PLEASE RISE. HEAR YE , HEAR YE , HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE GREATSTATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW I N SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR , GIVE ATTENTION , AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA , AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN , THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PLEASE BE SEATED.

GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDASUPREME COURT. THE FIRST CASE AND ONLY CASE ON TODAY'S DOCKET IS THE REFORM PARTY OF FLORIDA VERSUS HARRIET BLACK AND GLENDA HOOD VERSUS THE REFORM PARTY. BEFORE BEGINNING, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION A FEW PRELIMINARY MATTERS. AS YOU'LL SEE , JUSTICE CANTERO IS NOT WITH US TODAY. HOWEVER , THROUGH THE WONDERS OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY , HE I S WATCHING THIS ORAL ARGUMENT. HE IS IN MIAMI. HE WAS CALLED THERE ON WEDNESDAY. HIS FATHER IS IN CRITICAL CONDITION IN THE HOSPITAL. AND OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH YOU , JUSTICE CANTERO. BUT HE WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE DELIBERATIONS IN THIS CASE. ALSO, I KNOW THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING MOTION FOR , FROM THE REFORM PARTY FOR AN AMENDED BRIEF TO BE FILED. THE COURT DENIES THAT. SO ANY MATTERS THAT , ANY CASE LAW THAT MIGHT BE CITED IN THE AMENDED PORTION SHOULD NOT BE REFERRED TO IN ORAL ARGUMENT. THIRD , THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT THE TIME PARAMETERS IN THIS CASE , BOTH FOR THE BRIEFING AND FOR THE COURT DELIBERATIVE FUNCTION IS VERY COMPRESSED. AND WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE SEPTEMBER 18 DEADLINE IS LOOMING TOMORROW. SO , WE APPRECIATE COUNSEL HAVING COMPLIED AS BEST AS THEY COULD WITH THESE EXTRAORDINARY DEADLINES. IN THE TIME TODAY , I KNOW JUSTICES WILL HAVE MANY QUESTIONS. BUT WE ASK THAT ALL PARTIES FOCUS ON THE DEFINITION OF NATIONAL PARTY WITHIN THE STATUTE. SO WITH THAT , PARTIES READY , AND I'D CALL THE REFORM PARTY , KEN SUKHIA. THANK YOU.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT , MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE COURT , I AM KEN SUKHIA AND I REPRESENT RALPH NADER. AND PETER CAMEJO IN THIS CASE. AS I LOOKED AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACTS AND ALSO THE LAW THAT WAS CONFRONTING US, I BELIEVE THAT THE COURT'S DECISION MUST BE GOVERNORED IN ANY REVIEW I N THIS CASE BY CERTAIN KEY PRINCIPLES. AND ONE OF THOSE IS THAT WHICH BOTH THE SUPREME COURT OF THEUNITED STATES AND THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED. AND THAT IS THAT THE RIGHTS AT STAKE HERE, THAT IS THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY , FREE ASSEMBLY , FREE EXPRESSION AND TO VOTE ARE NOT JUST FUNDAMENTALRIGHTS. BUT THEY ARE THE MOST PRECIOUS OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE AS THE SUPREME COURTSAID IN RHODES AND CELEBREZZE , BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESERVIVE O F ALL OTHER RIGHTS.

BUT YOU AGREE THAT THE STATE UNQENL BRING HAS THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF ACCESS? AND THAT'S BEEN REITERATED IN NUMEROUS CASES. SO WE HAVE THAT AS A BEGINNING. AND YET , WHAT WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED, NATIONAL PARTIES , HAS BEEN IN THE STATUTE SINCE 1970. BUT WAS FREED FROM THE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT IN 1999. SO, AGAIN , WITH THAT IN MIND , DO YOU TAKE A POSITION ON HOW THE COURT SHOULD CONSTRUE NATIONAL PARTIES?

YES. YOUR HONOR , AS THIS COURT SAID , WHEN IT COMES T O CONSTRUING A STATUTE OF THIS NATURE , NEARLY FOUR YEARS AGO , IN HARRIS V PALM BEACH , THAT WHEN THE COURT SAID THAT THE RIGHT OF SUFFICIENT RANCH OF THE PREEMINENT RIGHT RECOGNIZED IN FLORIDA'S DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, AND THEREFORE , ELECTION LAWS AND THIS IS I N ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION , ELECTION LAWS AS THE COURT PUT IT MUST RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS . .

IN FAVOR OF THE VOTERS WHOSE RIGHTS THEY TEBD TO RESTRICT.

BASICALLY, LET'S G O BACK TO THE VERY BASIC. IS WHAT IS A NATIONAL PARTY , IS THAT A QUESTION OF LAW OR IS THAT A QUESTION O F FACT?

I BELIEVE IT MUST BE A QUESTION OF LAW. IT MUST BE A QUESTION OF LAW BECAUSE PERSONS LIKE MY CLIENTS MUST HAVE SOME CERTAINTY SO THAT THEY MAY KNOW BEFORE THEY G O IN TO MAKING ASSESSMENTS AS T O WHETHER THEY SHALL PROCEED .

