Ankeny v Governor of Indiana – Appeal?
Remember the Indiana State case where the Court of Appeal ruled not only that Ankeny lacked standing etc etc but also defined the meaning of Natural Born, citing Wong Kim Ark? Well, the case appears to be readying itself for appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court who may decide to allow transfer, which is similar to granting cert at the Federal level.
If the case makes it to the IN Supreme Court, the Court will likely focus on the dismissal which was based on Constitutional grounds and not on the obiter dicta of ‘natural born’. So it is unlikely that the IN Supreme Court or for that matter, the US Supreme Court will touch the Natural Born definition anytime soon. If they do so, the IN Appeals Court has provided an excellent foundation of the legal precedents. Let’s keep our eyes open for any developments here.
2/11/10 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR TRANSFER (9) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (9) BY MAIL DATE 02/11/10 JS 02/15/10
Ankeny v Daniels – Appeal – Rehearing Denied
1/15/10 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED. FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE
ALL PANEL JUDGES CONCUR. KJ
Ankeny v Gov of Indiana – Docket Appeal
| Case Number: 49 A 02 – 0904 – CV – 00353 |
| ANKENY, STEVE, ET AL. V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA |
Ankeny v Gov of Indiana – Natural Born Defined – Born on US Soil regardless of citizenship parents
A forgotten case and now the court has ruled who is a Natural Born Citizen. Thanks to Ballantine for posting the link
FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE,
Appellants-Plaintiffs,
vs. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
INDIANA,
Appellee-Respondent.
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable David J. Dreyer, Judge
Cause No. 49D10-0812-PL-55511
November 12, 2009
OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION
BROWN, Judge
Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana(“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2
2009-03-16- News -Ankeny v Daniels – Dismissed
To noone’s surprise a Judge has dismissed yet another lawsuit. This one is Ankeny v Daniels.
A Marion Superior Court judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Indiana men seeking to invalidate Indiana’s election results based on President Barack Obama’s citizenship status.
At a hearing last month, attorneys representing Gov. Mitch Daniels asked Judge David Dreyer to dismiss the lawsuit. Filed in December, it is one of dozens across the country that have challenged Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his status as a “natural born citizen.” All have been unsuccessful.
the reasons for dismissal? Too little, too late..
Dreyer’s order today says the issue raised by the plaintiffs, Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn, now is moot. It also says they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that they are barred from bringing the action under the legal doctrine of laches, which means the plaintiffs waited too long to assert a time-sensitive claim.
The suit said Indiana’s 11 Democratic electors weren’t properly chosen because Daniels didn’t first verify the eligibility of Obama or Sen. John McCain, his Republican opponent, to be president.
The Indiana attorney general’s lawyers argued the suit should be tossed because the governor and the electors already had carried out their duties under election law. They said the U.S. Congress would be the proper venue for a debate over how to verify the eligibility of candidates.
Source: Indianapolis Star, Judge dismisses suit on Obama’s citizenship By Jon Murray, Posted: March 16, 2009
Robinson v Bowen and Ankeny v Daniels
In Ankeny v Daniels, the defendants argue
Relying on 3 U .S.C. § 15 and the Twentieth Amendment, the district court in Robinson v. Bowen stated, “[a]rguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised [by members of Congress] as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.” 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1148 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The court rejected a private cause of action stating, “[t]he members of the Senate and House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates.” Id.
Robinson v Bowen was another SOS lawsuit filed in California and the courts found that a private cause of action needs to be rejected since the House and Congress are well qualified to address, if necessary, any alleged objections raised during the certification of the Electoral College.
Funny how the law works and the rejection of a lawsuit in one jurisdiction can be quoted against a lawsuit in another jurisdiction. That’s how these lawsuits seem to self-extinguish quickly.
Ankeny v Daniels
Ankeny and Kruse had their day in court and seem to be hopeful even though their legal argument: that the candidates become electors at the day of the national election, is somewhat of a stretch. Since sitting senators cannot be electors, and since they believe that their state’s laws has created something they call a chief-elector, they argue that both McCain and Obama were inelligible. I am not sure what they hope to achieve here, certainly it is too late for remedy (mootness) and they likely will be found to lack standing. But even if their case were to proceed, their legal arguments seem to be rather far fetched.
12-26-2008 – Questioning the legality of a sitting Senator to run for President/Vice president
A set of interesting lawsuits were filed in various states, challenging the Constitutionality of a sitting Senator to run for President or Vice President
The cases are as follows:
- Alabama was filed as case 08-1906 in Montgomery County Circuit Court.
