IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA March 28, 2012 1110665 Ex parte Hugh McInnish.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Hugh McInnish v. Beth Chapman in her official capacity as Secretary of State) . CORRECTED ORDER 27, 2012, is corrected, special concurrence, as

Thi s Court's order of March correcting only the unpublished follows:

The petition for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the Honorable Beth Chapman, Alabama Secretary of State, having been duly filed and submitted to the Court, IT IS ORDERED stricken. Malone, Parker, that the petition for a writ of mandamus is

C.J., and Stuart, Shaw, and Main, J., concurs specially (unpublished

concur. writing).

I Robert G. Esdale, Sr., as Clerk of the Supreme Court of Alabama, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the instrument(s) herewith set out as same appear(s) of record in said Court. Witness my hand this~day ofM~, 20~

~lr&~b4s:..
Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama

1110665

Ex parte Hugh concurrence)

McInnish,

(corrected

special

PARKER, Justice I concur

(concurring specially by unpublished decision to strike

writing) .

in the Court's

the petition

for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner, writ of mandamus, Hugh McInnish, seeks from this Court a

directly ordering Beth Chapman,

as Secretary

of State for the State of Alabama, "to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his Bona Fide birth certificate to be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the records in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the March 13, 2012, primary election, and on the ballot for the November 6, 2012, general election." McInnish mandamus forum raise "short has attached which, a proper certain documentation to the to his

peti tion, of

if presented evidentiary

appropriate would the of

as part serious form"

presentation,

questions and the

about "long

the authenticity form" birth

of both

certificates

President

Barack

Hussein Obama that have been made public. petition, McInnish claims that this Court in this case" pursuant to

In his mandamus "has original

jurisdiction

12-2-

7(2), Ala. Code 1975, which provides Court "shall have authority"

that the Alabama

0

Supreme original of quo

" [t]

exercise

jurisdiction

in the issue and determination

of writs

1110665

Ex parte Hugh concurrence)

McInnish,

(corrected

special

warranto and mandamus

in relation to matters in which no other

court has jurisdiction." The Constitutional basis for this Court's jurisdiction is

set forth in Ala. Const. 1901, Art. VI, 140, which provides, in relevant part:

"(b) The supreme court shall have original jurisdiction (1) of cases and controversies as provided by this Constitution, (2) to issue such remedial writs or orders as may be necessary to give it general supervision and control of courts of inferior jurisdiction, and (3) to answer questions of state law certified by a court of the United States. "(c) The supreme court shall have such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law." The language of the foregoing provision of the Alabama jurisdiction It and

Constitution

implies

that this Court

is without

over McInnish's

original petition jurisdiction

for a writ of mandamus. that is being invoked,

is not our appellate this matter Court "to

is not within issue such

the original wri ts

jurisdiction or orders as

of this may be

remedial

necessary

to give it general supervision jurisdiction." of the

and control of courts

of inferior The office

Ala. Const. 1901, Art. VI, of State of Alabama

140. a

Secretary

is not

"court [] of inferior jurisdiction"

that this Court may control

1110665

Ex parte Hugh concurrence)

McInnish,

(corrected

special

through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition filed in this Court. Mclnnish cites no cases involving

first

12-

2-7(2), nor does he show this Court any instances has exercised original of mandamus addressed Mclnnish jurisdiction to an over a petition state

in which it for a writ official. has a

elected shown that

Furthermore, legitimate

has not

12-2-7(2)

field of operation

in the face of apparent

conflict

with Art. VI,

140.

It is well settled that n[t]his Court can act only within the jurisdiction conferred by law .... n Ex parte Tubbs, 585

So. 2d 1301, 1302 (Ala. 1991) (citing Ex parte Alabama Textile Prod. Corp., has 242 Ala. not 609, 7 So. 2d 303 that this (1942)). has Because original writ, the

McInnish

shown

Court

jurisdiction petition

over his petition

for an extraordinary

is due to be stricken.