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

No question identified. : QUESTION(S} PRESENTED 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 Laws, 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 US. Law, may the State of California 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 (fifty-five) electors? 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”?