IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH GEORGE DEWIN HARRIS, CHRISTINE SEALS, CAMERON T. ALDERMAN, CLAIRE DAVIS PARCHMENT, MAGNOLIA JAHNES-RODGERS, ROBIN SCHAPIRO, CAM BUI and PAIGE RICHARDSON, Individuals, and VOTE YES ON MEASURE : WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT S IN OUR FOOD, an Oregon political committee, Plaintiffs, Case No. (ORS. Act or Failure to Act of Secretary of State and County Elections Officials; ORS.0, et seq. Declaratory Judgment Act; ORS.00, et seq. Judicial Review of Agency Order) Filing Fee Authority: ORS.()(a) v. KATE BROWN, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, and TIM SCOTT, Director of Elections, Multnomah County Elections Division Defendants. Plaintiffs allege as follows: NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION OVERVIEW OF CASE 1. This case arises out of the disenfranchisement of approximately,00 registered Oregon voters who participated in the November, general election. Those voters completed their ballots, signed their return identification envelopes pursuant to the instructions provided by the Secretary of State and local elections officials, and timely returned their ballots. However, local elections officials, acting under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of State, have not Page 1 - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
counted those ballots, because the voters signatures on their return identification envelopes do not match the signatures on file for those voters.. The approximately,00 disenfranchised voters have not been accused of forgery, fraud or other illegal activity relating to their exercise of their right to vote. The local elections officials who have refused to count those voter s ballots lack probable cause that (most, if not all of) those disenfranchised voters committed forgery or fraud. The Secretary of State, who has refused to include those ballots as part of her official canvass of votes, similarly lacks probable cause that (most, if not all, of) those disenfranchised voters committed forgery of fraud. Voters have been disenfranchised despite any evidence of wrongdoing.. Local elections officials lack the legal authority to refuse to count those approximately,00 ballots and disenfranchise voters (except those ballots, if any, where local elections officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud). The Oregon Secretary of State cannot certify election results until those approximately,00 ballots are included as part of the official canvass of votes (except those ballots, if any, where the Secretary of State can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud).. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the November, statewide general election on Ballot Measure until those approximately,00 ballots are counted (excluding those ballots, if any, where the Secretary of State or local elections officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud). Plaintiffs also seek an order compelling the Secretary of State to direct all county elections officials in the state to count those approximately,00 ballots (excluding those ballots, if any, where the Secretary of State or local elections officials can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud). Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Approximately 1,0 of the approximately,00 ballots that have not been counted were cast in Multnomah County. Plaintiffs also seek an order compelling defendant Tim Scott to count all of those 1,0 ballots (excluding those ballots, if any, where Defendant Scott can establish probable cause of forgery or fraud).. This case is limited to the pending recount on Ballot Measure. The time period for challenges and contests for all other statewide races and measures from the November, election has passed.. In this case, Plaintiffs do not challenge the legitimacy of Oregon s vote-by-mail system. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to correct a flaw in this year s statewide election that easily can be remedied in future elections. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge the failure by local elections officials and the Secretary of State to inform voters, before voters exercise their voting rights, of additional post-voting requirements imposed for their votes to count, and the improper decision to disenfranchise approximately,00 voters who fully complied with all instructions provided to them prior to casting their ballots. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS. Defendant Kate Brown is the Secretary of State for the State of Oregon. Defendant Tim Scott is the Director of Elections for the Multnomah County Elections Division.. Ballot Measure ( Measure ) is a statewide initiative measure that appeared on the ballot for the November, general election. Measure, if passed, would mandate labeling of genetically modified foods. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Following the November, general election, the original official canvass of votes on Measure was, in favor and, opposed. According to that original canvass, out of 1,0, votes cast, the no side had more votes than the yes side. The margin of defeat for the measure was less than 0.0% (fifty-four thousandths of a percent).. Oregon law, ORS.0(1), requires a mandatory statewide full recount [i]f the official canvass of votes of an election reveals that the difference in the number of votes cast for or against any measure is not more than one-fifth of one percent [0.%] of the total votes cast for and against the measure * * *. Because the original canvass of votes for Measure established that the difference in the number of votes cast in favor and against the measure was substantially less than one-fifth of one percent, the Secretary of State called for a recount on Measure.. Under Oregon law, ORS.0, the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of this state. It is the Secretary of State s responsibility to ensure the correct application of Oregon s election laws. Under ORS.1, the Secretary of State shall prepare and distribute to each county clerk detailed and comprehensive written directives, shall assist, advise and instruct each county elections official on elections procedures; and, county elections officials shall comply with the directives * * *. Under ORS.0, the Secretary of State shall be responsible for insuring that the procedures to be used in conducting election recounts assure an accurate recount * * *.. On November,, pursuant to her statutory authority and responsibility, the Secretary of State issued a directive (the Directive ) stating that the recount on Measure Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