HOW CAN A INCLUSIVEQUESTION OF LAW I F THERE MUST BE SOME FACTUAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A PARTY , FOR INSTANCE, IS A LOCAL OR STATE PARTY , WHICH ONLY , WITH ONLY A LOCAL OR STATE FOCUS , FOR INSTANCE, OR WHETHER O R NOT IT IS TRULY A NATIONAL PARTY?

WELL ,.

IN OTHER WORDS , DOESN'T THIS HAVE TO B E SOME FACTUAL DETERMINATION AS TO THE SPANS OR THE INTEREST OF THE PARTICULAR ENTITY?

YOUR HONOR , I BELIEVE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DID WHEN THEY SET THIS STATUTE OUT , THA T THEY WERE NOT INTENDING THAT THERE BE A FACTUAL ANALYSIS WHICH GOES BEHIND THE CERTIFICATION , WHICH IS PRESENTED BY , T O THE SECRETARY .

WHILE YOU'RE ON LEGISLATIVE INTENT, I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL TO WHAT IS BEFORE US THIS MORNING . YOU HAVE FOCUSED ON AND STUD AND STUDIED THIS ISSUE PROBABLY MUCH MORE THOROUGHLY THAN WE HAVE HERE ON THE BENCH. COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR VIEW O F WHAT YOU BELIEVE IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE , REALLY TO OFFER THIS SORT OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR CANDIDATES TO GET ON THE STATE BALLOT, AND THAT I S ALTERNATIVE TO THE PETITION PROCESS THAT REQUIRES A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS TO BE CERTIFIED. WHAT WOULD YOU TAKE IT TO B E THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE NOW IN OFFERING THIS ALTERNATIVE MEANS?

I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH WAS ENACTED , O R WHICH WAS PUT INTO EFFECT IN 1998. AND WHEN THAT PROVISION CAME INTO EFFECT , IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT FLORIDA WAS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE STATE IN THE COUNTRY .

SO WASN'T THAT PROVISION ALREADY IN THE STATUTE AT THE TIME THAT THAT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED? I MEAN , ALTHOUGH IT WAS COUPLED WITH WASN'T IT , PRIOR TO THAT , WASN'T IT COUPLED WITH THE PETITION , HAD YOU TO HAVE BOTH THE PETITION AND THE ASSOCIATION WITH THE NATIONAL PARTY THAT HAS A NATIONAL CONVENTION? SO YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT IN THE STATUTE . SO WHY WAS THAT A PART OF THE STATUTE?WHAT WAS THE LEGISLATURE 'S INTENT?

LET ME GO TO THE SECOND PART OF MY RESPONSE THEN. THAT IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUBSECTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SAME SUBSECTION A AND LOOK AT THE LASSEN SENSE IN SUBSECTION, IT DOESN'T LEAVE ANY REAL IT IS NOT MERELY DISCRETIONARY, IT IS I N FACT MANDATORY. IT SAYS THAT ONCE THE CERTIFICATION I S MADE , WHICHIS A CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE I F FALSE , ONCE IT IS CERTIFIED BY THE MINOR PARTY, THAT THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL PARTY , WHICH NOMINATED AT THEIR NATIONAL CONVENTION , THEIR CANDIDATE , THE SECRETARY SHALL GO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE SECRETARY'S DUTY. BUT DOES IT THEN FOLLOW THAT NO ONE CAN LOOK BEHIND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE PARTICULAR CERTIFICATIONS ARE I N FACT TRUE?

WE BELIEVE IT DOES.

COUNSEL , IF THAT'S THE CASE , THEN IT WOULD APPEAR T O ME THAT ANY NUMBER OF LOCAL OR INDIVIDUALS COULD SIMPLY FILE A CERTIFY , NOT CONCERNED WITH THESE CERTIFICATE, NOT CONCERNED WITH THESE PENALTIES OF PERJURY BUT TO PERVERT THE PROCESS.ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT NO ONE CAN LOOK BEHIND A CERTIFICATION IF IT IS PATENTLY FALSE?

WELL IF EVER IF THAT WERE THE PROBLEM , THAT IT , THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED B Y THE PLAINTIFFS, IE , THAT THIS COULD CREATE COULD CREATE OR RESULT IN UNIMAGINEABLE BALLOT, WHICH IS UNDER THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST IS ONE OF THE LIMITED BASES ON WHICH THE COURT MAY EVEN LOOK TO THE , ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIONS . IF THAT WERE THE CASE , WHY THEN I BELIEVE THE COURT MAY ASK , HASN'T THAT HAPPENED ALREADY? BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO RULING WHATSOEVER DURING ALL THE YEARS THAT THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN IN PLACE , A S T O WHAT THAT MEANS. THERE HASN'T BEEN THAT SITUATION.

WELL YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE BEFORE , SOMEONE THEORETICALLY HAS NOT VIOLATED THE ELECTION LAWS , THAT HAD THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT NO ONE CAN EVER CHALLENGE, IF ONE BELIEVES A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED?

WELL I AM .

I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT LOGIC.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE SUGGESTING, OR INDICATING THAT SOMEONE WHO GETS INVOLVED I N THE PROCESS OF SEEKING TO PLAYS CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT , COULD PLACING CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT , COULD TREAT , IF THEY KNEW THERE WOULD BE NO EXAMINATION OF THEIR ASSERTIONS , SUBSEQUENTLY, THAT THEY COULD TREAT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY T O SIMPLY FALSIFY THEIR CERTIFICATION.

