Ads by Google Ads by Google

Election Office moves to dismiss appeal over Saulo’s candidacy

The Election Office has moved to dismiss the petition filed in the Appellate Division of the High Court last week by Tualauta Candidate Lucia Bartley against the Chief Election Officer, after denying a challenge lodged by Bartley, and noting that Vui Florence Saulo has satisfied the U.S. National requirement, in accordance with Article II Section 3.

 

The dismissal motion was filed last Friday in the afternoon by Gwen Tauili’ili-Langkilde. The motion says that this matter is now before the court for the second time, as it was two years ago when Saulo won one of two seats in the 2012 race, and Bartley, along with Esther Wall — two of the losing candidates in the same race — had claimed that the Chief Election Officer failed to require that Saulo produce a birth certificate to prove her US national status.

 

In that case, the court determined that it lacked necessary subject matter jurisdiction to review the merits of petitioner’s claim because they failed to file a timely challenge.

 

The dismissal motion notes that on September 5, 2014 Bartley, rather than providing specific evidence in support of her now two-year-old complaint, alluded to information from most reliable sources and implied that should Tuaolo embark on a fact finding mission into government records fraud.

 

Tuaolo responded by saying that Saulo satisfies the US National requirement to be an eligible candidate. He also allowed Bartley’s attorney the opportunity to view these sensitive files because her attorney was an officer of the court, and he viewed the documents on September 10, 2014.

 

The documents in Saulo’s election office files included copies of pages from Saulo’s current and valid US passport, which includes the notation on the last page, that the bearer is a United States national and not a United States citizen.

 

The same day, Bartley’s attorney filed the petition with the court.

 

“Despite having explicitly been told the basis [upon which she] was given the opportunity to view Saulo’s files, Bartley claims that the “Chief Election Officer not make it clear what specific evidence or documents.”

 

ARGUMENT

 

Tauili’ili-Langkilde argues that the revised constitution of American Samoa, Article II, section 3 requires that to be eligible to be a candidate for the American Samoa House of Representatives a person must be a US National, amongst other criteria. The term US national is defined by federal immigration and local immigration law as a person born in or having specified ties with American Samoa or Swains Island. A US passport is conclusive proof and sufficient evidence of one’s status as a US National.

 

The US State Department is vested with the authority to issue US passports, and describes the proof required to apply for a certificate of non-citizen national status or a US passport bearing the notation of US National status. Such proof may include, but not be limited to a certified birth certificate.

 

Tauili’ili-Langkilde asked the court to dismiss the petition filed by Bartley.

 

In the meantime, Saulo has filed a motion to intervene, through her attorney, Marcellus Talaimalo Uiagalelei pursuant to Rule 15(d), Appellate Court Rules (ACR).

 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

 

According to the intervene motion, Uiagalelei notes that Saulo is one of the two current Representatives of Tualauta and in her motion rejects such an allegation and would like the opportunity to defend her eligibility to hold office and the Chief Election Officer’s decision in her favor.

 

Intervenor (Saulo) believes that she would have much to contribute to this matter by way of evidence and legal submissions and is concerned that her absence from this matter may affect the adequate representation of her interests herein. She also claims that due to this matter the election process is being held up as voting ballots for Tualauta district remain unprinted.

 

DISMISSAL MOTION JOINING ELECTION OFFICE

 

Saulo filed with the Court her notice of joining Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and in her motion claims that Bartley does not identify any firm or conclusive evidence to support her claims. For the past two years Petitioner made no effort to challenge Intervenor’s birth record with the proper Government agency says the notice.

 

Despite her concerns and suspicions from 2012 that Intervenor’s birth certificate was improper, she did nothing to verify her suspicions. The motion states that “it’s clear what Bartley’s intentions are with her challenge that does not go directly to the issue of nationality, but rather an attack on the legitimacy of Intervenor’s birth certificate.”

 

Saulo says that American Samoa birth certificates are produced by the Department of Medical Services and recorded with the Registrar of Vital Statistics and the Election Office has no part to play in their production or recording.

 

“Therefore, to launch a formal complaint on someone’s birth record before the Chief Election Officer is obviously and utterly senseless. And to further challenge the authenticity of such public records before this Court, in a process meant for election disputes, has no legal basis in fact or law.”

 

Saulo further claims that the Petition filed in this matter is at best vague, and leaves the Court and opposing parties guessing as to how the Tuaolo erred in making his determination.

 

In this case, Petitioner does not challenge any of the four Constitutional requirements, or at least offers no evidence to support a challenge on any of the four requirements. The notice states that “all Petitioner does is to raise an issue with authenticity of a birth record, but offers nothing by way of facts to at least give a prima facie showing of how her challenge is legitimate under the law. Furthermore, one need only review the carbon copy list of Petitioner’s challenge letter to glimpse Petitioner’s improper intent.”

 

Saulo also points out that “interestingly, the ‘News Media’_ was a recipient of a carbon copy of Petitioner’s letter, which strongly supports the proposition that this whole ‘challenge’ is nothing more than harassment and an attempt to win an election by improper means, such as dragging into question Intervenor’s eligibility to hold office as a Representative.”

 

She further notes in her claim that she is now an unwilling participant in an improper action, and that the Court and the Chief Election Officer are being made to take part in something that has no legal support or basis. In addition, the election process is being held up as voting ballots for Tualauta district remain unprinted and as a result the voters of Tualauta district are still unsure as to who their candidates are for the upcoming election. 

 

Through her attorney, Saulo is asking the court to dismiss this action based on those arguments presented in the petition, and by Respondent (the Chief Election Officer) in his Motion to Dismiss; and in denying the relief “prayed for by Petitioner” to award to Intervenor (Saulo) reasonable attorney fees for having to defend against this frivolous action and award to her “such other relief that this Court may deem equitable and just.”