California and is an elector of California s 17th Congressional District ( CA-17 ). Petitioner

Transcription

1

2

3 Petitioner Jeffrey Wald ( Wald or Petitioner ), by his attorneys, petitions this Court for a Writ of Mandate directed to Respondents Tim Dupuis ( Dupuis ), Registrar of Voters for the County of Alameda, Shannon Bushey ( Bushey ), Registrar of Voters for the County of Santa Clara, Deborah Bowen ( Bowen ), Secretary of State for the State of California, and Real Parties in Interest, candidates Mike Honda ( Honda ), Rohit Khanna ( Khanna ), Vanila Singh ( Singh ) Joel VanLandingham ( VanLandingham ), Vinesh Singh Rathore ( Singh Rathore ), and by this Petition alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Petitioner Wald is, and at all relevant times hereto was, a resident of Fremont, California and is an elector of California s 17th Congressional District ( CA-17 ). Petitioner has standing to bring this action pursuant to Elections Code 13313(b)(1), and Code of Civil Procedure ( CCP ) 526(a). Wald is a registered voter. Wald is a Republican who serves on the County Central Committee. Wald has an interest in ensuring that a Republican nominee is on the ballot for the general election. 2. Respondent Dupuis is the Elections Official of Alameda County and the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County. As the Elections Official of Alameda County, Dupuis is responsible for accepting candidate nomination papers for the congressional race for CA-17, and applying the California Elections Code requirements in a ministerial manner to determine whether nomination papers submitted by candidates satisfy the statutory requirements. As a part of this duty, Dupuis must verify the signatures and political preferences on the nominating papers. 3. Respondent Bushey is the Elections Official of Santa Clara County and the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County. As the Elections Official of Santa Clara County, Bushey is responsible for accepting candidate nomination papers for the congressional race for CA-17 and applying the California Elections Code requirements in a ministerial manner to determine whether nomination papers submitted by candidates satisfy the statutory VERIFIED PETITION 2 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

4 1 requirements. As a part of this duty, Bushey must verify the signatures and political preferences on the nominating papers. 4. Respondent Bowen is the Secretary of State. As the California Secretary of State, Bowen is responsible for accepting candidate nomination papers for all public offices and applying the California Elections Code requirements in a ministerial manner to determine whether nomination papers submitted by candidates satisfy the statutory requirements. Bowen also is responsible for causing the printing of ballots and election materials for the ballot in the race for CA-17, for which the primary election is scheduled for June 3, 2014 ( June 3 Primary Election ). 5. Real Party in Interest Honda is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in CA-17. He is named in this matter pursuant to Elections Code 13313(b)(3). 6. Real Party in Interest Khanna is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in CA-17. He is named in this matter pursuant to Elections Code 13313(b)(3). 7. Real Party in Interest Singh is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in CA-17. She is named in this matter pursuant to Elections Code 13313(b)(3). 8. Real Party in Interest VanLandingham is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in CA-17. He is named in this matter pursuant to Elections Code 13313(b)(3). 9. Real Party in Interest Singh Rathore is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in CA-17. He is named in this matter pursuant to Elections Code 13313(b)(3). 10. Does 1-10 are Sacramento County Department of Elections employees who have the ministerial and non-discretionary duty not to violate the laws of the State of California and Sacramento County. // // VERIFIED PETITION 3 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

5 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11. CA-17 is a congressional district in the State of California that is currently represented by Honda. The District includes parts of Alameda and Santa Clara County. The Political Climate Surrounding the June 3 Primary Election 12. The June 3 Primary Election is a nonpartisan blanket primary, in which all candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives run in the same primary, regardless of political affiliation. Under this system, the two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the next round. 13. The filing period is closed for the June 3 Primary Election. The nominations for the congressional seat are as follows: incumbent Democrat Honda; challenger Democrat Khanna; challenger Republican Singh; challenger Republican VanLandingham; and challenger Republican Singh Rathore. 14. Upon information and belief, Khanna is a resident of Fremont, California. Khanna s current occupation is Of Counsel at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Khanna is also a Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Economics at Stanford University and an Adjunct Professor at Santa Clara Law School. Khanna is also on the Workforce Development Board for the State of California and the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte. In or around 2009, Khanna was appointed to serve as the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce. 15. Upon information and belief, VanLandingham is a resident of San Jose, California. VanLandingham s current occupation is the Head of Talent Acquisition at Sony Computer Entertainment America. VanLandingham is also on the Board of Directors of Aligrem Kids Foundation. 16. Upon information and belief, Singh Rathore is a resident of San Jose, California. Singh Rathore s current occupation is Product Counsel at Google. In or around September 2007 through May 2010, Singh Rathore was an associate attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, in the Technology Transactions Group. Initially, Singh Rathore represented that he VERIFIED PETITION 4 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

