COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. SUFFOLK, 8.5. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT C.A.NO, ) RANDALL GLEASON ) d Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN, in his ) Official Capacity as Secretary of the ) Commonwealth of Massachusetts ) ) Defendant, ) ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Introduction Randall Gleason obtained the 150 write-in votes required in the state primary for his name to appear con the ballot in the November 3, 2020 general election as the Republican candidate for Representative in General Court. In preparing for the campaign and state primary, Gleason relied upon information provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office in relation to write-in candidates, as well as the Massachusetts General Laws as presently published on the website bitps://awww.malegisl . As published on both the legislature and lature. gov/Laws/Generall.a Defendant's website, M.G.L. c. 53 § 3 requires write-in candidates to file nomination acceptance papers within thirteen (13) days of the primary election date, However, Plaintiff was notified on ‘September 3" that the legisiature changed this law in December of 2019 through an appropriations bill 1.4246, § 84 (2019) which requires filing on or before 5:00pm Thursday, September 3, 2020, This date directly conflicts with the information on Defendant's website. Plaintiff did not learn ofthis new filing date until approximately 2:30pm on Thursday, September 3, 2020 and was not permitted access to the system to file said paperwork until 3:50pm of that day. While Plaintiff made every possible effort to file all the appropriate paperwork by the revised deadline he was simply unable to do so in the time allotted, arriving at the Secretary's office at 5:04pm on September 3%. While Plaintiff did file the paperwork the following morning of September 4", he was informed by the Secretary’s office that the acceptance was not valid because it was filed past the deadliner required by law. The decision to invalidate Plaintiff's nomination is based on errors of law, abuse of discretion, is arbitrary and capricious, and violates Plaintiff's fundamental rights under Article 9 of the Declaration of Rights. JURISDICTION ‘The Superior Court has jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to M.G.L. ¢. 30A §14 to the extent it seeks review of the decision made by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to determine ‘whether the Secretary’s decision was an error of law, made through an unlawful procedure and/or accordance with law, and arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not further to issue declaratory relief in this matter pursuant to the authority granted in M.G.L. ¢, 214 § Land M.G.L. ¢, 231A, § 1. PARTIES Plaintiff Randall Gleason (“Gleason”) seeks to run as the Republican candidate for Representative in Goneral Court for the 1" Norfolk District and to be placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020. Gleason lives on Puritan Lane in Dedham, Massachusetts. Defendant Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“Defendant” or “Secretary”) is a department of the state secretary under the supervision and control of the slate secretary which is organized pursuant to M.GLL. ¢. 9 and is responsible for informing the public of, and ensuring compliance with election laws in the Commonwealth, as well as certifying election results.FACTS, Background 3. 2020 is an election year in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for various state and federal offices. 2020 is also a year in which the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been dealing with the effects of a global pandemic in the form of COVID-19, and all of the associated executive orders, changes in laws, and other government regulations and guidance promulgated in response. ‘The right to run for elected office and appear on the ballot is a fundamental constitutional right under Article 9 of the Declaration of Rights (see Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth 484 Mass. 516 at 523 (2020). Given the difficulties associated with in-person voting and election administration in the midst of this pandemic, the courts of this Commonwealth have made accommodations in the form of extending deadtines, reducing, the number of signatures required for nomination, and the method for obtaining those signatures, to name a few, (Id, at 532) as well as make early voting and vote by mail more readily available to the voters. The state primary was held on Tuesday, September 1, 2020 during this pandemic. MGL. c. 53 § 3 states that write-in candidates who receive a sufficient number of votes for the nomination must file acceptance of the nomination no later than 5:00pm of the thirteenth (134) day following a state primary election. This is also reflected on the Defendant’s website in a section titled “How to Run for Office. as. a= Writein. Candidate.” (see https:/ivww ses. state.ma.usielevelestkristkridy.btm (the “Write-In Instructions”). In December of 2019, however, tucked away in an appropriations bill, the Massachusetts legislature changed the filing deadline for a write-in candidate’s nomination acceptance from 13 days from the state primary, to 5:00pm on Thursday September 3, 2020. The Defendant did not provide the MA GOP with a copy of “A Candidate’s Guide to the 2020 State Election” in response to the request for information for write-in candidates, which is apparently the only document thatcontained the revised deadline that Defendant later relied upon in invalidating Gleason's acceptance of the nomination. ‘Write-In Campaign Instructions Provided By Defendant Conflicted With Current Laws 9. 