Saturday, May 19, 2018

1:18-cv-01487 is the new case number for robbin stewart v marion county board et al.
which means it has been removed to federal court. Cool.

Monday, May 14, 2018

Blankenship not out of the fight for West Virginia

Don BlankenshipFormer coal baron Don Blankenship (R) lost to state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) in the West Virginia Senate primaryTuesday by 15 points, but he is not yet out of the fight.
Blankenship campaign manager Greg Thomas said Blankenship, who loaned his campaign $3.5 million, was considering financially supporting a third-party candidate.
“I think the one thing [Blankenship] is going to make sure doesn’t happen is that Patrick Morrisey becomes a U.S. senator,” Thomas said.


Saturday, May 12, 2018


Friday, May 11, 2018


Thursday, May 10, 2018



Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Gary Scherschel, Republican candidate for Indian Creek Township trustee was fined for not properly labeling his campaign signs.



¶22 The Court stated that the burdens that are relevant are those imposed on people who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the Voter ID Act; determining that a provisional ballot is the remedy for problems caused by "life's vagaries," such as losing identification, not looking like the photo on the identification, or name changes. - gentges


gentges, oklahoma s ct decision upholds voter ID.

Tuesday, May 08, 2018

May 1st I filed a lawsuit about Indiana's voter ID. Today, May 8th, I was again told that without ID, I can't vote. I will amend the lawsuit.

Monday, May 07, 2018

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
Friends, Indiana's Constitution requires the revenue from "all forfeitures" to go to schools. But police and prosecutors in Indianapolis keep millions of dollars in forfeiture proceeds for their agencies, and a state trial court judge recently ruled that's okay because "all forfeitures" does not include civil forfeitures. This week, we asked the Indiana Supreme Court to take the case. Click here to read more.

Candidate Fined For Campaign Violation, Others To Face Hearing
Updated May 3, 2018 3:40 AM
 Print    Archive    RSS
(BEDFORD) - Some political candidates had to address campaign violations during a hearing with the Lawrence County Election Board. Two other candidates were alerted to signage violations.
According to a draft of the minutes from Monday's Lawrence County Election Board meeting, Timothy Morrow and Gary Scherschel were alerted to violations.
Morrow, a Republican candidate for Perry Township trustee, was fined $100 for not properly filing a campaign finance report.
According to the minutes, Morrow blamed the clerk's office staff, saying he was misinformed of the requirements and that he was not at fault. He also mentioned that his grandmother had passed away, so he did not get the courtesy reminder phone call until April 23.
Election board Chairman John Williams explained that no one is required to contact candidates to remind them of deadlines, but that it is just a courtesy.
Gary Scherschel, Republican candidate for Indian Creek Township trustee was fined for not properly labeling his campaign signs.
Election board member Don Robertson verified the signs were properly labeled as of April 24, when he did a visual inspection.
Scherschel told the board there was an originally handwritten disclaimers on one side of the sign that he later replaced with a label stating, "Paid for by Gary Scherschel." The label is required to be on both sides of the sign. Scherschel says it was a misunderstanding and says he tried to correct it.
Robertson noted that new labels are larger and posted on both sides, but some signs had not been changed and were not of seven-point font, which are required for sign disclaimers.
Williams says no one is an expert in font size, and believes Scherschel had made a good attempt to fix the issue by affixing labels to his signs.
Scherschel avoided a $100 fine for his errors by a vote from the board.
Robertson produced letters with photographic evidence that county council candidate Dan Wade and Prosecutor Michelle Woodward also committed signage violations. He received the information anonymously by mail to his address.
Both Wade and Woodward were notified about the violations and are scheduled to answer the complaint during a hearing Thursday morning at 9:!5 a.m.

Friday, May 04, 2018

[ark] Supreme Court: State can enforce voter ID law


i had missed a ruling finding arkansas voter ID unlawful on whgat looks to me like a technicality about how it was enacted.

