voters are notbeing met; but also those measures which could be implemented immediately, "in compliance with [existing] laws and rules," to closethis voter information deficit.

The problems with the nexus between information currently provided by the Office; and the resulting misinformed status of the voters;is best illustrated by sketching out several scenarios relating to voters' understanding of the eligibility of Presidential candidates foroffice. Any discussion as to what information makes a voter 'informed' in a Presidential election must begin with this premise: votersoverwhelmingly cast their votes for the Presidential nominee with a certainty as to whether that candidate is constitutionally eligible forthe job. The information currently available from the Secretarys office cannot 'inform' that decision. Indeed, as you will see, when itcomes to the federal qualification of party Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for office; the Secretary, however unwittingly,has materially contributed to keeping voters misinformed.

Voters began alerting the Secretary to concerns about the Presidential eligibility process nearly 4 years ago now, at around the time ofthe 2008 general election, which concerns remain largely tied to a misinterpretation of Texas Election Statutes, 192.031, PartyCandidate's Entitlement to Place on Ballot. Simply, we assumed that by authorizing the names of the parties nominees to be printed onthe general election ballot; the Secretary had found that all 4 conditions predicate to ballot entitlement spelled out in the law had beensatisfied, including the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law..On the basis of this faulty understanding, that is, the Secretary places the names of party candidates on the ballot having ratified theirentitlementto appear; voters petitioned the Office to reveal the documentary basis for ratification, only to be told, the legal responsibilityfor federal eligibility determination is not vested with the state. No; this determination is the responsibility of the political party. Angeredat learning the state put candidates on the ballot without verifying the partys qualification determination, voters went to the parties and,using the states open records law, requested evidence to support a qualification determination. Years later, we got our answer: theparties gave the Secretary the names of those candidates who had submitted applications for the Presidential primary ballot, to them.

Based on documentation we had previously obtained; we already knew, to get their Presidential candidates on the general electionballot, the parties only submit a Certification of Nomination. Now, having reviewed the candidates primary ballot applications, we knewthe parties conduct no federal qualification determination before thatelection. (True, age and residency requirements can ripen afterthe primary; but natural born citizenship cannot be acquired retroactively, even by the time of the general election!) In other words, byobtaining these primary applications we confirmed that neither the Secretary nor the parties make a 192.031 eligibility determination.

In fact, the clear language of 192.031 requires neither the political parties nor the state to make this federal eligibilitydetermination; it only requires the candidate for President to be federally qualified in order to trigger ballot entitlement.Therefore, absent verification from anyone that the candidate meets federal qualifications; there isno such entitlement!Of course, Iunderstand that, just because the names of party candidates fail to qualify for entitlement to the ballot under this section of the law;does not mean the Secretary cannot place those names on the ballot, anyway, through a lawful exercise of her discretion.

Still, to maintain uniformity; the Secretary can only put party candidates on the ballot through this exercise in discretion by assumingthe parties verified the candidates federal qualification. Because even though Texas law doesnt require Presidential candidates to be

8/2/2019 04.30.12.TX.SoS.Meeting

2/2

Mr. Keith Ingram, DirectoApril 30, 2012

Page 2 of 2

Kelly J. Canon, 901 Kristin Court, Arlington, TX, 76012; kjcanon@yahoo.com; 817.929.3299

Constitutionally eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot; when it comes to Independent and Write-in (unaffiliated)Presidential candidates; exercising her discretion, the Secretary has determined that Constitutional eligibility is a prerequisite toinclusion on the ballot, in the general election. How do I know? Because I followed several links on her web site until I reached a pageentitled, Election Forms Index, where I found blank ballot applications for use by these unaffiliated candidates in the general election.Marked on top with the words, Prescribed by Secretary of State, these applications ask candidates to affirm, they are 35; have a 14-

year residency; and are natural born citizens, which are the federal qualifications for the job. Additionally, these unaffiliated applicantsmust swear (to the Secretary) they are telling the truth. Thus, consistent with the Secretarys rule those unaffiliated candidates mustmeet federal requirements in order to appear on the ballot; it only makes sense to expect she demands affiliated candidates meetthese same ballot eligibility requirements. And, since she neither confirms whether the party has verified the candidates federalqualifications nor requires evidence of their qualifications; it only makes sense to conclude, she simply assumes these qualifications.

(I complained to an attorney in this office that neither the parties nor the Secretary vetted Presidential candidates for Constitutionaleligibility before their names were placed on the ballot. Her advice? File a ballot challenge. Fortunately, I had already consulted anattorney I found on the internet, who advised that such a challenge was absurd since the law doesnt require ballot eligibility, anyway!)

Again, consistent with the Secretarys insistence those unaffiliated candidates meet federal eligibility; heres further validation ofinferences that she merely assumes the parties conduct their own candidate eligibility verification. The Secretary designed forms for

the parties electronic transmission to her office of the names of their candidates in the 2012 Presidential preference primary, whichforms I obtained from her office under the states open records law. More precisely, these are Excel Spreadsheets, containing pre-setfields in which the parties can provide limited candidate information such as name, address, and occupation. However, by using theseofficial forms, the parties are unable to provide any other information such as scanned documentation which might have served as thebasis for a federal qualification determination. (That said, one field, birth date, indicates to this voter; even with respect to partycandidates; the Secretary has assumed responsibility forsomeeligibility verification!)

Thus, given the Secretarys rule that unaffiliated candidates for President swear to federal qualifications in order to appear on the ballotand her decision to place names of party candidates on the ballot without requiring verification they have satisfied federal qualificationstechnically, she is exercising her discretion to put party candidates on the ballot and acting as ifthey had earned the 192.031entitlement. Of course, in general, voters are unaware those names make their way to the ballot not via the 192.031 entitlement routebut through the Secretarys discretion. For starters, she does not advertise that fact. She also doesnt post the ballot applications the

candidates file with the party. As a result, these remain virtually inaccessible to voters, despite laws which make both party and non-party applications public upon filing. (It took 2 years, 3 requests, a lawyer, and a serendipitous glimpse at a blog by the ExecutiveDirector of the RPT to obtain these applications from the parties!) So, voters have no idea the Secretary allows the parties to usedifferent application forms from those posted on her site for unaffiliated candidates. Moreover, even ifvoters managed to obtain theseapplications; would they notice that the Democrat application contains neither a claim of eligibility nor an oath the candidate is tellingthe truth; or grasp that, while the Republican application contains both, the oath is directed to the party, and not to the Secretary?

Obviously at this point, Iaman informed voter. But this didn't happen through the countless hours I invested perusing the officialwebsite of the office of Secretary of State of Texas. Rather, I only learned what I know by perusing the internet, where I happened torun across a blog run by that same attorney I mentioned earlier; who posted articles explaining these electoral issues, for example,when a state party Chair is a Public Official for the purpose of production of election records under the Texas Public Information Act,subject to mandamus for non-production. (I also learned the difference between paid political advertisements with attributionscorresponding word for word to language in the U.S. Code governing campaign expenditures, versus official identification documentsgenerated by an issuing authority.) I contacted this internet attorney, who agreed to help guide us through the Texas ballot quagmire.

In light of these Herculean efforts and interventions of fate required to become an informed voter in Texas, reasonable people mustagree; it defies credulity to insist that, the current level of information provided to voters by our Secretary of State enables us to castinformed votes at the polls, at least with respect to the Presidential candidates federal eligibility for office.

Sincerely,

Kelly J. Canon