LET'S SUPPOSE , FOR INSTANCE , THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE READS IN THE HEADLINES OF THE NEWSPAPERS ONE DAY THAT REFORM PARTY OF USA DISBANDS. AND THE HEADLINES IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THERE IS A DETAILED STORY AND THEN WITH QUOTES OF DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION. AND JUST INDICATING THAT THERE NO LONGER IS A REFORM PARTY. AND THEN TWO WEEKS LATER , THE SECRETARY OF STATE RECEIVES THESE FILINGS LIKE THIS. AND SHE CALLS UP TO THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION AND SAYS YOU KNOW , I READ THIS STORY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES , IS IT TRUE? AND WHOEVER IS THE HEAD OF THAT SAYS ABSOLUTELY. DO YOU WANT ME TO FAX YOU COPIES? AND THEY FAX HER COPIES. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT , SHE DENIES PLACING THIS ON THE BALLOT. AND NOW YOU'RE PUT IN THE POSTURE, YOU BRING A LAW ACTION AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE O R YOU ARE YOU SAYING THE SECRETARY OF STATE COULD NOT THEN DEFEND THAT ACTION AND SAY WELL , YOU KNOW , WE RECEIVED PROOF THAT THIS PARTY HAD DISBANDED. WE BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT ONLY LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONING NATIONAL PARTIES WERE COVERED BY THIS PROVISION. WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME I N A SITUATION?

I BELIEVE A T THAT POINT AT THAT POINT, THAT THE SECRETARY WOULD HAVE A DEGREE OF DISCRETION BECAUSE THAT'S THE SECRETARY'S JOB.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT SITUATION AND THE FACTUAL SITUATION FACED B Y THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS HERE?

LET ME SUGGEST LET ME ASSUME, GETTING PAST THAT QUESTION, AND ASSUME THAT THERE IS THAT DISCRETION. OR THAT THERE IS SOME DISCRETION TO GO BEYOND. I AM JUST SIMPLY PRESENTING THAT AS OUR INITIAL POINT WHICH WE PRESENTED IN OUR BRIEF. WHICH WE DON'T BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURTS TO GO BEYOND THIS BECAUSE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE INDICATE WHY THAT'S A PROBLEM.

WELL YOU'RE CALLING IT DISCRETION, OKAY? AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING I S THAT AS IN THE PETITION PROCESS , ALL RIGHT , THERE HASTO BE SOME VALIDATION OF COURSE, OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES AND WE'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S SORT OF A MATHEMATICAL THING. SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND CHECKING THAT AND CHECKING THE AUTHENTICITY INDEED OF WHETHER OR NOT A PARTY IS STILL ?

THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THE SECRETARY'S LEGITIMATE FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY. IF THEY WANTED TO CHECK THE AUTHENTICATION OF THIS. AND OF COURSE , IF THAT WAS ALL IN THE PAPERS , THEN THE AUTHENTICATION WOULD COME INTO SOME QUESTION.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU , I KNOW YOU'RE DIVIDING YOUR TIME.

I KNOW. I WOULD LIKE TO GET ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN GET PAST THIS. WHAT ARE THE FACTS IN THIS CASE? AND WHY WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE? AND I BELIEVE IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE IF EVER THERE WAS A NATIONAL PARTY, THERE IS A NATIONAL PARTY IN THIS CASE.

SO JUST TO , WE ARE NOW , I DON'T KNOW I F MR. MEROS MINDS YOU'RE TAKING HIS TIME , BECAUSE YOU'RE IN I T NOW , WITH THE RED LIGHT ON.

SEEMS TO BE INDICATING , BECAUSE THAT IS A IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THAT FOR US. AND THAT I S WHERE DID THE TRIAL COURT GO WRONG HERE IN TERMS OF CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE THEN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A VIABLE NATIONAL PARTY? IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER OF 2004?

THAT'S RIGHT.

DID HE GO WRONG?

HE WENT WRONG BECAUSE HE RELIED UPON AN UNRECOGNIZED , NON-WORKABLE STANDARD THAT WAS PRESENTED BY ONE EXPERT , WHEN TWO OTHER EXPERTS SAID THIS IS NOT THE WIDELY ACCEPTED STAND.

WHAT STANDARD WOULD YOU HAVE US SUPPLY?

I BELIEVE YOU MUST APPLY THE BROADEST STANDARD.

WHAT STANDARD IS THAT?

AND THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT IS FIRST LET ME SAY. IT IS THE BROADST STANDARD THIS COURT CAN CAN IMPOSE IN MY ESTIMATION.

TELL US WHAT THE STANDARD IS.

IT WOULD BE THAT YOU MUST LOOK TO WHAT THE DEFINITION IN THE STATUTE UNDER 97 O 2114 IS.

HOW DOES THAT DEFINE NATIONAL PARTIES?