10. ML. 12, Oa or about August 7, 2020 Gleason notified the Massachusetts Republican Party (“MA GOP”) of his intent to run a write-in campaign to obtain the nomination as the Republican candidate for Representative in General Court, 11" Norfolk District, and have his name appear on the ballot as the Republican candidate in the general election to be held on November 3, 2020. MA GOP, through Political Director John Milligan, provided Gleason with the Write-In Instructions that were provided to MA GOP by the Defendant in response to its request for information on write-in candidacy. Both the Write-In Instructions and M.G.L. ¢. 53 § 3 clearly and unambiguously state that candidates have thirteen (13) days after the state primary to file a written acceptance of the nomination. Gleason relied upon this information in conducting his campaign, including without limitation in relation to the number of votes required and the timing of filing requirements The state primary election was held on Tuesday September 1, 2020, however due to delays in tallying the votes caused in part due to the large volume of mail-in, early voting and absentee ballots resulting from COVID-19, as well as the number of write-in candidates appearing on the ballots, the certified results from the Dedham, Westwood and Walpole clerk’s offices were delayed. Gleason repeatedly called the olerk’s offices of Dedham, Westwood and Walpole throughout September 1*, 2" and 3 in an attempt to get an accurate vote count, Gleason was informed on or about 2:20pm on Thursday September 3, 2020 (on an unofficial basis) that he had received more ‘than the necessary one-hundred fifty (150) write-in votes to secure the nomination. The results from the various clerk’s offices were not certified, however, until late Wednesday for Dedham, ‘Thursday, September 3, 2020 for Walpole, and in the case of Westwood, not until September 4, 2020.13, Upon hearing of the unofficial vote tallies on the aftemoon of September 3, Gleason ni ied the MA GOP of the unofficial results and was informed by the MA GOP that, due to a change in the laws from 2019, the nomination acceptance form along with a statement of financial interest SFI") was required to be submitted no later than 5:00pm Thursday September 5, 2020; a deadline ‘which the MA GOP stated it learned from the Defendant's office that day. Nowhere is this change in the law reflected in the Write-In Instructions provided by the Secretary's office to Gleason, nor is it reflected in M.G.L. c, 53 § 3 as displayed on the Massachusetts government's website (see :/Generall_aws/Partl/TitleVIL/Chapter 14. Upon learning this information Gleason applied on the State Ethics Commission website (https:/Avww.sfi,eth mass.gov/Registration/ETH4C. aspx) at 2:25pm on Thursday September 3", to ‘enable him to file the SFI. Gleason received an automated email response indicating it could take up to three (3) business days for the registration to be accepted. As @ precaution Gleason emailed the Secretary’s office at 3:37pm with a copy of the nomination acceptance and copy of the registration notification indicating he was awaiting registration acceptance for the SFI — no reply co response was provided to the Plaintiff, 15. Gleason was notified via automated email at 3:50pm that the registration had been accepted by the State Ethics Commission and Gleason could now file the SFI online, Gleason is a resident of Dedham, MA and while he made every effort to both file the lengthy SFI and associated documentation, and travel the approximately thirteen (13) miles to personally file the paperwork before the 5:00pm deadline, Gleason did not arrive at the Defendant's office until 5:04pm on ‘Thursday September 3, 2020 and security would not allow him into the building to file. 16. Gleason returned the following morning, September 4, 2020 and filed the nomination acceptance and SFI receipt on or about 10:41am. Plaintiff was informed by Defendant's staff that while the Secretary’s office would permit Gleason to file the acceptance and SFI, it was past the deadline of 5:00pm September 3 and therefore would not be accepted by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. ‘When Gleason questioned the Defendant’s staff as to how he could possibly be expected to accept1. 18. 19, 20. ‘a nomination when the results of the election had been delayed and had still not been certified, Gleason was informed by the Director/Legal Counsel, Elections Divisions, Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth that the law required him to “peremptorily file” the paperwork in ease he received the nomination. COUNT ONE JUDICIAL REVIEW TThe Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 16 as if fully set forth herein ‘The statutory change to M.G.L. ¢. 