Republican U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin has filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Springfield, Illinois. This is the full text of his emergency motion seeking to bar illegal practices by “Combine Republicans” and the State Fair.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS
CASE NO. 2009 CH 658
MICHAEL STEELE, et al.,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Plaintiff asks this Court to issue two (2) separate orders on an emergency basis: (1) a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) barring the Illinois Department of Agriculture (“Agriculture”) or Illinois State fair (“ISF”) or persons acting under Agriculture/ISF from interfering with Plaintiff’s protests at the Illinois State Fair on August 20, 2009; (2) an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) directing the Republican Party defendants to show cause why Plaintiff should not be granted access to the Republican National Committee’s (“RNC’s”) Voter Vault (“VV”). The TRO and OSC are independent of each other.
1. Factual allegations
The facts governing each of these issues are set forth in the attached Complaint.
A. With regard to the TRO, plaintiff has been in negotiation with Agriculture, but has been unable to reach a written agreement as to the terms and conditions for Plaintiff’s use of the Illinois State Fair Premises (“ISF”) for “Republican Day.”
B. As to the RNC issues, the VV is made available to Republican candidates. But because of the corruption and hostility of the Illinois Republican Party (“IRP”) to “reform Republicans,” the VV is not being made available to Plaintiff to harass him as a candidate for statewide office.
2. Legal standards
A. The legal standards governing a TRO are straightforward, see Wilson v. Hinsdale Elementary, 349 Ill.App.3rd 243, 810 N.E.2d 637, 642 (Court of Appeals, 2d Dist. 2004).
A. The TRO
a. Plaintiff is not seeking unrestricted access to the State Fair. He is seeking access on a specific day which the ISF has designated as “Republican Day.” Thus, the ISF itself has allowed and invited Republicans to attend. The essence of political parties going back to Jeffersonian days is that parties have factions. Plaintiff represents mainstream Republicans; the defendants represent “Combine” Republicans. The term “Combine” was coined to describe Republicans-cum-Democrats who exercise dictatorial political powers over Illinois government on a continuing basis, all of which power is lubricated with corruption, self-interest and political duplicity.
b. The TRO/ISF claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the ISF is going to specifically host a “Republican Day,” then it must make reasonable accommodations for conflicting factions in the Republican Party.
c. The ISF claims it has established a "protest area" at a great distance from the Director's Lawn, while some Republicans will be allowed to meet at the Director’s Lawn. Protests which are removed from the area of actual conflict are not protests at all; they are meaningless and hollow gestures which reflect unconstitutional abridgement of political speech.
d. Plaintiff was able to resolve a much more complex protest issue with the Chicago Police Department, without the need to file a lawsuit. Chicago’s streets and sidewalks are crowded and congested. But the CPD was able to accommodate Plaintiff. The ISF is sticking rigidly to vague rules which seek to render Plaintiff’s protest nugatory.
e. Likewise, one faction of the Republican Day crowd has already been granted use of sound amplification. Plaintiff only seeks to use his own sound amplification at a reasonable level. The “rules” of the ISF are vague and offer unfettered discretion on the ISF to control "sound devices." A grant of unfettered discretion to a state official is unconstitutional. Once again, the ISF is taking a wooden approach to resolving what should have been resolved without a lawsuit.
B. The OSC
a. The Republican Party (RNC) has crated a database called the VV. The VV is made available to Republican candidates, and has been made available repeatedly to Plaintiff’s political opponents, including defendant Mark Kirk.
b. Making the VV available to only one of a number of candidates may violate federal election law, which bars excessive contributions to a single candidate in a primary election, as well as Illinois election law, which may bar use of state funds for a single federal candidate. In addition, the VV has been made available on an unrestricted basis to Republicans. In the most recent statewide primary Plaintiff received almost 35% of the statewide vote, and carried numerous downstate counties.
c. The RNC defendants are seeking to sabotage Plaintiff’s campaign for federal office, and sabotage the rights of downstate voters in particular to be reached through information contained in the VV. Such action by the defendants is inequitable and unlawful.
C. The legal criteria for relief
a. “Certain and Clearly Ascertainable Right”
The defendants themselves have designated a special day as Republican Day. They have invited Republicans to protest, and then sought to render protest meaningless. Do they suggest there is only “one” Republican voice? Or a monolithic party? That is obviously an unreasonable belief under any circumstances. Having invited “Republicans,” the ISF has to accommodate all Republicans. Likewise, the VV has been made to Plaintiff’s opponents; he has the same right of access as his opponents.
b. “Inadequate remedy at law”
There is no adequate remedy for denial of First Amendment Rights. Likewise, the VV is a massive compendium that has been created to assist candidates such as Plaintiff. Because of the constraints of time and cost, it would be impossible for any candidate to duplicate the VV.
c. Irreparable injury
The issue of irreparable injury given that Plaintiff is a candidate for federal office and seeks to demonstrate on only one day, billed as “Republican Day” by the ISF itself, in the area of the Republican congregation at the Director’s Lawn, cannot seriously be questioned, Cooper v. Rockford Newspapers, 50 Ill.App. 3rd 250, 365 N.E.2d 746, 750 (Court of Appeals, 2d Dist 1995) citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-374, 96 S. Ct. 2673 (1976).
d. “Likelihood of success”
With all due respect, Plaintiff has an excellent likelihood of succeeding on his claims that (1) the ISF has vague and unconstitutional standards for political speech on specific days when the ISF itself invites political speech by scheduling a “Republican Day” and a separate ”Democratic Day,” Elrod. The actions of the RNC/IRP defendants are arbitrary, capricious and violate the rules of the RNC itself. Plaintiff is an intended beneficiary of the RNC’s rules and procedures for VV access. Plaintiff has complied fully with the VV procedural requirements.
Dated: August 15, 2009
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certified as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to e true.
NATIONAL LITIGATION CENTER
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com (text only)
Additional courtesy copy requested to:
REGIONAL LITIGATION SUPPORT
30 E. Huron Street, Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
Additional e-mail address available
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify I have served Margaret L. van Dijk, Esq. by fax to (217) 785-4505, and the remaining pro se defendants at fax numbers known for them, (312) 201-0181 (McKenna, Weis and Illinois Republican Party); (217) 753-4712 (Conrad); (202) 863-8820 (Steele and RNC); (202) 863-8654 (Priebus); (202) 225-0837;
and (847) 940-7143 (Kirk).