IT DEFINES POLITICAL PARTIES. AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO START WITH THAT, WHICH IS A GROUP OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING CANDIDATES. AND THEN IN ORDER TO TAKE IT INTO THE NATIONAL REALM , I BELIEVE THIS COURT WERE REQUIRED TO SET FORTH A LIMITATION ON THAT , THAT IT SHOULD BE THE BROADEST AND THAT WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE IN TWO DIFFERENT STATES OR TWO OR MORE STATES. AND NOT IN THE SAME REGION.

WHERE WOULD YOU LOOK FOR A DEFINITION OF NATIONAL? IF WE LOOK TO BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, FOR EXAMPLE , I'M SURE YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THAT. HAVE YOU NOT?

I HAVE NOT. NOT IN THIS CASE.

I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS WOULD INDICATE NATIONWIDE . NOT INDICATE TWO STATES. WOULD NOT INDICATE ONE STATE. WOULD NOT INDICATE REGIONAL . WOULD INDICATE NATIONWIDE PERTAINING TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. IS THAT HELP M E UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER?

FOR SEVERAL REASONS THAT CANNOT BE THE TEST. BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARTY , THERE IS NO MINOR PARTY IN THE COUNTRY THAT IS CONSISTENTLY ACTIVE IN ELECTIONS I N EVERY STATE. IN FACT , WE ARE ONLY ONE O F FIVE MINOR PARTIES IN THE COUNTRY THAT IS OPERATING WITH CANDIDATES ON MORE THAN FIVE BALLOTS.

YOU'RE SAYING THERE HAS TO BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A , WHAT IS A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY , WHICH MIGHT BE THE REPUBLICAN AND THE DEMOCRAT AND A NATIONAL PARTY. BUT YOUR DEFINITION THEN I S REALLY STILL FOR SOMEBODY LOOKING FOR NEXT TIME , IF W E TAKE WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS CASE, REALLY ANYBODY COULD SAY THAT THEY HAVE GOT A N ORGANIZATION IN TWO STATE AND THEY CAN GET ON THE BALLOT IN FLORIDA BY CERTIFYING. THAT'S WHAT WOULD COME OUT OF THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE RULE OF LAW THAT WE WOULD B E ANNOUNCING.

IF THEY DID NOT HAVE SUCH AN ORGANIZATION IN TWO DIFFERENT STATES, IN WHICH THEY WERE SEEKING TO , SEEKING TO ELECT CANDIDATES , THEN THEY WOULD BE LYING WHEN THEY MADE THAT OAT.

OATH.

IS THERE A PROBLEM I N THIS CASE. YOU REPRESENT BOTH NADER AND THE REFORM PARTY.

NO , I D O NOT.

YOU REPRESENT THE REFORM PARTY?

NO , I REPRESENT NADER AND MR. CAMEJO.

THANK YOU.

MAY I SIT DOWN? THANK YOU.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE ARGUING FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE?

.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURTYOUR HONORS , GEORGE MEROS ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF FLORIDA.

MR. MEROS , LET M E ASK YOU THIS. WHAT DOES THE RECORD REFLECT AS T O HOW THE SECRETARY HAS ADMINISTERED THE STATUTE?

THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE SECRETARY HAS ASSUMED AND INTERPRETED THE STATUTE AS MINISTERIAL ROLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER UNDER 103.021 THERE IS A CERTIFICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND WHEN THAT OCCURS , .

HAS THE SECRETARY DENIED ACCESS TO THE BALLOT? TO ANY PERSON THAT CLAIMED TO BE A MINOR POLITICAL PARTY UNDER SECTION A?

THERE IS NOTHING I N THE RECORD ABOUT THAT , YOUR HONOR. AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER T O THAT OTHERWISE.

AM I CORRECT THAT THIS STATUTE WAS AMENDED AGAIN I N 1999. BEFORE THAT IT HAD THE SAME TERMS , BUT IT HAD THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE A PERCENTAGE OF VOTES , IS THAT CORRECT?

IT DID NOT HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE .

DIDN'T HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE. WELL, IT SAID LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVE GOT EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS HERE. BEFORE THAT , IT SAID THAT MINORITY POLITICAL PARTIES, WHICH ARE AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL PARTY HOLDING A NATIONAL CONVENTION , BUT THEY HAD TO GET A CERTAINPERCENTAGE OF THE VOTES.

YES.

SO THEY HAD THAT WHOLE TERM THERE. NOW THEY SEVERED THAT TERM FROM THE PERCENTAGE. AND NOW MINOR POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE TWO-WAYS T O GET ON. THEY CAN GET ON EITHER NO , IS THAT NOT TRUE?

LET ME CLARIFY THAT ,. YOUR HONORS , IF I CAN , LET M E TELL YOU FROM THE PERSPECTIVEOF THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHAT A WORKABLE STANDARD MIGHT BE.

OF WHAT A NATIONAL?

OF WHAT A NATIONAL PARTY IS. IF I MAY. AND THAT IS TO FIRST START WITH SECTION 97 , THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL PARTY IN CHAPTER 97.

MINOR PARTY?

WITH REGARD TO MINOR PARTY. AND THEN A COMMON SENSE BUT BROAD DEFINITION OF NATIONAL PARTY. AND THAT WOULD BE , AND LET ME TELL YOU .

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF MINOR PARTY? IS SOMEONE LESS THAN FIVE THE FIVE PERCENT NUMBER?