- Indiana was filed as 49D10-0812-PL-055511 in Marion Superior Court.
- Georgia was filed. (waiting for case number and copy of complaint).
- Michigan was filed as case 08-140-MM.
- Illinois was filed as case 2008-MR-000736.
I have yet to find any more data on them beyond the Indiana lawsuit which I am tracking under Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
My thoughts – Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
Although the issue is certainly moot and the plaintiffs’ lack standing and remedy, there is an interesting argument here in which the plaintiffs (who are appearing Pro Se) seem to be claiming that on November 4, Senator Obama was elected Elector-in-Chief even though at the time of this election, he was not included on the official list of electors.
Remember that the people do not vote for a President but rather for an elector, who gets to elect the president. Because of some poorly argued reason, the Plaintiffs seem to believe that the voters actually voted for Obama and McCain as Electors-in-Chief but I fail to see any supporting evidence other than an assertion that “what else happened on November 4th?” Perhaps the plaintiffs believe that since the ballot only mentioned Obama or McCain that this meant that the voters were voting directly for what they seem to define as a ‘Elector-In-Chief”. If that is the case, then they seem to misunderstand election law.
I predict that the suit, which is rumored to be part of a set of 5 suits filed across they US (I have yet to find any others), will be dismissed by granting the Motion to Dismiss by the defendants.
And what happened on 01-06-2009?
INDIANAPOLIS – Eleven Democratic Hoosier Electoral College members cast their votes for President Elect Barack Obama in the Indiana House Chambers Monday morning. The votes will officially be tabulated on Jan. 6 in Washington, D.C., the final electoral hurdle for the Illinois Democrat prior to his Jan. 20 inauguration.
When at 10:35 a.m. Secretary of State Todd Rokita told about 300 people in the chambers, “Eleven votes have been cast and all 11 have been cast for Barack Obama,” thunderous applause erupted in the chamber. It was the first time since 1964 that a Democrat had won Indiana’s Electoral College votes.
The 11 electors then cast their votes for Joe Biden as vice president.
Source: Howey Politics Indiana
There is a confusion as to the nature of the short ballot versus ‘general ticket’. In the former, voters elect the entire slate of electors, while in the latter, voters vote for a particular elector.
Before the advent of the short ballot in the early twentieth century, as described above, the most common means of electing the presidential electors was through the general ticket. The general ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often confused with it. In the general ticket, voters cast ballots for individuals running for presidential elector (while in the short ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of electors). In the general ticket, the state canvass would report the number of votes cast for each candidate for elector, a complicated process in states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the general ticket and the short ballot are often considered at-large or winner-takes-all voting. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times; it was adopted for use by North Carolina and Ohio in 1932. Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.
Source: Wikipedia
And
The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature’s choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In McPherson v. Blacker, , the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state’s electors are selected “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct” and wrote that these words “operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power.” In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, , a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on McPherson. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in Bush v. Gore, , wrote: “nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it.”[30]
Source: Wikipedia
12-09-2008 – Ankeny v Governor of Indiana – Petition for Writ
MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
IN THE STATE OF INDIANA
Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama
Republican National Committee, John McCain
Defendants
Case No.
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION
01-30-2009 – Ankeny v Governor of Indiana – Defendant Motion to Dismiss
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF MARION
STEVE ANKENY and BILL KRUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, BARAK OBAMA, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, JOHN McCAIN,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 49DlO-0812-PL-055511 )
DEFENDANT, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
01-20-2009 – Ankeny v Governor of Indiana – Defendant's Memorandum in support of Motion to Dismiss
(pdf)
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF MARION
STEVE ANKENY and BILL
KRUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, BARAK OBAMA, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, JOHN McCAIN,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 49DI0-0812-PL-055511 )
DEFENDANT, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
02-xx-2009 – Ankeny v Governor of Indiana – Plaintiffs' opposition to motion to dismiss
IN THE STATE OF INDIANA
MARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama
Republican National Committee, John McCain
Defendants
Case No. 49D10-0812-PL-055511
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO GOVERNOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Ankeny responds to motion to dismiss
Ankeny hoped that a novel ‘legal theory’ would come to their help. The courts were not very impressed.
It’s good to share [the above public documents] with a wider community, and it will be one week soon.
I will not share our response until AFTER it is filed, and I will only hint at our argument.
The Governor filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction [court cannot hear], failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [relief cannot be granted] and mootness [process is complete].
Recent Comments