deferring to the Secretary’s interpretation of “presence” in the context of requiring circulator to directly observe a voter signature on a petition before the circulator can properly fulfill the obligation of his oath
How later courts described this case
- deferring to the Secretary’s interpretation of “presence” in the context of requiring circulator to directly observe a voter signature on a petition before the circulator can properly fulfill the obligation of his oath
- “Although the Secretary’s policy decision, attempting to save petitions in certain circumstances, may not be unreasonable, it is the Legislature that weighs the competing considerations and sets the policy.”
- deferring to the Secretary of State’s statutory construction as “eminently sensible”
- Ex. L to Compl. (Docket No. 1-14)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STATEMENT OF NONCONCURRENCE
MEAD and SILVER, JJ.
[¶ 16] We would deny Hoffman’s motion for stay. It is incumbent upon a party seeking temporary relief from a judgment of the Court to demonstrate an appropriate basis and need for the granting of such extraordinary relief. At the heart of such a showing is proof that the stay would actually accomplish an affirmative result.
*1066 [¶ 17] As noted in the Court’s granting of Hoffman’s motion, it is unlikely that Hoffman -will succeed in (1) obtaining a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, and (2) ultimately demonstrating that this Court construed an indisputably constitutional statute in an unconstitutional manner. More immediate, however, is the fact that any relief from the U.S. Supreme Court would almost certainly arrive well after the election and the administrative processes necessary to accomplish it. The short-term stay granted by this Court, therefore, would not likely create a procedural framework for any meaningful result for Hoffman, such as having his name appear on the ballot. Furthermore, Hoffman would likely be able to obtain a ruling on these issues regardless of whether a stay is granted, because this case would appear to fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine. See FEC v. Wise. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 2662 , 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007).