WELL , IT GOES BEYOND THAT. BUT A NATIONAL PARTY WOULD BE ANY GROUP O F CITIZENS ORGANIZED FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF ELECTING PERSONS AND DETERMINING PUBLIC ISSUES UNDER DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES. AND THEN GOING ON. THAT IS FROM 97. WITH MEMBERSHIP OR ORGANIZATIONS IN TWO OR MORE STATES AND EXTENDING BEYOND A SINGLE REGION OF THE COUNTRY. NOW WHAT I JUST READ , THE LAST PART IS NOT IN CHAPTER 97. BUT IT TAKES MINOR PARTY AND THEN ATTRIBUTES A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE TO IT.

IS THERE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS? ONE FOR MINOR PARTY AND ONE FOR POLITICAL PARTY?

THERE IS A DEFINITION , IT IS 97.021 PAREN 15 I S MINOR POLITICAL PARTY.

AND IS THAT DEFINED WITH REFERENCE TO WHETHER THEY HAVE A PLATFORM?

NO. WHAT THIS SAYS , FIRST OF ALL , IT'S MINOR IF IT'S LES S THAN FIVE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION. AND THEN IT IS A POLITICAL PARTY IF IT IS ANY GROUP OF PERSONS ORGANIZED FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF ELECTING TO OFFICE QUALIFIED PERSONS AND DETERMINING PUBLIC ISSUES UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESSESOF THE UNITED STATES.

HAS THE SECRETARY OF STATE BEEN USING THAT STANDARD?

SECRETARY OF STATE HAS NOT BEEN MAKING FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SUBMISSIONS FIT THIS STANDARD.

IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO D O THAT NOW UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE OFFERING? TO REJECT THOSE THAT DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE OFFERING?

IF THE COURT OH , YOUR HONOR , CREATES A DEFINITION OF NATIONAL PARTY , SOMEONE , SOME ENTITY, WHETHER IT IS SECRETARY OF STATE , OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, O R OTHERS , WOULD HAVE SOME ABILITY .

WOULD YOU COME BACK TO MY QUESTION ABOUT LEGISLATIVEINTENT? SEEMS TO ME OBVIOUSLY THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON HERE. AND OF COURSE WE HAVE MANY QUESTIONS AND YA'LL HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN RESPONDING. BUT IT'S DIFFICULT T O SORT OF GET AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CASE LAW , ALL THE WAY FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUITS AND SOME OF THE STATE CASE LAW HAS SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IS TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FRIVOLOUS ENTITY. OKAY? THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY SUPPORT AND IS REALLY JUST A DISTRACTION , OR A DILUTION OF THE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO A LEGIT UMENT PART OF THE PROCESS. HENCE , THE TRADITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF THE PETITION WHERE YOU SHOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ACTIVE ENOUGH , THAT YOU CAN ALREADY GET A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS. AND THAT THIS ALTERNATIVE PROVISION THEN HAS THE SAME FOCUS OR REQUIREMENT , HOWEVER IT SUBSTITUTES THE FACT THAT IF A NATIONAL PARTY HAS SPONSORED YOU , THEN WE WILL ACCEPT THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO SHOW LEGITIMACY. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

TO SOM E EXTENT .

HELP ME. WOULD YOU PICK UP ON THAT THEN AND TELL ME , BECAUSE , I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HERE AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT AS OPPOSED TO THE PETITION PROCESS , THAT THERE HAS BEEN THIS SHOWING THAT YES , I HAVE LEGITIMACY OR WE HAVE LEGITIMACY BECAUSE A NATIONAL PARTY WITH A NATIONAL CONVENTION AND A NATIONAL PLATFORM HAS PUT ME ON THE BALLOT AND I'M CARRYING THEIR BANNER. THEREFORE YOU CAN B E SURE THAT I HAVE THAT LEGITIMACY.

I SAID I DISAGREE YOUR HONOR BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS. AND I WILL LATER EXPLAIN WHYTHERE ARE NOT ALTERNATIVE MEANS IN THE CONTEXT THAT THE COURT SET.

LET ME MIND YOU ABOUT THE LATER. AND THIS IS TOUGH , YOU'RE NOW IN THEIR REBUTTAL.

YOU WANT ME TO WAIT FOR REBUTTAL, I WILL?

IF YOU WANT TO FINISH. BUT THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A LOT LATER.

YOUR QUESTION OF INTENT , LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH THE INTENT. IN 1997 , THIS COURT AND THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA WAS THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST I N PROMOTING THE NATIONAL PARTIES AND MINIMIZING SOME EXTENT SMALLER PARTIES SO AS NOT TO TRACK ON !!!!ONOOIZ THE VOTE. IN 19978 , THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA PASSED ARTICLE 6 , SECTION ONE , WHICH WAS NEW AND SAID THAT ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION. BUT , AND I QUOTE , THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CANDIDATE WITH NO PARTY AFFILIATION O R FOR A CANDIDATE OF A MINOR PARTY FOR PLACEMENT OF THE CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CANDIDATEOF THE PARTY HAVING THE LARGEST NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS. IN RESPONSE TO THAT , APPROXIMATELY 6 MONTHS LATER , IN 1999 , THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS PROVISION , WHICH PROVIDED FOR NO NO PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT.