Why voter ID checks are a threat to British democracy
Today, for the first time since universal suffrage was introduced, British voters were denied the right to vote despite being on the electoral register. Five councils are trialling the voter ID scheme, requiring voters to bring proof of identity to with them to the polling station. But whilst they claim that the ...

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

McCann launches third party challenge to Rauner

William McCannIllinois state Sen. Sam McCann (R) announced Thursday that he would challenge Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) in November's election on the Conservative Party ticket.

Sunday, April 22, 2018


Friday, April 20, 2018



disclaimer comlaint in goshen. that's horse and buggy country. i might enjoy litigating up there.
just sent a letter to the board.

GOSHEN — Two local political candidates missed the deadline to submit campaign finance reports ahead of the May primary elections.
The election board met Friday primarily to address a voter complaint that a group of three Republican Concord Township Board candidates failed to put disclaimers on their campaign signs.

i commented

the disclaimer statute violates the federal and state constitutions. see stewart v taylor (i'm stewart), ogden v marendt. in mulholland v marion county board, indy spent over $200,000 to defend then settle mulholland.
also, Paul Steury and Ralph Spelbring cannot be fined unless they have raised or spent over $100.  ic 3-2-5-6 possibly?. michael z williamson v maion county left that question unresolved, but the statute is easy to read. - robbin stewart

Wayne Kramer, Republican Member Elkhart County Election Board: wakramer@comcast.net
Arvis Dawson, Democrat Member Elkhart County Election Board: arvisdawson@gmail.com
Chad Clingerman, Elkhart County Voter Registration/Election Board: cclingerman@elkhartcounty.com
Aimee Ambrose can be reached at aimee.ambrose@goshennews.com 

Thursday, April 19, 2018

federal court found in contempt of kobach.


things have not been going well this month  for trump's anti-vote team of koback, rokita, adams.
is there any fresh dirt on hans?

via hasen, the order.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018


Gov. Cuomo signed legislation that will require political web ads to disclose who’s paying for the bill for New York elections.

cuoma violates oath of office again.

the new legislation violates both the state and federal constitution. ny v duryea, 1974.

Under the New York law, digital ad buyers must register as independent expenditure committees. In addition to identifying the buyer, online ads by independent spenders must say they were not authorized by any candidate
The requirements will cover paid online political content related to state and local elections, paid for by candidates’ campaigns or outside expenditure groups, including posts like promoted tweets, according to Cuomo’s office.

The New York News Publishers Association raised concerns about the bill, which president Diane Kennedy said does not define what counts as an online platform and requires sites to verify an independent expenditure committee’s registration with the state or face fines.
“You don’t want news organizations to be used as an arm of the government agency,” she said.

last night i attended the poll woker inspector training in marion county indiana. the above sign picture does not come from the training, but that was the message. they are not training poll workers to offer provisional ballots.

http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/Clerk/Election/Workers_Info/Documents/2018%20Primary%20Training%20Video%20Powerpoint.%20FINAL.pdf is the powerpoint show as found here:

that page has the 2016 video which might be slightly different from the one we watched. i can't seem to link to the video itself. minute 28 is about where to start.

but the message was the same: "voters must show ID". only half an hour later is there a brief confusing mention of provisional ballots, which also says "use provisional ballots as a last resort."

so in the 2016 election where they did not let me vote for trump, it wasn't out of bigotry or whatever, it was because they had been trained wrong.

i have about two weeks left before the SOL runs on that claim. i might or might not get something filed. seeking counsel.

photo credit http://aldianews.com/articles/politics/elections/ploy-possibly-helped-trump-win-2016/52354

Monday, April 16, 2018

another, even horribler, brief by curtis hill, in indiana v mass.



whoops, some kind of paywall.

Jack Bergeson, the garrulous 17-year-old Democrat running for Kansas governor, hadn’t even bothered to put his phone number on his campaign website until recently – because everyone already seemed to have it....

notes for a possible  an unsent letter to ari berman.

first, ari berman is a great reporter and could be nominated for a pulitizer for his ongoing coverage of voter ID and voting rights issues.
second, his reporting about public officials on matters of public concern gets a high level of first amendment protection, as it should, under the new york times v sullivan standard, a case involving doctor marty king.

so let's look at his story in mother jones, a rag i like, but which is even further to the left than the times.