must be completed, and results certified, by December,. The Directive includes [i]nstructions for completing the automatic full recount for Measure.. The right to vote is sacrosanct under Oregon law. Article II, section 1 of the Oregon constitution provides: All elections shall be free and equal. Article II, section of the Oregon constitution provides that every Oregon resident is entitled to vote in all elections, if that resident meets certain residency and age requirements. The Oregon legislature has stated, in ORS.00, that it is the clear policy of this state that all election laws and procedures shall be established and construed to assist the elector in the exercise of the right of franchise.. Oregon law also sets forth precisely what is required for an Oregon voter to exercise his or her right of franchise. Specifically, ORS.0()(a) provides that upon receipt of a ballot, the elector shall mark the ballot, sign the return identification envelope supplied with the ballot and comply with the instructions provided with the ballot. The only other requirements Oregon law places on the voter is that he or she must timely return the ballot, either to the county elections office or a designated drop box, in the return identification envelope. ORS.0()(b)(c).. The only certification required of voters in the November, election when the voter signed his or her return identification envelope was some variation of: I am the person to whom this ballot was issued; I am legally qualified to vote in the county that issued this ballot; This is the only ballot I have voted this election; and I still live at the address printed below. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. The instructions provided to Oregon voters on the ballot for the November, general election did not tell voters that the signature the voter put on the return identification envelope must match the voter s signature on his or her registration card.. Oregon law provides that a county elections official may count a ballot only if the voter s signature on the return identification envelope is verified pursuant to ORS.0(). The signature shall be verified with the signature on the voter s registration card. Verified is not defined in Oregon law. Oregon voters are not notified of this post-voting requirement when they cast their vote.. The Oregon Secretary of State has adopted rules codified in the Secretary of State s Vote by Mail Procedures Manual that interpret verify to mean match. The Secretary of State has instructed county elections officials to challenge ballots and not count those ballots if the voter s signature on the return identification envelope does not match the signature on file. The Oregon Secretary of State has set loose, subjective standards for county elections officials to use to determine if a signature matches the signature on file. The Oregon Secretary of State has not established any means to determine whether county elections officials have applied these subjective standards consistently, either within the same county or between counties.. Pursuant to the Secretary of State s instructions, when a county elections official determines that a voter s signature on the voter s return identification envelope does not match the voter s signature on file, that ballot is set aside and not counted. The county elections official is supposed to send the voter a letter, as soon as practicable, informing the voter that the ballot has not been counted, and notifying the voter that he or she may take additional steps within a Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
limited time period to correct his or her signature. If the voter does not receive the letter and cannot correct his or her signature, or otherwise fails to or is unable to do so, his or her ballot is not counted. Signatures must be corrected, and those corrections approved by the county elections officials within two weeks of election day, for the voter s ballot to be counted.. As a result of this policy and practice, approximately,00 voters who completed, and timely returned their ballots have not had their ballots counted. The Oregon Secretary of State, in her Directive, has not instructed county elections officials to count these ballots. As a result, county elections officials, including Defendant Tim Scott, have not counted these ballots, and approximately,00 voters have been disenfranchised.. In the light of the current vote margin on Measure, these signed and uncounted ballots could determine the outcome of the election. The failure to count approximately,00 ballots may be determinative as to whether the measure passes or fails.. Plaintiff George Harris is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Multnomah County. Plaintiff Harris suffered a stroke on April,, which dramatically altered his signature. Plaintiff Harris voted by mail in the November, general election and personally signed the return identification envelope that he was provided, which contained his completed ballot. He timely returned his ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, his return identification envelope did not indicate that his ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on his voter registration card. Plaintiff Harris received a letter from local elections officials, inviting him to re-register. However, he is undergoing therapy and rehabilitation for his stroke, and was unable to complete Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
