William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys At Law
Election Law
Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Mitchell, Amicus Brief on Behalf of 12 Organization (New Jersey Supreme Court, May 10, 2010)
- On May 10, 2010, on behalf of 12 organizations, the firm filed an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court of New Jersey supporting the efforts of the plaintiff, the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez From the Office of U.S. Senator.
On November 2, 1993, by an overwhelming majority, the people of New Jersey enacted an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution which allows the people to recall their representatives to the U.S. Congress, and directing the state legislature to promulgate laws to provide for recall elections, which the legislature did in May, 1995.
In September, 2009, the New Jersey Secretary of State refused to comply with these provisions, and declined to certify the plaintiff’s effort to recall Senator Menendez. In January of 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division ordered that the recall effort must go forward. Senator Menendez joined the suit as an indispensable party. On April 27, 2010, he successfully sought expedited review of the decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.
Our brief argues that the power to recall U.S. Senators is reserved to the people by the Tenth and Seventeenth Amendments. When the Constitution was ratified, the state legislatures had the power to choose representatives. This changed when the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913 to require the direct election of Senators by the people of the various states. Senator Menendez believes that the Amendment granted Congressmen an immunity from removal by the people they represent, even if they fail to faithfully represent the interests of their constituents.
Neither the Seventeenth Amendment nor any other section of the Constitution prohibits the people of New Jersey from recalling their representatives. Lastly, the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton does not foreclose this power. There, the Court held that the state legislatures may not add qualifications for members of Congress to supplement those in the Constitution. But the power to recall is not a qualification on whom the people may elect, but protects the people’s right to choose, giving the people another bite at the apple to elect someone who will better serve them.
The brief was filed on behalf of: Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund; Institute on the Constitution; U.S. Justice Foundation; Gun Owners Foundation; Gun Owners of America, Inc.; Vision to America; The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education; Public Advocate; U.S. Border Control; U.S. Border Control Foundation; American Coalition for Competitive Trade; and The Constitution Party national Committee.
On May 12, 2010, a brief on behalf of Senator Robert Menendez was filed in opposition to our motion. On May 19, 2010, a New Jersey Supreme Court Order granted the motion and accepted the amicus brief on behalf of Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al. Oral argument was held on May 25, 2010.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Amicus Brief (U.S. Supreme Court, July 31, 2009)
Testimony of Jeremiah Morgan, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. and the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., before the Federal Election Commission at its Hearings on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Definition of “Electioneering Communications.” (October 18, 2007)
Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the Proposed Regulations on Electioneering Communications (72 Fr 50261) on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (October 3, 2007)
Wisconsin Right to Life Amicus Brief (U.S. Supreme Court, March 23, 2007)
Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the Consideration of Regulations with Respect to the Definition of "Electioneering Communication" on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (September 30, 2005)
Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding Proposed Internet Regulations on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (June 3, 2005)
Comments to the Federal Election Commission Regarding the Proposed Redefinition of “Political Committee” on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (April 9, 2004)
Reply Brief for Appellants Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, August 21, 2003)
Brief for Appellants Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, July 8, 2003)
Federal Election Commission Public Hearing on Enforcement Procedures Transcript -- Bill Olson spoke and filed a statement (June 11, 2003)
Jurisdictional Statement Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, May 30, 2003)
Federal Election Commission v. Christine Beaumont, et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, February 10, 2003)
Reply Brief Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 27, 2002)
Proposed Findings of Fact Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 26, 2002)
Opposition Brief Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) November 20, 2002)
Initial Brief Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 6, 2002)
Fact Witness Testimony Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, October 4, 2002)
Expert Witness Reports Filed in the Case of Paul, et al. v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, September 23, 2002)
Comments to the Federal Election Commission in Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electioneering Communications (August 29, 2002)
Amended Complaint Filed in the Case of Paul, et al.v. FEC, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, May 7, 2002)
Lawsuit Filed To Challenge Legitimacy of FEC (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 23, 2002)
- Our firm filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, Real Campaign Reform.org, Inc., Citizens United, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, Carla Howell, Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, and Michael Cloud, Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.
This lawsuit charges that both the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violate the First Amendment protection of Freedom of the Press today. Other lawsuits filed after President Bush signed the BCRA in March challenged the new law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. But today's suit is the first to argue that BCRA violates Freedom of the Press, which the complaint says "belongs to the American people," and not just to the institutional corporate press, such as The Washington Post or CNN.
A Gun Owners of America press release is available, New and Existing Campaign Finance Laws Violate Freedom Of The Press -- Lawsuit Filed Today Is Fundamental Challenge To Election Laws. More information about the lawsuit is available at realcampaignreform.org
Campaign Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis (February 13, 2002)
- A paper by Herb Titus regarding the unconstitutionality of campaign finance reform legislation was inserted into the Congressional Record by Congressman Ron Paul, who described Herb Titus as "one of America's leading constitutional scholars."
Will Illegal Aliens Decide Who Will Be America's Next President (November 9, 2000)
This U.S. Border Controll Press Release discusses the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the Motor Voter law, and the upcoming election.
Campaign Finance Limitations Case, (U.S. Supreme Court, June 7, 1999)
- Our amicus curiae brief, challenges the entire scheme of campaign finance regulation as an impermissible restraint on free speech, designed to protect incumbents from challenges and to preserve the media's powerful voice as the only entities able to spend an unlimited amount of money on elections. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.
Testimony Before Federal Election Commission on Proposed Membership Regulations (March 17, 1999)
- This testimony, presented before the six-member Federal Election Commission, opposes efforts designed to restrict the definition of membership so that PACs associated with nonprofit advocacy groups would be curtailed in their campaign involvement. The positions advanced were largely successful. The FEC's final regulations were issued July 30, 1999.
Comments to the Federal Election Commission on Membership on Behalf of the Free Speech Coalition (February 1, 1999)
|
