Hawaii Elections Office releases Nomination Certificates requested Four Months Ago

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF HAWAII REMOVED REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY WORDING USED IN 2004 AND 2000

by Sharon Rondeau

Sen. Barbara Boxer's signature is on the DNC nomination certificate from the year 2000, on which an interesting addition of words in a different typeface was made

(Nov. 19, 2010) — After our original request on July 27, 2010 for the Certificates of Nomination produced by the RNC, DNC, and the Democratic Party of Hawaii to the Hawaii Elections Office, the documents were sent on November 17, 2010.  All of them were in PDF format, so no mailing costs were involved.

The release of the documents follows a letter sent to Atty. Linden Joesting of the Office of Information Practices on November 16, 2010 stating that we would be filing a lawsuit if the documents did not arrive within ten business days.  The OIP oversees the Open Records Law, or UIPA, in the state of Hawaii and had directed the Elections Office to release the documents in September.

Part 1, “General Provisions and Definitions” of the UIPA states:

In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.

The policy of conducting government business as openly as possible must be tempered by a recognition of the right of the people to privacy, as embodied in section 6 and section 7 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii.

This chapter shall be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are to:

(1) Promote the public interest in disclosure;

(2) Provide for accurate, relevant, timely, and complete government records;

(3) Enhance governmental accountability through a general policy of access to government records;

(4) Make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use, and dissemination of information relating to them; and

(5) Balance the individual privacy interest and the public access interest, allowing access unless it would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]

According to the UIPA manual, the law “requires agencies to disclose all ‘government records'” (page 11).  The information requested by The Post & Email did not fall under any of the categories of government records which could be withheld from public scrutiny.  Regarding a denial of a request for records, the UIPA law states:

(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.

and

(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.

Since The Post & Email had already appealed to the Office of Information Practices on account of the Elections Office’s lack of cooperation in releasing the records, the next step was a lawsuit in Circuit Court in Honlulu.

Why it took nearly four months to release the documents, which had already been in the public domain for many months and had nothing to do with “personal privacy,” was never explained.  Because the documents have historical and research value in determining whether or not any laws were broken in 2008 when Obama was nominated by the Democratic Party of Hawaii and the DNC, The Post & Email wanted to obtain them directly from the Elections Office.

The DNC nomination certificate from the year 2000 bears the signatures of co-chairwomen Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as well as a third signature, that of Kathleen M. Vick, Secretary.  The wording at the top of the form contains a constitutional eligibility clause for both nominees, Al Gore for President and Joe Lieberman for Vice President.  However, it is obvious that the eligibility wording was added to the form mechanically rather than electronically:

2000 Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee which contains "eligibility" wording in a different typeface than the rest of the document
The "eligibility" wording appears to have been added in after the electronic production of the document, perhaps on a typewriter.

So in 2000, the DNC indicated its awareness of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

It would be interesting to obtain the DNC Certificate of Nomination for 1996 to ascertain if any “eligibility” wording was present in a document template or added in at some point in a different typeface as it was in 2000.

In 2004, the DNC dropped any eligibility language in its Certification of Nomination:

2004 DNC Certification of Nomination for John Kerry and John Edwards

Top portion of 2004 DNC Certification of Nomination form

However, in 2008, the DNC stated that Barack Obama and Joe Biden were “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”:

2008 DNC Certification of Nomination form with the wording "legally qualified" as it pertained to Obama and Biden

Top part of the DNC Certification of Nomination form from 2008 which certifies Obama and Biden as "legally qualified"

Hawaii state election law requires each political party to certify its candidates as constitutionally eligible.  The statute reads, in part:

(1)  In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A)  The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B)  A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C)  A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

Emphasis in boldface was added here by The Post & Email.

In 2000, the Democratic Party of Hawaii adhered to the law by stating that candidates Gore and Lieberman were “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…”

2000 Certification of Nomination form from the Democratic Party of Hawaii with the required eligibility wording
2000 Certification of Nomination form declaring Gore and Lieberman "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"

The 2008 state party form did not contain that wording:

Democratic Party of Hawaii 2008 Certification of Nomination form for Obama and Biden
The Democratic Party of Hawaii did not certify Obama or Biden as being "legally qualified to serve" as it did in 2000 for Gore and Lieberman.