Election officials and Democrats in Wisconsin have repeatedly argued that the state’s strict voter ID law allowed Donald Trump to win the state in 2016 by keeping thousands of voters—predominantly in Democratic-leaning areas—from the polls. Now a top Republican official in the state is saying the same thing.

That second sentence is false, defamatory, and was made with reckless disregard for the truth.

The official, Brad, let's call him Brad Schlemiel, was actually saying something completely different, and Berman, a really sharp guy, knows better, which is why this is such a non-story.

There is no molehill here to make a mountain out of.

The article continues:

“We battled to get voter ID on the ballot for the November ’16 election,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, who defended the law in court, told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna on April 12. “How many of your listeners really honestly are sure that Sen. [Ron] Johnson was going to win reelection or President Trump was going to win Wisconsin if we didn’t have voter ID to keep Wisconsin’s elections clean and honest and have integrity?”

the argument is that 'reforms' such as voter ID have stopped a form of voter fraud that involve a procedure called vouching, which crooks could use to vote multiple times.

i could be wrong here though. maybe schemeil referred to the 3 million illegal aliens hiding in eu claire and green bay and appleton who would have voted but were deterred by voter ID. so my criticism is off and i'll just let this drop.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

If confirmed, Holly A. Brady of Indiana will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.  Holly Brady is a partner in the Ft. Wayne law firm of Haller & Colvin, PC, where she focuses her practice on civil, employment, and labor litigation. Prior to joining the firm in 2007, she served as a partner at Theisen, Bowers, & Brady, LLC, as an associate in the labor and employment litigation section at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, and as an associate in the labor law firm of Gallucci, Hopkins & Theisen, PC.  Each year since 2013, Ms. Brady has been recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for labor and employment law. She is involved in numerous community organizations and has served on the Northern District of Indiana Federal Community Defenders Board of Directors and as Vice President of the Ft Wayne Sexual Assault Treatment Center. Ms. Brady earned her B.A. from Indiana University at Bloomington and her J.D. from the Valparaiso University School of Law.


Amendments to two Indiana Supreme Court rules are restricting public access to attorneys’ personal contact information.
First, an amendment to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 2 dated March 15 provides that the residential addresses and email addresses attorneys provide to the clerk of the Supreme Court will be confidential and excluded from public access. The amendment also notes that the clerk’s annual list of attorney addresses sent to the Indiana State Bar Association can only include non-confidential office addresses.
story continues below
Similarly, an amendment to Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G) adds attorneys’ residential and email addresses to the list of court administration records that must be excluded from public access.  The amendment also allows the court to provide bulk distribution or compiled information excluded from public access under 9(G) through a written contract with the Office of Judicial Administration. Finally, an amendment to Section 9(D) allows the Supreme Court’s chief administrative officer – currently former Judge Mary Willis – to establish fees for accessing public court records.
All amendments are effective March 15.

Saturday, April 14, 2018


off to see if i can find that brief. here it is.


may edit with comments once i read it. the indiana statute has the same flaws the wisconsin supreme court said would be an unconstitutional poll tax.

lie list:

1. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), which upheld Indiana’s voter ID law and affirmed the facial validity of such laws. p 9.

2, . Lower court decisions that would allow each new plaintiff to come forward with purportedly new evidence regarding the supposed impact of a voter ID law and invite the court to re-weigh competing interests both undermine Crawford and create uncertainty for States attempting to enforce or enact voter ID laws. .p 10.

2.a.: questionable assertion: The amici States also have a compelling interest in maintaining a sensible standard for the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to right-to-vote abridgement claims.