6 was an independent from San Jose. Singh Rathore only declared his affiliation with the Republican Party on the eve of submitting his nomination papers. 17. Khanna was believed to be Honda s biggest competitor in the Congressional race for CA-17 (the Race ). Upon information and belief, Khanna has drawn significant financial support from backers such as Gavin Newsom, Steve Westly, and many executives from Silicon Valley companies including Dropbox, Yahoo, Salesforce.com, Cisco, and Shutterfly. Khanna also had obtained support from members of the California Republican Party. Khanna was expected to obtain the Indian-American vote of Silicon Valley and Fremont. 18. Once Singh entered into the Race, Khanna s chances of advancing from the June 3 Primary Election diminished significantly. CA-17 has a heavy Indian-American presence. Upon Singh s nomination, it was expected that Singh would obtain support from Republicans, women, and the Indian-American community. Such support would likely allow Singh to advance past the June 3 Primary Election, replacing Khanna s expected advancement. 19. On or around February 27, 2014, the San Jose Inside Newspaper reported that the polls concerning CA-17 showed Honda in the lead with 45 percent of the vote, followed by Singh with 29 percent of the vote, and Khanna with 26 percent of the vote. Significantly, when Singh s name appeared without party affiliation, she polled at approximately 11 percent. When her Republican Party affiliation was added, her poll numbers shot up 18 percent, three points ahead of Khanna. The article also stated that Singh s entry into the Race redirected votes from the GOP that would have been cast in support of Khanna. 20. Upon information and belief, Khanna recruited candidates to enter the race as Republicans to split the Republican vote three ways, effectively diluting votes that would otherwise be cast in favor of Singh. At the last minute, Singh Rathore and VanLandingham became candidates for the June 3 Primary Election. The addition of Singh Rathore and VanLandingham, both of whom are running as Republicans, will split the GOP vote, effectively moving Khanna to second place in the top two June 3 Primary Election. The addition of Singh VERIFIED PETITION 5 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

7 Rathore, another Indian-American, will split the Indian-American vote. In addition, the fact that Singh Rathore has added his middle name on his ballot designation appears to be a clear effort to cause confusion between Vanila Singh and Vinesh Singh, both of whom are designated as Republicans. Moreover, in conducting a Google search of the name Vinesh Rathore, the only Google references that include the middle name Singh, are references to this congressional race. 21. Upon information and belief, as of March 23, 2014, neither Singh Rathore nor VanLandingham had registered with the Federal Election Commission and filed a Statement of Candidacy. The California Elections Code 22. California Elections Code Section 8062 clearly and unambiguously requires a minimum of 40 nomination signatures, but no more than 60 signatures. Under California Elections Code Section 8069, no signer is permitted to have his or her named signed to any other nomination paper for any other candidate for the same office. follows: 23. California Elections Code Section 8081 clearly and unambiguously states as Before any nomination document is filed in the office of the county elections official or forwarded for filing in the office of the Secretary of State, the county elections official shall verify the signatures and the political preferences, if required, of the signers on the nomination paper with the registration affidavits on file in the office of the county elections official. The county elections official shall mark not sufficient any signature that does not appear in the same handwriting as appears on the affidavit of registration in his or her office, or that is accompanied by a declaration of party preference that is not in accordance with the declaration of party preference in the affidavit of registration. The county elections official may cease to verify signatures once the minimum requisite number of signatures has been verified. 24. Under California Elections Code Section 100, an individual signing a nomination petition or paper must, at the time of signing the petition, personally affix his or her signature, printed name, and place of residence. // VERIFIED PETITION 6 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