The Republican National Committee appears to have utilized the same form without any change in wording for both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections:

Republican National Committee 2004 Certification of Nomination
RNC Certification of Nomination for 2008
Top portion of RNC Certificate of Nominations filed with the state of Hawaii in 2008 which refers to constitutional requirements. While the copy is not of good quality, it appears that nothing was manipulated mechanically or electronically to change the wording.

The 2004 RNC Certificate of Nominations is of better quality:

RNC 2004 Certificate of Nominations with eligibility wording
Enlarged top portion of RNC Certificate of Nominations filed with the state of Hawaii in 2004

The RNC certificates certify separately that both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are constitutionally eligible to serve.

It would also be interesting to see the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s certification form for the 1996 presidential election as well as the Hawaii Republican Party’s certificates of nomination for 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

25 Responses to "Hawaii Elections Office releases Nomination Certificates requested Four Months Ago"

  1. susanm   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM

    All i can say is, as a president, obama will let LT.COL. sit in jail, and losing everthing when obama can show all his paper work..is grounds for IMPEACHMENT? may obama rot in jail, may all the judges rot in jail, how can a government do this to the LT.COL. is beyond words..this will come out, you just can’t lie, and you will get caught, lies get you no where.

  2. Jomo Kenyatta   Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM

    The only person with standing is John McCain. He is the person, the ONLY person, that can move this forward. Flood his office with calls.

  3. Red   Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 11:19 PM

    The “seal” on the Soetoro/Obama “COLB” does not match the official seal of the HDOH.

    Please see:

    Unveiling the HDOH Seal

  4. bobby   Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 7:04 AM

    Others have suggested that HI is covering up to protect past immigration law ‘lapses’. This is plausible, but a simpler explanation is the Akaka Bill.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaka_Bill

    Sponsored by BO himself, this bill will bring casinos to HI along with cushy jobs to officials who are protecting him now.

  5. Daniel Cutulla   Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 7:32 AM

    The problem is, since there seems to be no legal requirement for the powers-that-be to vet candidates’ eligibility, there is no standing even if we can prove no-one vetted Obama/Soetoro.

    We can only hope this fact raises more suspicions and shows what’s truly broken with the system.

  6. Karen   Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 6:35 AM

    1. Re: no or few pro-Obama bumper stickers – it looks like few are overwhelmed by Obama.

    2. Re: HI not noting, celebrating, the 44th President’s Birthday — that may be because they do not want to open ANY pandora’s box — make any statement — that might come back to bite them — might be used to bring suit, i.e., tell the jurisdiction it must now prove that Obama was born here b/c they are publicly claiming it via the B-day celebration. I think on this, HI is being uber-cautious. . .which is also significant.

    3. This whole charade is just shockingly shameful . . .and overt. The change in the language from 2000/2004 to 2008 is so obviously a cause for concern — at least cause to ASK WHY those changes were made. Yet, no one will talk about it! I’m so alarmed by this overt cover-up . . .and I can’t believe that the American people can be “played” and manipulated to this extreme degree. It’s genuinely scary.

  7. thinkwell   Monday, November 22, 2010 at 2:42 PM

    Over at the FreeRepublic site, Danae, who was born in Hawaii, and Butterdezillion have suggested that Hawaii is defending Obama not so much out of love for Obama, but to avoid exposing their own past history of heavy corruption in their immigration policy/practice that was used to secure cheap labor for their “pineapple plantations” (big agriculture). Thus, they are protecting Obama to keep their own sorry selves out of the federal penitentiary.

    It would be completely in keeping with Obama’s Chicago thug mentally to suppose that he has threatened them with, “If I go down, I’ll use what I know to make sure that you all go down with me.”

  8. TexasVoter   Monday, November 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM

    Thank you. But can’t we citizens initiate an action to force them to disclose their authentication process or admit that there was no such authentication? If there was none and they certified BHO as being Constitutionally eligible, doesn’t that create some standing for further actions?

  9. TexasVoter   Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 9:37 PM

    Sorry if this is a stale question, but isn’t there some way to compel any officials who certified Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to detail and document their authentication process?
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I don’t believe they did it, which is why their silence is deafening.

  10. Researcher   Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM

    I traveled to HI on behalf of The P&E and another researcher last summer and I saw nothing to indicate that HI is head over heels in love with O. It was complete devoid of any commemoration celebrating O’s alleged birth on Oahu. You would think HI would be trumpeting from the rooftop that the 44th President is one of their own. Not.