SO MR. MEROS , I THINK THE QUESTION HERE REALLY COMES DOWN TO , WOULD YOU AGREE THAT , IN THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES YOU TO GET OUT AND GET THE CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF SIGNATURES IN ORDER TO GET ON THE BALLOT , THAT THAT IT IS REASONABLE BUT SUBSTANTIAL? IT IS A SUBSTANTIALREQUIREMENT TO GO OUT AND GET THESE SIGNATURES?

YES.

AND SO THE QUESTION BECOMES , DOESN'T THAT , LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT EVEN IN THIS OTHER WAY YOU CAN DO THAT , IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENT AND IT REQUIRES SOMETHING BEYOND JUST MERELY CERTIFICATION THAT THIS HAPPENED, THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO BE TO FIT THIS CRITERIA OF BEING A MINOR PARTY , AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL PARTY THAT HAS A NATIONAL CONVENTION, THAT THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENTS THAT SHOULD BE AND WE SHOULD CONSIDER THEM EQUAL TO THE SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENT OF GOING OUT AND GETTING SIGNATURES?

THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE AND ASCERTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE PROVISIONS. NO QUESTION. BUT LET ME THAT THESE ARE NOT ALTERNATIVES . AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND.

YOU SAY THERE ARE NOT ALTERNATIVES? YOU MEAN A MINOR PARTY CANNOT DO ONE OR THE OTHER?

NO, MA'AM. LET ME EXPLAIN. PAREN A SAYS A MINOR PARTYTHAT IS AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL PARTY MAY DO IT BY HOLDING A CONVENTION. PAREN B SAYS , A MINOR PARTY THAT IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL PARTY MAY D O IT BY THE PERCENTAGE. THESE ARE NOT ALTERNATIVES. AND WHAT YOU HAVE .

SO A MINOR PARTY THAT I S AFFILIATED WITH A .

A NATIONAL PARTY. MAY DO IT BY NATIONAL CONVENTION.

COULD NOT DO I T BY A PETITION?

CORRECT.

SO GOING BACK TO THAT THOUGH, WOULDN'T THERE HAVE TO BE THEN SOME MEANING TO THE PART THAT IS THE NATIONAL PARTY HOLDING A NATIONAL CONVENTION? AND YOU HAVE ASKED US , YOU SAID WE COULD CREATE A DEFINITION. PROBLEM IS, THE COURT CAN'T CREATE A DEFINITION. WE HAVE ALSO HAVE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO BE CONCERNED WITH. AND WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE DETERMINED TO BE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ELECTION OF ELECTORS. THERE IS NOTHING , IS THERE , THAT YOU UNCOVERED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BEYOND THE FACT THAT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSED , THAT TELLS US WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THE DEFINITION OF NATIONAL PARTY HOLDING A NATIONAL CONVENTION TO BE?

THAT'S CORRECT , YOUR HONOR.

SO THEREFORE , IS IT VAGUE?

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LOWER COURT ORDER WOULD BE THE LAW OF THIS COURT , IT WOULD BE VAGUE. AND IT WOULD IN MY OPINION VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. IT HAS TO BE A STANDARD THAT IS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD , THAT PEOPLE CAN APPLY THESE STANDARDS .

HOW DO W E KNOW? YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD APPLY SOMETHING IN ONE OTHER STATE. HAWAII HAS THAT , IOWA , IT HASTO BE IN 25 STATES. I MEAN , SO HOW DO WE KNOW HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IN THIS REGARD?

IF YOU LOOK A T THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IN 1998 AND WHAT THEY DID IN 1999. I BELIEVE THIS COURT CAN SAY THAT LEGISLATURE INTENTIONALLY LEFT THIS WITHOUT SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND IN FACT , WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY DID NOT PROVIDE RULE MAKING AUTHORITY.

SO IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS STATUTE REALLY IS TALKING ABOUT FOR NATIONAL ELECTIONS , CORRECT? AND SO WHY WOULDN'T IT BE REASONABLE FOR US TO THEN LOOK TO ANY NATIONAL LEGISLATION OR REGULATION SUCH AS THE FEC REGULATIONS TO DETERMINE THIS ISSUE?

TWO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT INQUIRIES. HERE THE INQUIRY IS , WHEN CAN ONE BE DEPRIVE D A PLACE ON THE BALLOT? AND WHAT ARE THE INTERESTS I N THE STATE IN DEPRIVING ONE TO BE ON THE BALLOT? AND IN PARTICULAR , WITH REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS COURT HAS ALREADY SAID , AND THAT IS YOU ERR ON THE SIDE OF ININCLUSION.

MR. MOWER ROSE MEROS , WE HAVE DEFINITELY PEN TAKING YOUR TIME. WITH OUR HELP , YOU NOW ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES WITH REBUTTAL.

I WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND SIT DOWN. THE SECOND WITH REGARD TO THE FEC, THE POLICIES AND INTERESTS THERE ARE TO PREVENT FRAUD OR CORRUPTION WITH REGARD TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC MONIES ARE PROPERLY SPENT AND ONLY EFFICIENTLY SPENT. THOSE ARE THE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT ANALYSIS. AS JUSTICE PARIENTE SAID , HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEFINITION, ANY DEFINITION THIS COURT DEEMS UNDER THIS STATUTE , COMES UP AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION , AND THERIGHTS OF SPEECH OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES. AND THE REASON WHY THIS NOT BEING AN ALTERNATIVE IS SO CRITICAL, YOUR HONORS , IS THAT A PERSON OR A PARTY ABSENT ANY STANDARD GREATER , OR WITH A STANDARD ANY MORE SPECIFIC AND NARROW THAN THIS CANNOT TELL WHAT TO DO. IF THE REFORM PARTY BELIEVES IT'S AFFILIATED REMEMBER, THIS IS APPLICATION OF LAW EX-AUNTY, YOU HAVE TO DO IT FIRST AND THEN BE ADJUDICATED. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS AND HAVE JUDGE DAVEY'S STANDARD OR ANYTHING MORE SPECIFIC THANTHIS, WHAT DO YOU SAY? AM I AFFILIATED OR A M I NOT? IS THIS A NATIONAL PARTY? OR IS IT NOT?

WAIT , WAIT. I KNOW WE ARE GOING T O GET HERE. JUSTICE LEWIS HAS A QUESTION. RATHER THAN SAVE I T FOR REBUTTAL, WE WILL GIVE YOU A FEW MORE MINUTES.

YOU HAVE SUGGESTED A VAGUENESS PROBLEM. I'M I HAVE NOT SEEN THE PARTIES PROVIDE US WITH CASE AUTHORITY THAT WE CAN PUT OUR HANDS ON. THAT THE STATUTE IS VAGUE. IT IS AN INVALID STATUTE. YOU CANNOT QUALIFY UNDER THIS STATUTE BECAUSE THIS IS AN INVALID STATUTE. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? WHERE DO WE GO? DO YOU HAVE A CASE YOU CAN DIRECT US TO , THE AUTHORITY FOR THAT?

I BELIEVE THE REFORM PARTIESES , OR NADER EITHER ONE OF THE REFORM O R NADER PARTIES BRIEF HAS CASE CITATIONS ABOUT VAGUENESS.

WHAT'S THE RESULT?

PAGE 34.

WHAT'S THE RESULT?

WELL THE RESULT WOULD ONLY BE , WITH REGARD T O SECRETARY OF STATE , IS IT WOULD ONLY B E VOID FOR , IN APPLICATION , IF IN FACT THIS COURT WERE T O SAY JUDGE DAVEY'S METHOD AND MANNER OF DETERMINING THIS .

AGAIN, WHAT'S THE RESULT?

THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE ACT WOULD REMAIN BUT THE DAVEY'S ORDER WOULD BE REVERSED. BECAUSE IT I S NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS, IF IN FACT THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS , IF THERE IS A CERTIFICATION , AND IF IT IS PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE , THE PERSON IS PLACED ON THE BALLOT. NOW THAT IS VERY BROAD. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. BUT IT I S NOT VAGUE AT THAT POINT.IT IS BROAD. AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND IF THAT IS TOO BROAD , THE LEGISLATURE CAN ACT. IT IS THE SORT OF AD HOC DETERMINATION METHOD THAT JUDGE DAVEY USES THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE OF PREDICTABLE , RATIONAL APPLICATION IN THE FUTURE. AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS AN ABIDING INTEREST I N NOT HAVING A SITUATION WHERE PARTIES CAN'T TELL IN THE BEGINNING. IF YOU HAVE A COMMON SENSE PROVISION ABOUT NATIONAL BEING IN MORE THAN ONE REGION , AND IF YOU HAVE A COMMON SENSE NOTION THAT IT'S PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE AFFILIATED, BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ORGANIZED RGING AND THAT THEY ARE HERE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES , THEN YOU HAVE A REASONABLE ABILITY T O IMPLEMENT THAT IN A WAY S O THAT PEOPLE DON'T MAKE A PICK UNDER THESE THREE PROVISIONS AND THE PICK BE WRONG.

BUT I N THE END , IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WAS TO ALLOW MINOR PARTIES AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL PARTY TO BE ON EQUAL PAR WITH A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY , THIS INTERPRETATION, WHICH YOU JUST HAVE TO CERTIFY THERE ARE MORE THAN THEY'RE MORE THAN EQUAL. BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS , THE PRIMARY THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE MAJOR PARTIES ARE CERTAINLY MORE ONEROUS THAN JUST THE CERTIFY WAY.

CORRECT. BUT YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT LEGISLATURE'S PASSAGE OF THIS ACT AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSAGE IS A PRETTY CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY LEFT THESE VAGUE FOR REASONS. AND IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE RELATING TO NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES , THERE IS RULE MAKING AUTHORITY. FOR A GOOD REASON. BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING AGENCY CREATE RULES. HERE THERE IS A VERY LOUD SILENCE WITH REGARD TO RULE MAKING AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARAMETERS AND BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING I T SPECIFIC.

BUT YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IFTHERE WAS SOME CLEAR VIOLATION , SUCH AS THEY WERE NOT AFFILIATED, THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE VIOLATION OF THAT PART OF THE STATUTECOULD BE BROUGHT I N A COURT OF LAW AND REMEDIED THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT JUDGE DAVEY DID , THROUGH THE INJUNCTIVE PROCESS?