8 The Nomination Papers Submitted in Favor of Singh Rathore 25. Upon information and belief, Singh Rathore filed his nomination documents in Santa Clara County, and submitted his nomination signatures in both Santa Clara County and Alameda County. 26. Upon information and belief, Singh Rathore collected and submitted 36 signatures in Santa Clara County, of which the Registrar of Santa Clara County deemed 28 to be valid. The 28 signatures collected by Singh Rathore included the signatures of Senthil Sankarappan, Uma Jeyapalan, Kirthika Kameswaran, Ramakrishanan Hariharan, Srinivas Lingutla, and Rayja Lingutla. As demonstrated below, each signature is invalid as follows: With respect to Senthil Sankarappan and Uma Jeyapalan, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Kirthika Kameswaran and Ramakrishanan Hariharan, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Srinivas Lingutla, and Rayja Lingutla, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. Based on the foregoing, 6 of the signatures collected in Santa Clara County are invalid. 27. Upon information and belief, Singh Rathore collected and submitted 12 signatures in Alameda County, all of which the Registrar of Alameda County deemed valid. Included among the 12 signatures collected by Singh Rathore in Alameda County are the signatures of Mamta Sattavat, Jitesh Shah, Goral Hedge, Vani Hedge, Lavina Metha, Sathiyan Kutty, Ajay Keni, and Sowjanya Keni. As demonstrated below, each signature is invalid as follows: VERIFIED PETITION 7 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

9 1 With respect to Mamta Sattavat and Jitesh Shah, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Goral Hedge and Vani Hedge, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. NR is marked next to the name, Gloral Hedge, likely denoting that Gloral Hedge is not registered. With respect to Lavina Metha and Sathiyan Kutty, the printed names and addresses are in similar handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Ajay Keni and Sowjanya Keni, the printed names and addresses are in similar handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. Based on the foregoing, 8 of the signatures collected in Alameda County are invalid. Thus, in total, Singh Rathore only collected 26 valid signatures. 28. California Elections Code Section makes submitting false nomination papers or a declaration of candidacy a felony. The Nomination Papers Submitted in Favor of VanLandingham 29. Upon information and belief, VanLandingham filed his nomination documents in Santa Clara County, where he is a resident, and submitted his nomination signatures in both Santa Clara County and Alameda County. Initially, VanLandingham s Declaration of Candidacy reflected that he was not affiliated with a political party. Only later did VanLandingham represent that he was affiliated with the Republican Party. 30. Upon information and belief, VanLandingham s nomination papers do not specify the county in which the signatures were collected. In addition, VanLandingham VERIFIED PETITION 8 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

10 completed and submitted his Declaration of Candidacy on or around March 5, 2014, but failed to submit all of the necessary nomination signatures until March 6, 2014 and March 7, Upon information and belief, VanLandingham initially submitted 18 signatures, of which only 2 were declared to be valid by the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County. VanLandingham subsequently submitted additional signatures in Santa Clara County. VanLandingham s circulator, Julia Inga s affidavit was not written in uniform handwriting. 32. Upon information and belief, with respect to the signatures submitted in Santa Clara County on behalf of VanLandigham, it is almost impossible to determine the validity of the signatures as set forth below: Osama Abdelraham signed Khanna s petition-in-lieu form, circulated by Amanda Clark on or around February 18, Osama Abdelraham also signed VanLandingham s nomination petition, circulated by Julie Inga on or around March 5, Annabelle Vitali signed Khanna s petition-in-lieu form, circulated by Andy Wong on or around February 13, Annabelle Vitali also signed VanLandingham s nomination petition, circulated by Julie Inga, on or around March 5, Ali Lee signed VanLandingham s nomination petition, however, the address listed on said petition differs from the address contained in her Voter Registration affidavit. Bathsheba Phillips signed VanLandingham s nomination petition, but said nomination petition differs from her Voter Registration affidavit because it does not include her full name; her middle name does not appear on the nomination petition. In addition, Phillips is written in a different handwriting style. VERIFIED PETITION 9 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