    If anyone visits HI, they would never never know based on their surroundings, that O was born there. This indicates me that A LOT of folks in HI, including some in the state government, do not believe it for a minute. There are more O bumperstickers per capita in my hometown (left coast) than what I observed in HI.

    I had planned on visiting the HI OoE and the DPH headquarters however my investigation took a different turn based on information I received just prior to my trip. My plan was to ask why the 2008 DPH certificate was so different, and why did the HI OoE accept it when it clearly did not pass the litmus test.

    My point is that there must be an individual, or group in HI that doubts the veracity of O’s birth story that can challenge the HI OoE and/or the DPH and then move forward with a lawsuit.

  11. RacerJim   Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 9:39 AM

    Imagine what Alfred Hitchcock could have done with all this stuff.

  12. Don   Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 3:01 AM

    For what it is worth, I have read almost every lawsuit filed regarding eligibility of BO. As one who have stayed on the cutting edge of those numerous suits, and the judicial rulings, the “Standing” issue has been used over and over by court after court to block the the case from even reaching the point of discovery, I strongly tend to agree with “Researcher”s opinion dated 11-19-2010, that citizens of Hawaii come very close to having standing to proceed in a case. Controlling case law requires a clear showing of actual damage to a plaintiff, and not speculative damage, for there to be standing. Orly Taitz has run into this brick wall in several cases, as have others.
    It will take a brilliant constitutional attorney to evaluate the standing issue of Hawaii citizens in this case, to determine the odds of meeting the standing issue. The burden is on the plaintiff to show actual damages sustained as a result of a violation to certify OB, as Hawaii election law requires. Is there any constitutional attorney out there who feels strongly about this and will assess this issue, and have the guts to take a case, or file a class action, due to OB as an uncertified NBC on the very face of the documents. The inconsistencies from 2000 to 2008 are prima facia evidence of fraud, not some accident, or just an oversite. We are talking about the election of the POTUS here folks. What say you?

  13. Researcher   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 9:57 PM

    The analysis contained in the above link is pretty accurate although I would not have referred to it as the unabridged (HI) vs. abridged (everyone else) version. It is quite evident that the DNC AMENDS the base text to include the “under the provisions of the US Constitution” to meet HI election law HRS 11-113.

    Why else would the language be added after the fact on the 2000 HI DNC certificate and completely missing from the HI 2004 DNC certificate? In other words, it’s added, not deleted.

    Thanks for the including the link in your comment; I had not seen this.

  14. Researcher   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 9:29 PM

    I have a copy of the 2004 DPH certificate although I found it on the internet; I did not obtain it from the HI OoE. I believe I found it on Justin Riggs’ site before he took it down. Language wise, it is verbatim when compared to the 2000 DPH certifcate for Gore/Lieberman. Based on my analysis, the trend was definitely broken in 2008.

    Here is a link to all three DPH certificates that someone uploaded at Scribd. They match what I found and/or received from the HI OoE.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20802813/Democratic-Party-of-Hawaii-Certifications-of-Nomination-Obama-2008-Gore-2000-Kerry-2004
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you, Researcher.

  15. ObamaRelease YourRecords   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM

    2000/2004/2008 Democratic Party of Hawaii Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37528165/2000-2004-2008-Democratic-Party-of-Hawaii-Certifications-of-Nomination-for-Presidential-Candidates

  16. ObamaRelease YourRecords   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM

    That is because that’s a hard-core Obot site…

  17. ObamaRelease YourRecords   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 8:49 PM

    The DPH certs. were also covered extensively several months ago,

    here; http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/breaking-democratic-party-of-hawaii.html

    via; http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/certificate-of-nomination-summary/

    What I would like to know is why it took so long for them to release these certs to the P&E when they had already released them before…

    I wish someone would file a suit against Hawaii based on this; http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hawaiian-law-demands-obama-records-be-made-public
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: That’s what I wanted to know! They had already been released to someone previously. I wanted to obtain them from the source; that was all.

  18. Birdy   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 8:30 PM

    Where’s the Certificate of Nomination from the Democratic Party of Hawaii for Kerry/Edwards in 2004? Having both the DPH 2000 and DPH 2004 showing on eligibility language would establish the trend that was broken in 2008.

  19. Researcher   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 6:36 PM

    Justin Riggs first discovered this anomaly in 2008, just after the election; it did not get a great deal of attention. Everyone focused on the DNC certificate because the one that HI received was different than the those sent to the other unspecified states. Most everyone was under the assumption that the DNC did something “special” for HI, when in fact, they were just complying with HI election laws.