53 § 3 as reflected in H.4246, § 84 (2019) is in violation of Article 9 of the Declaration of Rights both on its face and as applied to Gleason, Because: (i) Defendant provided outdated information for write-in candidates; and (ji) the government failed to ensure the correct information is displayed both on the Defendant's website and under the Mass. Gen. Laws constitutes an unlawful procedure and/or error of law because the late notification by Defendant of the deadline change, coupled with the delayed granting of access 1 the State Ethics Commission's systems to file appropriate documentation (¢.g. the SFI) presented an unreasonable burden on Gleason that significantly interfered with his ability to timely file the roquired paperwork, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right under Article 9 of the Declaration of Rights to accept the nomination and appear on the ballot in November, As such, the Gleason relied upon the incorrect and inconsistent information provided on Defendant's website to his detriment, and therefore Defendant should be estopped from denying Gleason access to the November ballot. ‘The Defendant's decision to invalidate Gleason’s filed nomination papers the following morning of September 4, 2020 because they were not filed by the Spm deadline of September 3%, and Defendant's statement that the law requires candidates to peremptorily file paperwork for an office for which he had not been nominated is both arbitrary and capricious, and constitutes an error of lav, as applied, It is unclear what the intent of the legislature was in changing the filing deadline, however, Gleason substantially complied with those requirements as soon as he became aware of2h 2 them, and given the delay in tallying the votes due to the pandemic is entitied as a matter of law to have his name appear on the general election ballot on November 3, 2020. It is an unreasonable interpretation of the law to require private citizens to file an acceptance of a nomination for an office for which they have not yet been nominated, particularly given the circumstances: surrounding the delays in tallying of the votes caused by COVID-19. Furthermore, the legislature could not have anticipated at the time of modifying M.G.L. e. 53 § 3 the impact that COVID-19 ‘would have on our society, including on elections procedures such as counting and tallying all of the absentee ballots, early voting ballots, and write-in votes in this election. ‘The Defendants failure to provide updated information that reflect current laws and its decision to invalidate Gleason’s nomination because of an immaterial failure to file by an updated deadline that was not clearly communicated to the public should be reviewed using strict scrutiny given the fundamental rights involved, and the fact that the delays in tallying the votes caused by the COVID- 19 pandemic presented a significant interference with Gleason's ability to gain access to the ballot. “There is no compelling government interest as to why the new arbitrary deadline should be applied in this case given the impacts of COVID-19, particularly since Gleason relied upon the documentation provided by the Defendant and made publicly available on its website, and later substantially complied with the revised requirements as soon as becoming aware of them. The intent of the voters to have Gleason appear on the ballot in November should be given due weight in this case. COUNT TWO DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. ‘The Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 21 as if fully set forth herein. There is a dispute within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 231A as to whether the Defendant correctly interpreted and applied the laws as stated in M.G.L. ¢. 53 § 3 under the cireumstances of the global pandemic, and given the fact that the vote tallies were delayed beyond the date of the state primaryelection, whether the date should have been extended to two (2) days beyond certification of the Voting results as opposed to two (2) days beyond the primary election. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief: 1 Enter an order declaring that: (i) the Secretary's decision is invalid because their failure to timely provide up-to-date (or at best conflicting) information on the filing deadlines represented an unlawful procedure, (i) Defendant's decisions and interpretations regarding the law placed a severe and unreasonable burden on Plaintiff to meet the deadlines given the short window in which to comply, thereby violating his rights fo run for elected office, and (ii) order that Randall Gleason bbe placed on the ballot as Republican candidate for Representative in General Court, 11"* Norfolk Distr ‘Alternatively, conduct a hearing and issue a decision vacating the Secretary’s decision to the extent it prevents Randall Gleason from appearing on the ballot for the 11"* Norfolk District. In light of the foregoing, Randall Gleason respectfully seeks a declaration to the effect that he obtained the required number of write-in votes sufficient to obtain ballot access and complied with the requirements for write-in candidates as listed on the Secretary of the Commonwealth's website, and an equitable order requiring the Defendant to place Randall Gleason’s name upon the ballot for the November, 2020 general election. Enter such further relief as this Court deems proper including an order which would preclude the Defendant from finalizing the relevant ballot until the determination of the claim presented herein. Award the Plaintiff his costs in bringing this action.PLAINTIFF, Randall Gleason By his attorney, I James P. McKenna, Esquire BBO# 548681 James P. McKenna ‘Attorney at Law P.O. Box 541 North Grafton, MA 01536 wire@aoleom DATED: September 10, 2020VERIFICATION (COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, 8.5. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 1, Randall Gleason, under the pains and penalties of perjury, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in the case captioned herein and have authorized the filing of this complaint. I have reviewed the allegations made in this complaint, and to those allegations of which T have personal knowledge, I believe them to be true. As to those allegations of which I do not have personal knowledge I believe them to be true. ‘Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 10* day of September 202).