In 1989. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided "the fee require
ment challenged in this lawsuit unconstitutional " and "the State may not condition
the reporting of the results of write-in voting on candidate certification, whether or
not accompanied by a fee." See Dixon v. Maryland State Administrative Board of
Election La ws, 878 F.2d 776 (4th Cir. 1989). In dismissing Petitioner 's case, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has shown disagreement with the
Fourth Circuit

Petitioner now respectfully asks the Court'

1) Under U.S. Law, may the State of California condition the reporting of the re
sults of write-in voting on the State 's "candidate certification " requirement that
a write-in candidate produce the notarized sworn oaths of 55 (fifty-five) elec
tors?

2) Under U.S. Law, does the State of California 's requirement that a write-in can
didate produce the notarized sworn oaths of 55 (fifty-five) electors (costing $825
at minimum based on standard cost of $15 per notarization) constitute a "filing
fee" or, more generally, a "fee requirement "?

Whether the State of California may condition the reporting of the results of write-in voting on the State's 'candidate certification' requirement that a write-in candidate produce the notarized sworn oaths of 55 electors