11 1 2 Leslie Guisti signed VanLandingham s nomination petition, however, the handwriting on said nomination petition differs from her Voter Registration affidavit. Emilio Castellon signed VanLandingham s nomination petition, however, the handwriting on said nomination petition differs from his Voter Registration affidavit. Based on the foregoing, 6 of the signatures collected in Santa Clara County are invalid. 33. Upon information and belief, VanLandingham collected 30 signatures and submitted them in Alameda County. One of VanLandingham s circulators, Manorama Kumar ( Kumar ) also signed Khanna s nomination petition. Upon information and belief, Kumar also told VanLandingham s signatories that a signature for VanLandingham would help Khanna in the June 3 Primary Election. 34. Upon information and belief, VanLandingham submitted the following signatures in Alameda County, all of which the Registrar of Alameda County deemed valid: Vijay Sher, Anita Sher, Deshika Gupta, Vivek Gupta, Rojesh Gupta, Madhu Gupta, Govind Pasumarthi, Anitha Pasumarthi, Ranjema Patel, Menesh Gupta, Rohit Mohan, Parmindu Mohan, Shalini Verma, Gaurav Verma, Tanu Kalara, Linal Gadkari. As demonstrated below, each signature is invalid as follows: With respect to Vijay Sher and Anita Sher, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Deshika Gupta and Vivek Gupta, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Rojesh Gupta and Madhu Gupta, the printed addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. VERIFIED PETITION 10 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

12 With respect to Govind Pasumarthi and Anitha Pasumarthi, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. With respect to Ranjema Patel and Menesh Gupta, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. NR is marked next to the name of Ranjema Patel, likely denoting that Rajema Patel is not registered. With respect to Rohit Mohan and Parmindu Mohan, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. NR is marked next to the name of Parmindu Mohan, likely denoting that and Parmindu Mohan is not registered. With respect to Shalini Verma and Gaurav Verma, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. NR is marked next to the name of Gaurav Verma, likely denoting that Gaurav Verma is not registered. With respect to Tanu Kalara and Linal Gadkari, the printed names and addresses are in the same handwriting, making it evident that each signatory did not personally affix their printed name and place of residence. DUP is marked next to the name of Tanu Kalara, likely denoting that the signature for Tanu Kalara is a duplicate. Based on the foregoing, 16 of the signatures collected in Alameda County are invalid. 35. California Elections Code Section makes submitting false nomination papers or a declaration of candidacy a felony. VERIFIED PETITION 11 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Singh Rathore (Elections Code 13314) 36. Petitioner Wald re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 32, above. 37. The California Elections Code imposes statutory requirements mandating that each signature on the nominations paper match the signatory s registration affidavits. The California Elections Code also mandates that each signatory personally affix their name and address to the nomination paper, except in limited circumstances as set forth in California Elections Code section It is the statutory duty of the county election official to verify the signatures in the nomination papers. 38. Obtaining signatures from an individual who has previously signed another nomination paper for the same Race, violates the California Election Code and impairs the integrity of the electoral process, as does permitting a person other than the signatory from affixing to the nomination paper the printed name and address of the signatory. 39. Dupuis has a non-discretionary duty to abide by the California Election Code. Bushey has a non-discretionary duty to abide by the California Election Code. Elections officials do not have the discretion to validate nomination signatures that are not written in the proper handwriting. 40. By accepting Singh Rathore s nomination papers and preparing to place his name on the ballot, Respondents have committed an error, omission, or neglect in violation of the Elections Code and will continue to commit such errors, omissions, and instances of neglect until Singh Rathore s name is removed from the ballot. 41. Pursuant to CCP section 1085, Elections Code sections100 and 8081, Wald is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondents to reject Singh Rathore s VERIFIED PETITION 12 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

