Jun 28

Letter to Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz

June 24, 2010
Honorable Susan Bysiewicz
Secretary of State
State of Connecticut
State Capitol, Room 104
Hartford, CT  06106

Dear Secretary Bysiewicz:

By this means and pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, Connecticut General Statutes, Section 4-166 et seq., and with reference to the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments, I hereby declare that the Certificate of Endorsement which was presented to the Elections Division of the Office of the Secretary of State on June 2, 2010 on behalf of Linda McMahon (copy attached), candidate for the United States Senate, is wholly legally void.  Also, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Statutes, Sections 4-175 and 4-176, I concurrently request a declaratory ruling by you to concur in this position.  As is explained here, I observe multiple problems both with the form which is provided by the Secretary of State as a Certificate of Endorsement as well as its use in this instance by Linda McMahon.  Some of the issues which I raise here are substantive and some are of style which, by themselves, raise other questions.

First, the official form was observedly prepared and is used as an application of Conn. General Statutes, Sec. 9-388.  However, based on communications which I have had with Ted Bromley, Staff Attorney for the Elections Division, the form was never formally promulgated by the legislative Regulation Review Committee.  With reference to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act including Conn. Gen. Statutes, Sec. 4-166(13), such a defect is substantive and fatal [See also Persico v. Maher (1983) 465 A.2d 308, 191 Conn. 384.]..

Second, in the first paragraph of the text of the Certificate, there is a phrase indicating that “each of the following persons was endorsed as candidate for nomination to the office specified . . . .”  Notably absent from the clause is the word “duly” before the word “endorsed”.  Without the word “duly”, the very kind of conduct which the general public does not want to see of party conventions is invited.  Also, the lack of the word “duly” tends to diminish public confidence in the convention process.  On the other hand, the inclusion of the word “duly” would simply be of the type of reasonable regulation which is proper and necessary of government.

Third, on the line which is indicated for the candidate’s name, for the McMahon Certificate, there is the appearance of at least two different handwritings. 

Fourth, Ms. McMahon apparently had difficulty with her home zip code as one number is crossed out and another number written above that.

Fifth, toward the bottom of the form there is space for the presumed party endorsement to be attested by the Chairman or Presiding Officer of the Convention.  The form is specific as to the signature and date of signing.  In addition, there are warning words at the bottom of the form which are indicated as “IMPORTANT”.  That portion specifically states that “If this certificate, properly completed, is not received by the SECRETARY OF THE STATE by the deadline indicated above, the party shall be deemed to have made NO ENDORSEMENT OF ANY CANDIDATE for the office.  (Sec. 9-388).”  It is observed of the McMahon Certificate that no date of signing was provided at the respective space.  This situation involves various substantive issues.  As is explained above, the form was never formally promulgated.  This is a substantive defect to the entire process.  Also, as is explained above, the form as has been prepared is materially defective in reasonably protecting public interests.  In addition, it is clear that the form was never “properly completed” on behalf of Linda McMahon.  Further, while the Secretary of State may have some limited discretion in such instances, the official or employee who accepted the McMahon Certificate clearly abused discretion in accepting a Certificate which was not “properly completed”.  Finally, notwithstanding that the explicit requirement of a signature and date may be a matter of substance or convenience, the subsequent negative words nonetheless render that requirement to be mandatory.

Sixth, all of the above is in the context of a separate, related matter whereby for the respective campaign of which I made a formal announcement on February 25, 2010, I did not have a full and fair opportunity to campaign.  Substantive issues regarding the lack of reasonable opportunity for a full and fair opportunity for me to litigate pertain to issues described in the attached follow-up pleading which I presented on March 28, 2010 to the legislative Government Administration and Elections Committee.  The message specifically describes “an unaddressed and unresolved political cancer in state government”, that relating to substantive matters of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority.

I respectfully request your full, prompt and careful review and reply.


Ethan Book

Constitutional integrity and individual freedom!

P.O. Box 1385 - Fairfield, CT  06825
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it - www.ethanbookforussenate.org
Paid for by Ethan Book for U.S. Senate
Author: administrator
Print PDF