and return the additional voter registration form. In addition, he hopes the use of his arm and regular signature will be restored, and he did not want to have to re-register repeatedly, simply to exercise his right to franchise. Plaintiff Harris ballot has been rejected, and his vote has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Harris has an interest in having his vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Harris has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in Multnomah County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.. Plaintiff Christine Seals is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of Multnomah County. She is a quadriplegic and cannot sign her own name by hand. For many years, she signed her name by using a pen in her mouth, but that was extremely difficult for her to do. Recently, she changed to using a stamp as her legal signature. Plaintiff Harris voted by mail in the November, general election and personally signed (by stamp) the return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed ballot. She timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Plaintiff Seals received a letter from local elections officials, inviting her to re-register. She reasonably assumed that the letter was sent by mistake by a new worker because of her long-standing disability, which she understood was well-documented by Multnomah County elections officials. She has used her signature stamp on the return identification envelopes she has submitted in prior elections and, to her knowledge, her ballot has always been accepted and counted. Plaintiff Seals ballot has been rejected, and her vote has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Seals has an interest in having her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Seals has been adversely Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in Multnomah County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.. Plaintiff Cameron T. Alderman is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Multnomah County. He voted by mail in the November, general election. He personally signed the return identification envelope that he was provided, which contained his completed ballot. He timely returned his ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, his return identification envelope did not indicate that his ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on his voter registration card. He did not receive notice from county elections officials that his ballot would be rejected. His ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Alderman has an interest in having his vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Alderman has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in Multnomah County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.. Plaintiff Claire Davis Parchment is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of Multnomah County. She voted by mail in the November, general election. She personally signed the return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed ballot. She timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Her Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Parchment has an interest in having her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Parchment has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Tim Scott in Multnomah County, and by actions or failures to act taken by Defendant Kate Brown, at least in part, in Multnomah County.. Plaintiff Magnolia Jahnes-Rodgers in an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of Columbia County. She voted by mail in the November, general election. She personally signed the return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed ballot. She timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Her ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Jahnes-Rodgers has an interest in having her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Jahnes-Rodgers has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant Kate Brown.. Plaintiff Robin Schapiro is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. He is a resident of Washington County. He voted by mail in the November, general election. He personally signed the return identification envelope that he was provided, which contained his completed ballot. He timely returned his ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, his return identification envelope did not indicate that his ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on his voter registration card. The November, Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
election was the first election in which he had ever voted. After receiving a cure notice from Washington County elections officials, he twice attempted to cure his signature. The first time was by mail and the second time was in person at the Washington County elections office. His ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Schapiro has an interest in having his vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Schapiro has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant Kate Brown.. Plaintiff Cam Bui is an Oregon voter and taxpayer. She is a resident of Washington County. She voted by mail in the November, general election. She personally signed the return identification envelope that she was provided, which contained her completed ballot. She timely returned her ballot in the signed return identification envelope. As with the return identification envelope provided to all Oregon voters in the November, general election, her return identification envelope did not indicate that her ballot would only be opened if the signature on the envelope matched the signature on her voter registration card. Her ballot has been rejected, and has not been counted in this election. Plaintiff Bui has an interest in having her vote counted, and an interest in the outcome of Measure. Plaintiff Bui has been adversely affected as a result of actions or failures to act by Defendant Kate Brown. 0. These plaintiffs are representative of the approximately,00 Oregon voters who have been disenfranchised in the November, general election. 1. Plaintiff Vote Yes on Measure : We Have a Right to Know What s in Our Food ( Yes on Measure ) is a political committee duly organized and registered under Oregon law. The Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