AT SOME POINT AND IN SOME WAY. CERTAINLY NOT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE DETERMINED AFFILIATION. AFFILIATION, WE WOULD SUGGEST , AS A STANDARD , IF IN F ACT THE COURT IS GOING TO D O THAT , IS TO CONNECT OR ASSOCIATE ONE'S SELF WITH A PARTY. AND IF ONE SELF IS REFLECTSIVE AND VERY IMPORTANT.

WELL HE DECIDED THE AFFILIATION ISSUE IN YOUR FAVOR?

CORRECT.

I SAY IN YOUR FAVOR.

I'M TRYING TO TELL WHAT I'M TELLING THE COURT IS THE SECRETARY O F STATE IS , NEEDS A STANDARD THAT IS PREDICTABLE , THAT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T DISTURB SETTLED EXPECTATIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE YEARS. AND THAT CAN PROTECT .

YOU'RE TELLING U S THE POLICY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN NOT TO APPLY THE DEFINITION THAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED FOR US , BUT HAS BEEN MERELY TO ACCEPT THE CERTIFICATION REGARDLESS OF THE NAME OF THE GROUP OR WHATEVER? IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S RIGHT. WE HAVE WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE STATUTE WHICH TELLS US THAT WE SHALL PLACE ON THE BALLOT UPON CERTIFICATION.

I THINK WE BETTER EXPIRED?WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REBUTTAL. BUT YOUR 30 MINUTES HAS EXPIRED.

THANK YOU.

WITH OUR HELP.

.

CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT , I'M LAWRENCE TROD , COUNSEL FOR THE WILSON APELL LEASE. WITH ME AT COUNCIL TABLE A STEPHEN ROSENTHAL AND ALSO AT COUNSEL TIME IS JOE PERWIN. JOEL PERWIN.

LET ME STEER YOU TO THIS LAST POINT THAT MR. MEROS MADE. AND THAT IS THAT FROM WHAT I READ IN THIS RECORD , THAT DURING THIS ELECTION CYCLE , SINCE THE SEPTEMBER 1ST DEADLINE, THAT THE SECRETARY HAS CERTIFIED FIVE OR SIX .

FIVE OTHERS.

FIVE OTHER MINOR PARTIES. SIX TOTAL. AND S O THE APPLICATION O F THIS STATUTE DURING THIS ELECTION CYCLE HAS BEEN, AS THE SECRETARY SAYS, AND THAT IS TO , IF SOMEONE CERTIFIES THEY'RE IN A MINOR PARTY , THEN THE STATE IS GOING TO ALLOW THEM ON THE BALLOT. IS THAT CORRECT?

WELL YOUR HONOR , CERTAINLY THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN THAT MINISTERIAL AND AUTOMATIC. BUT THE FACT THAT THESE FIVE HAVE BEEN APPROVED WOULD NOT IN ITSELF PROVE THAT. MIGHT BE . THAT WITH EACH OF THEM , THEREIS A VERY SOLID RECORD SHOWING THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE . THEY DID STRANGE INTERPRETATION SEEMS TO ME OF THE STATUTE. BUT IT IS THE SECRETARY'S INTERPRETATION. BUT SHE DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION , IS THERE ANY TRUTHAT ALL TO THE CLAIM? THAT THE EXAMPLE OF PARTY DISAPPEARS.

I DIDN'T SEE IN THE RECORD ANY INDICATION THAT IN THE 2000 ELECTION CYCLE THAT THE SECRETARY HAD ADMINISTER ED THIS STATUTE ANY DIFFERENTLY.

NO INDICATION EITHER WAY , YOUR HONOR. NO INDICATION. BUT I THINK .

THERE WAS NOTHING IN THIS , IN THE METHOD , IN THE POLICY THAT THE STATE HAD OUT THERE UP THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1ST THAT WOULD INDICATE OTHER THAN FILING THE CERTIFICATE AND IF YOU WERE A MINOR PARTY , THAT YOU WOULDN'T GET ON THE BALLOT. IS THAT NOT TRUE?

THAT'S RIGHT , EXCEPT , YOUR HONOR , IF I WERE T O FORM SUDDENLY SUPPOSE I WERE TO FORM A GROUP LIKE THE AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION BUT MUCH SMALLER , IT WOULD ADVOCATE POSITIONS , WOULD ADVOCATE THE ELECTION OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD MEET THE DEFINITION THEY WOULD HAVE OF POLITICAL PARTY. BUT I THINK THOSE GROUPS WOULD NOT THINK TO APPLY , BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THEIR ASSUMPTION THAT WORDS MEAN SOMETHING. IT IS NOT , IT SEEMS TO ME , THE CASE THAT WE HAVE SO DEGENERATED AS A SOCIETY THAT WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THERE ISN'T SOME DEGREE OF SELF-IMPOSED ENFORCEMENT.

BUT HASN'T THE LEGISLATURE REALLY LEFT US OUT ON A LIMB HERE? THAT I S THAT THEY HAVE USED WORDS LIKE NATIONAL PARTY AND NATIONAL CONVENTION AND THEY REALLY HAVE PROVIDED NO