    I imagine that the other underdetermined number of states that require a CoN from the DNC received one without the “legally qualified under the provisions of the US Constitution” language because their respective state statute did not require it. Sort of a CYA by the DNC, if you will. Everyone has assumed that the DNC treated O and B “different” than it did previous candidates. Examination of other DNC CoNs submitted to states (other than HI) on behalf of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, were also absent of the aforementioned language. As Mrs. Rondeau pointed out, it was added after the fact on 2000 HI DNC certificate, and missing entirely from the 2004 HI DNC certificate, which indicates to me that it is more of an afterthought to add it; it is not deliberately added unless prompted a state or state party official.

    This is the first article to my knowledge that rightfully highlights the DPH certificate differences. This is the real smoking gun, not the DNC certificate. People can continue to harp about the DNC certificate, but we really should be focusing on the DPH certificate instead. Someone at the HI Office of Elections, or the DPH, or both knew something. It makes no sense whatsoever to deliberately gut the language unless something was amiss, which in this case, is quite obvious.

  20. Mark @ Israel   Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM

    It’s obvious that the wording in the nomination certificate of Obama and Biden is different from the wording in the nomination certificate of the candidates of the Republican Party. Why is this so? Why was this not discovered long before? Is there something or someone behind this? We need to know.

  21. Kathy   Friday, November 19, 2010 at 9:22 PM

    Or more likely the DNC has been plotting this all along, to try to hide the fraud of Obama. Most likely the Democratic party of Hawaii knew better and somebody did not play ball. They still broke the law and should be punished.

  22. Kathy   Friday, November 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM

    Has anyone seen Kerry’s BC? Is it possible that he does not qualify either and the DNC knew it?

  23. 68Truthseeker   Friday, November 19, 2010 at 7:08 PM

    Eligibility Wording changed in other states also.

    Candidate For US Senate Hector Maldonado Shows Obama’s Eligibility UNPROVEN

  24. Benaiah   Friday, November 19, 2010 at 7:06 PM

    “[In 2008] The Democratic Party of Hawaii did not certify Obama or Biden as being ‘legally qualified to serve [under the provisions of the United States Constitution]’ as it did in 2000 for Gore and Lieberman” because Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t eligible to the office of President, as he wasn’t an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’, not only because his father wasn’t a citizen of the United States, but also because Barack Hussein Obama II was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth…

  25. Researcher   Friday, November 19, 2010 at 6:54 PM

    Well, given my dealings with the SoH, I am not suprised it took threatening them with a lawsuit to light a fire under their backside in order to get them to cough up the requested documents.

    I made a similar request last year and received a hard copy in the mail within a week. Much has been written about this issue since and the HI Office of Elections is quite aware that the 2008 DPH Certificate of Nomination for O does not even come close to meeting the requirements per HRS 11-113. They dragged their feet on your request because they knew they would be publically fingered for their egregious actions.

    My two cents worth:

    I don’t think there is any smoking gun in regard to the 2004 DNC Kerry/Edwards certificate. In all likelihood, the HI delegate responsible for securing a certificate per HI Office of Elections requirements neglected to do so while at the 2004 DNC convention. I think the same can be said about the 2000 Gore/Liberman cert; it was likely modified after it signed which completely undermines its probative value. As for the 2008 DNC certificate, Pelosi and Germond obviously perjured themselves. Surely party insiders knew at the time that there was an eligibility issue. One thing for sure, the DNC plays fast and loose with the rules.

    The 2008 DPH certificate is entirely a different matter. The “under the provisions of the US Constitution” language was completely gutted from what was obviously a template used to create the 2000 and 2004 DPH certificates as they are identical. The 2008 certificate merely states O and Biden were legally qualified bacause O won the HI caucus and DNC delegate majority (paraphrased). It does not even close to meeting state requirements, especially if you follow the established precedent in 2000 and 2004 and the RNC certificates for all three election cycles.

    It begs for the following be answered:

    Did the Office of Elections tip off the DHP based information it gathered (Think Tim Adams)? If no,
    Who in the DPH knew what and when (Think William Gilhardy, SAD’s divorce and one-time DPH attorney)? If the latter applies,
    Why did the Office of Elections accept a certificate from the DPH that clearly did not meet its requirements?

    Personally, I think a registered voter in HI has “standing” in this matter and could challenge it, or at least hold the HI OoE and DPH accountable going forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.