committee and its donors and volunteers have an interest in the outcome of Measure. The committee s principal place of business is in Multnomah County.. Plaintiff Paige Richardson is an Oregon elector and taxpayer who resides in Clackamas County. She is the campaign manager for Yes on Measure and has both a personal and professional interest in the outcome of Measure. To the best of her knowledge and belief, her vote on Measure was counted. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS. Act or Failure to Act by Secretary of State and County Elections Officials) herein. (Against Both Defendants). Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - as if fully set forth ORS.(1) provides:. A person adversely affected by any act or failure to act by the Secretary of State, a county clerk, a city elections officer or any other county, city or district official under any election law, or by any order, rule, directive or instruction made by the Secretary of State, a county clerk, a city elections officer or any other county, city or district official under any election law, may appeal therefrom to the circuit court for the county in which the act or failure to act occurred or in which the order, rule, directive or instruction was made.. Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui have been adversely affected by the Secretary of State s rules and guidance requiring that signatures on the voter s return identification envelope must match the signature on file, because their votes have not been counted. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Each Plaintiff has been adversely affected by the Secretary of State s failure, in her directive, to instruct county elections officials to accept and count these approximately,00 ballots, because each Plaintiff has an interest in the outcome of the recount of Measure.. Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman and Parchment, who are all residents of Multnomah County, have been adversely affected by Defendant Tim Scott s failure to count his or her ballot, which failure occurred in Multnomah County.. All Plaintiffs have an interest in the outcome of the recount on Measure and, accordingly, have been adversely affected by Defendant Tim Scott s failure to accept and count the approximately 1,0 uncounted ballots in Multnomah County, because the difference in votes for and against Measure is less than the number of uncounted votes in Multnomah County.. Pursuant to ORS., Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination that: (a) The Secretary of State and Defendant Tim Scott s actions and failures to act violate Oregon election law and must be remedied; and, (b) Each of the uncounted ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) must be accepted and counted before the Secretary of State can certify the results of the recount on Measure. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS.0, et seq. Declaratory Judgment Act) (Against Both Defendants) 0. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 - and - as if fully set forth herein. 1. Pursuant to ORS.0 and ORS.0, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that: (a) The Secretary of State s match requirement violates Oregon law and improperly disenfranchises Oregon voters. (b) County elections officials, including defendant Tim Scott, must include and count all of the outstanding approximately,00 ballots, except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged. (c) The Secretary of State cannot certify the results of the recount of Measure until the outstanding ballots are counted.. Pursuant to ORS.00 and ORS.00, Plaintiffs further request that the Court provide such supplemental and remedial relief as may be necessary to ensure that the ballots are counted and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of State certifies the results of the recount on Measure. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS.00, et seq. Judicial Review of Agency Order) (Against Defendant Secretary of State). The match requirement contained in the Secretary of State s Vote By Mail Procedures Manual is an administrative rule, adopted pursuant to OAR -00-000. Accordingly, the match requirement is subject to judicial review under ORS.00().. County elections officials, including defendant Tim Scott, applied the match requirement (albeit inconsistently) as set forth in the Secretary of State s Vote By Mail Procedures Manual. As a result, Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui, and the approximately other approximately,00 disenfranchised Oregon voters, were denied their right to vote as of November,.. The Secretary of State s adoption of the match requirement and the county elections officials application of the match requirement adversely affect Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Parchment, Alderman, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui, and the other approximately,00 disenfranchised Oregon voters because those Plaintiffs and the other,00 disenfranchised Oregon voters have been denied the right to vote. The Secretary of State s adoption of the match requirement and the county elections officials application of the match requirement adversely affect all Plaintiffs, because all Plaintiffs have an interest in the outcome of the vote on Measure.. Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman and Parchment were adversely affected in Multnomah County, where they reside. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Because the Secretary of State s adoption of the match requirement exceeds her statutory authority, the Court should declare the rule invalid, pursuant to ORS.00 and ORS.0.. The Secretary of State s initial canvass of votes, which incorporated the county election officials application of the match requirement, is an order in other than a contested case, as that term is used in the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act.. The application of the match requirement improperly denies Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui the right to vote and improperly denies all Plaintiffs their right to have the outcome of a statewide ballot measure properly determined. For that reason, pursuant to ORS.()(a)(A) the Court should set aside or modify any recount results that do not include the approximately,00 ballots that have not been counted (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged). In the alternative, pursuant to ORS.()(a)(B), (b) and/or (c), the Court should remand to the Secretary of State any recount that does not include counting of the approximately,00 ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) for further action under a correct interpretation of the law. 0. The Secretary of State s November, Directive is an order in a proceeding in other than a contested case, subject to review under ORS.. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
1. The Secretary of State s Directive fails to instruct county elections officials to count the approximately,00 ballots.. Because the Secretary of State s directive fails to take corrective action regarding the match requirement, and does not require county elections officials to count the approximately,00 ballots, the directive exceeds her statutory authority; the Court should declare the directive invalid, pursuant to ORS.00 and ORS.0, to the extent the directive does not instruct county elections officials to count the approximately,00 ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged).. Application of the directive improperly denies Plaintiffs Harris, Seals, Alderman, Parchment, Jahnes-Rogers, Schapiro and Bui their right to vote and improperly denies all Plaintiffs their right to have the outcome of a statewide ballot measure properly determined. For that reason, pursuant to ORS.()(a)(A) the Court should set aside or modify any recount results that do not include the approximately,00 ballots that have not been counted (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged). In the alternative, pursuant to ORS.()(a)(B), (b) and/or (c), the Court should remand to the Secretary of State any recount that does not include counting of the,00 ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) for further action under a correct interpretation of the law. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Pursuant to ORS. and ORS.0, Plaintiffs further request that the Court require the Secretary of State to take such supplemental and remedial action as may be necessary to ensure that the ballots are counted and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of State certifies the results of the recount on Measure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 1. Pursuant to ORS., a determination that: (a) The Secretary of State and Defendant Tim Scott s actions and failures to act violate Oregon election law and must be remedied; and, (b) Each of the uncounted ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) must be counted before the Secretary of State can certify the results of the recount on Measure.. Pursuant to ORS.0 and ORS.0, a declaration that: (a) The Secretary of State s match requirement violates Oregon law and improperly disenfranchises Oregon voters; (b) County elections officials, including defendant Tim Scott, must count all of the outstanding ballots, except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged; and, (c) The Secretary of State cannot certify the results of the recount of Measure until the outstanding ballots are counted. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Pursuant to ORS.00 and ORS.00, such supplemental and remedial relief as may be necessary to ensure that all of the non-matching ballots are counted and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of State certifies the results of the recount on Measure.. Pursuant to ORS.00, ORS.0 and ORS., a determination: (a) That the match rule contained in the Vote By Mail Procedures Manual exceeds the Secretary of State s statutory authority and cannot be enforced; (b) The approximately,00 outstanding ballots must be counted (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged); and, (c) Setting aside or modifying any recount results that do not include the approximately,00 ballots that have not been counted (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged); or, in the alternative, remanding to the Secretary of State any recount that does not include counting of the,00 ballots (except those ballots contained in ballot return envelopes that the Secretary of State and/or local elections officials can establish probable cause were fraudulently signed or forged) for further action under a correct interpretation of the law.. Pursuant to ORS. and ORS.0, that the Court require the Secretary of State to take such supplemental and remedial action as may be necessary to ensure that all ballots are counted and made a part of the final official canvas of votes before the Secretary of State certifies the results of the recount on Measure. Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0
. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED this th day of December,. By: /s/ Steven C. Berman Steven C. Berman, OSB No. Keith S. Dubanevich, OSB No. 0 SW Oak Street, Suite 00 Portland, OR Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) -0 Email: sberman@stollberne.com kdubanevich@stollberne.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Trial Attorney: Steven C. Berman Page - S.W. OAK STREET, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON TEL. (0) -00 FAX (0) -0