Aspen Daily News

Aspenite wants government given back to the U.S. people

Adam Preskil -

07/03/2003 22:07

Send To Printer »

Many Americans take a minute on the Fourth of July to reflect on the Declaration of Independence. Daniel Pearlman is putting the document to work.

Pearlman, a former candidate for the governorship of New Mexico and the presidency of the United States, is currently suing the New Mexico secretary of state in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to take the government out of the election process.

Pearlman, who splits his time between Taos and Aspen, is using the Declaration of Independence as the primary basis for his argument, specifically that "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, (and) whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it."

He further relies on the Constitution's 15th Amendment in his suit, which states that "the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state."

Pearlman believes that the state of New Mexico is both denying and abridging his right to vote by putting too many constraints on the election process. His hope is that the federal appeals court will agree with his assessment, paving the way for a complete restructuring of the election process that removes all government involvement.

"The case centers on the fact that government may not in any way affect the people's decision by printing names on the ballot, and they may not run the election or have it on any particular day. I'm asking that people run the elections, and that we do not limit the way we elect our representatives. Democracy is defined as government by the people, not the government deciding who the people can choose," Pearlman said.

Pearlman is suing New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron because she is the officer in charge of overseeing elections, and he believes the government's very involvement in the election process infringes on his rights as an American voter.

"Why would we let the government count its own votes?" Pearlman asks. "The woman I'm suing counts the votes in her own election. I'm not suggesting she's dishonest, but don't let the recipient of the votes count them."

What Pearlman envisions is an election run by a national nonprofit organization that would allow voters to select any qualified candidate in almost any form. For president, for example, voters would be able to send in votes for any native-born American over 35 years of age, and they would be able to vote by phone, letter, e-mail, or other means on any day up until a determined election day.

"I find it very difficult to describe, but essentially everybody may address this voting issue in any way they want to. There would be true accountability and total surveillance by the people, rather than the current situation where the voting process is not open to the public. Employees would be sworn to the concept of one vote per person, and that's their only purpose. They would be almost like monks serving the people, and we'd make sure it's as pure as a human can design," Pearlman said.

Voters who do not participate in the election process must also be counted, Pearlman believes, and a non-vote should be considered a vote for no government. If under his process, a majority of Americans still did not participate in the election, that would be considered a vote to abolish the government.

"Everyone is free to choose anyone they want to, but we must count or identify every person. When you don't even get half the people to participate, that's not the people. They must still be counted as not wanting to participate. If a majority of the electorate doesn't vote, then in effect the government's not authorized. But I think people will feel perfectly free to be a part of the elections if they find out that their vote really counts," he said.

While Pearlman believes his lawsuit breaks new ground in challenging the role of the government in the election process, Vigil Giron's attorney David Thompson, chief litigator for the New Mexico District Attorney's Office, sees the issue as a challenge to the 11th Amendment, which grants states sovereign rights in many issues, including elections.

"This is really about whether or not you can sue the state in federal court on an issue involving the elective franchise, because the election process is a sovereign interest," Thompson said. "It's a constitutional question of states' immunity. ... I don't want to get too mired down in the merits of what (Pearlman is) arguing, because my argument is that federal court isn't a proper forum, and election issues should be left to the state."

Thompson said that given the number of cases that apply to be heard by the 10th District Court, he was somewhat surprised that the court not only agreed to hear the case, but chose to appoint University of New Mexico professor of constitutional law Michael Browde to argue Pearlman's case for him.

"My guess is that (they chose to hear the case because) 11th-Amendment jurisprudence is fairly recent, and law goes through its trends like everything else, and state immunity through the 11th is a very popular issue, because it's one of the ways states are able to protect their sovereign interests. Perhaps the 10th Circuit was interested in the theoretical question of whether election law is such a core interest to a state that it has sovereign immunity," Thompson said.

Browde and Thompson argued their cases to the court on May 7, and a decision is expected in the next two weeks, Pearlman said. But even if Pearlman wins the case, Thompson does not believe it will hold up long enough to bring the kind of radical voting reform he's seeking.

"I think that even if he wins, he'll lose on something called failure to state a claim, because resounding case law throughout the U.S. tells us that this is not a restriction on his election rights. So I think the complaint won't survive. It's really kind of an odd, theoretical thing," Thompson said.