14 nomination papers, and striking his name from the list of candidates that is certified as eligible for the June 3 Primary Election, and refrain from including Singh Rathore s name on the ballot. 42. This Court s issuance of the writ sought by Wald will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election, as Wald brings this action shortly after discovering Singh Rathore s unlawful conduct and well within the time period for correction of improper ballot materials before they are sent to be printed. 43. Wald has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Absent action by this Court, Singh Rathore will continue to hold himself out as a legitimate candidate for office, causing confusion in the electorate, raising campaign contributions under false pretenses, forcing other candidates for the same office to expend additional resources to campaign against him, and thoroughly undermining the respect of the public in the integrity of the election. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE VanLandingham (Elections Code 13314) 44. Petitioner Wald re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-40, above. 45. The California Elections Code imposes statutory requirements mandating that each signature on the nominations paper match the signatory s registration affidavits. The California Elections Code also mandates that each signatory personally affix their name and address to the nomination paper, except in limited circumstances as set forth in California Elections Code section It is the statutory duty of the county election official to verify the signatures in the nomination papers. 46. Obtaining signatures from an individual, who has previously signed another nomination paper for the same Race, violates the California Election Code and impairs the VERIFIED PETITION 13 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

15 integrity of the electoral process, as does permitting a person other than the signatory from affixing to the nomination paper the printed name and address of the signatory. 47. Dupuis has a non-discretionary duty to abide by the California Election Code. Bushey has a non-discretionary duty to abide by the California Election Code. Elections officials do not have the discretion to validate nomination signatures that are not written in the proper handwriting. 48. By accepting VanLandingham s nomination papers and preparing to place his name on the ballot, Respondents have committed an error, omission, or neglect in violation of the Elections Code and will continue to commit such errors, omissions, and instances of neglect until VanLandingham s name is removed from the ballot. 49. Pursuant to CCP section 1085, Elections Code sections100 and 8081, Wald is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondents to reject VanLandingham s nomination papers, and striking his name from the list of candidates that is certified as eligible for the June 3 Primary Election, and refrain from including VanLandingham s name on the ballot. 50. This Court s issuance of the writ sought by Wald will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election, as Wald brings this action shortly after discovering VanLandingham s unlawful conduct and well within the time period for correction of improper ballot materials before they are sent to be printed. 51. Wald has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Absent action by this Court, VanLandingham will continue to hold himself out as a legitimate candidate for office, causing confusion in the electorate, raising campaign contributions under false pretenses, forcing other candidates for the same office to expend additional resources to campaign against him, and thoroughly undermining the respect of the public in the integrity of the election. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Wald prays for relief as follows: VERIFIED PETITION 14 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

16 That this Court issue an alternative writ directing Respondents to remove Singh Rathore as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representative in the June 3 Primary Election, or otherwise to show cause before this Court at a time and place specified by the Court why Respondents have not done so and why a peremptory writ should not issue; 2. That this Court issue an alternative writ directing Respondents to remove VanLandingham as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representative in the June 3 Primary Election, or otherwise to show cause before this Court at a time and place specified by the Court why Respondents have not done so and why a peremptory writ should not issue; 3. Issue an alternative writ of mandate directing Respondents to remove or refrain from including Singh Rathore s name and candidate statement from any and all election materials, including the ballot and voter pamphlet, or otherwise to show cause before this Court at a time and place specified by the Court why Respondents have not done so and why a peremptory writ should not issue; 4. Issue an alternative writ of mandate directing Respondents to remove or refrain from including VanLandingham s name and candidate statement from any and all election materials, including the ballot and voter pamphlet, or otherwise to show cause before this Court at a time and place specified by the Court why Respondents have not done so and why a peremptory writ should not issue; 5. Set this matter for a hearing at the earliest available dates, so that the issuance of the writ will not substantially interfere in the printing and distribution of the ballot and voter pamphlet; 6. Award Wald his reasonable attorney s fees and costs relating to bringing this action in the public interest pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section and other applicable code sections; and 7. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. VERIFIED PETITION 15 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

17

18 VERIFCATION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I am the Petitioner in this action. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate. The matters stated above are true of my own knowledge, unless stated to be upon information and belief, in which case I believe them to be true. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATE: March 24, 2014 Petitioner Jeffrey Wald VERIFIED PETITION 17 DHILLON & SMITH LLP

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30