Aspen Daily News Printed From: http://www.aspendailynews.com/article_5847
Aspenite wants government given back to the U.S. people Adam Preskil - 07/03/2003 22:07 Send To Printer » Many Americans take a minute on the Fourth of July to reflect on the Declaration of Independence. Daniel Pearlman is putting the document to work. Pearlman, a former candidate for the governorship of New Mexico and the presidency of the United States, is currently suing the New Mexico secretary of state in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to take the government out of the election process. Pearlman, who splits his time between Taos and Aspen, is using the Declaration of Independence as the primary basis for his argument, specifically that "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, (and) whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it." He further relies on the Constitution's 15th Amendment in his suit, which states that "the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state." Pearlman believes that the state of New Mexico is both denying and abridging his right to vote by putting too many constraints on the election process. His hope is that the federal appeals court will agree with his assessment, paving the way for a complete restructuring of the election process that removes all government involvement. "The case centers on the fact that government may not in any way affect the people's decision by printing names on the ballot, and they may not run the election or have it on any particular day. I'm asking that people run the elections, and that we do not limit the way we elect our representatives. Democracy is defined as government by the people, not the government deciding who the people can choose," Pearlman said. Pearlman is suing New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron because she is the officer in charge of overseeing elections, and he believes the government's very involvement in the election process infringes on his rights as an American voter. "Why would we let the government count its own votes?" Pearlman asks. "The woman I'm suing counts the votes in her own election. I'm not suggesting she's dishonest, but don't let the recipient of the votes count them." What Pearlman envisions is an election run by a national nonprofit organization that would allow voters to select any qualified candidate in almost any form. For president, for example, voters would be able to send in votes for any native-born American over 35 years of age, and they would be able to vote by phone, letter, e-mail, or other means on any day up until a determined election day. "I find it very difficult to describe, but essentially everybody may address this voting issue in any way they want to. There would be true accountability and total surveillance by the people, rather than the current situation where the voting process is not open to the public. Employees would be sworn to the concept of one vote per person, and that's their only purpose. They would be almost like monks serving the people, and we'd make sure it's as pure as a human can design," Pearlman said. Voters who do not participate in the election process must also be counted, Pearlman believes, and a non-vote should be considered a vote for no government. If under his process, a majority of Americans still did not participate in the election, that would be considered a vote to abolish the government. "Everyone is free to choose anyone they want to, but we must count or identify every person. When you don't even get half the people to participate, that's not the people. They must still be counted as not wanting to participate. If a majority of the electorate doesn't vote, then in effect the government's not authorized. But I think people will feel perfectly free to be a part of the elections if they find out that their vote really counts," he said. While Pearlman believes his lawsuit breaks new ground in challenging the role of the government in the election process, Vigil Giron's attorney David Thompson, chief litigator for the New Mexico District Attorney's Office, sees the issue as a challenge to the 11th Amendment, which grants states sovereign rights in many issues, including elections. "This is really about whether or not you can sue the state in federal court on an issue involving the elective franchise, because the election process is a sovereign interest," Thompson said. "It's a constitutional question of states' immunity. ... I don't want to get too mired down in the merits of what (Pearlman is) arguing, because my argument is that federal court isn't a proper forum, and election issues should be left to the state." Thompson said that given the number of cases that apply to be heard by the 10th District Court, he was somewhat surprised that the court not only agreed to hear the case, but chose to appoint University of New Mexico professor of constitutional law Michael Browde to argue Pearlman's case for him. "My guess is that (they chose to hear the case because) 11th-Amendment jurisprudence is fairly recent, and law goes through its trends like everything else, and state immunity through the 11th is a very popular issue, because it's one of the ways states are able to protect their sovereign interests. Perhaps the 10th Circuit was interested in the theoretical question of whether election law is such a core interest to a state that it has sovereign immunity," Thompson said. Browde and Thompson argued their cases to the court on May 7, and a decision is expected in the next two weeks, Pearlman said. But even if Pearlman wins the case, Thompson does not believe it will hold up long enough to bring the kind of radical voting reform he's seeking. "I think that even if he wins, he'll lose on something called failure to state a claim, because resounding case law throughout the U.S. tells us that this is not a restriction on his election rights. So I think the complaint won't survive. It's really kind of an odd, theoretical thing," Thompson said.
© 2006 Aspen Daily News All Rights Reserved Site Design by ProjectWest