2.b. In the process, such decisions create unnecessary legal uncertainty for all voter ID laws

2.c. Voter ID laws such as Alabama’s Photo ID Law and the Indiana law upheld in Crawford represent reasonable, nondiscriminatory exercises of Elections Clause authority that take account of the need to modernize election procedures, just as the Founders envisioned.
[perhaps this is opinion ratther than a false claim of fact or law.]

2. d The amici States have an interest in ensuring that such authority is not undermined by judicial decisions that would grant voter ID opponents repeated opportunities to facially attack election laws that have already been deemed valid.

this seems to be an argument for nullification, contrary to the supremacy clause. but i could be wrong.

3. “it is so easy to get a photo ID in Alabama, no one is prevented from voting.” Appendix, Vol. 7 (“7 App.”) at 232 (emphasis in original). The district court’s decision should be affirmed.

here the false statement is merely quoted, so that's ok, if misleading.

4. Crawford confirmed the facial validity of voter ID laws generally. p. 12.

4.a. it seems odd that these quotes from crawford lack pinpoint cites. i will need to do more research to see if accurate.

 It held, as a matter of law, that voter ID laws serve compelling state interests in deterring fraud, maintaining public confidence in the electoral system, and promoting accurate record-keeping.

5.  if this is true in Indiana, then it must be true in every other State. Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1352–54 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding Georgia’s voter ID law); Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2014) (upholding Wisconsin’s voter ID law). Billups controls, and Frank provides a useful template when it comes to applying Crawford to follow-on voter ID challenges in other States. p.12.

6 .  p 14
I. Crawford Declared Voter Photo ID Laws Facially Valid and Controls Here The Supreme Court affirmed the facial validity of voter photo ID laws a decade ago in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), and there is no reason to depart from that holding here.

7. . And because Alabama’s law permits voters to use more types of photo ID, provides more convenient ways to obtain acceptable ID, and makes it easier to vote without an ID than the Indiana law upheld in Crawford, Alabama’s law must perforce be valid. .p 14

7. a. And while the law might impose a “somewhat heavier burden” on a limited number of persons, the severity of that burden was mitigated by the ability of otherwise eligible voters to cast provisional ballots or, in some circumstances, to vote absentee. Id. at 199–201.

here the brief accurately cites crawford.
maybe i should ask him to watch my video of trying to get a provisional ballot,
or show him the letter from marion county saying there is no right to a provisional ballot.

7b Finally, the plurality noted the shortcomings of the record, which identified not a single individual who would be prevented from voting as a result of the voter ID law. Id. at 200–01.

again just a quote. but at least one individual participated as an amicus. Me. link to cyber-privacy brief. @ brennancenter

7 c
Finally, the plurality noted the shortcomings of the record, which identified not a single individual who would be prevented from voting as a result of the voter ID law. Id. at 200–01. “The ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State [we]re therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge

true, but it destroys their earlier argument that crawford was a general ruling, rather than case specific.

He acknowledged that the Constitution does not guarantee everyone a cost-free voting process and dissented only because Indiana’s law lacked features of an ideal voter ID law that could conceivably burden fewer voters. See id. at 237–40.

Multiple studies analyzing data collected not long after the implementation of Indiana’s voter ID law confirm the Crawford Court’s conclusion that the law does not impose any “excessively burdensome requirements” on voters. Crawford, 553 U.S. at 202 (internal quotation omitted). To the contrary, after Indiana’s voter ID law went into effect “[o]verall, voter turnout in Indiana increased about two percentage points[.]”
bait and switch. turnout is unrelated to "excessively burdensome requirements".

10. p 17.
 Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Crawford, 553 U.S. at 192–97). This is misleading, because the legislature had amended the statute to address poll tax concerns, while in Frank v Walker the Wisconsin Supreme Court had done the same.

procedurally frank v walker was interesting, as was crawford. in crawford, the circuit court panel split 2-1, and then a motion for rehearing failed 5-5. the key vote was posner's. by the time of frank, he had changed his tune. so if we add up the number of judges who wrote that voter id is unconstitutional, it's a long list.

10 a
 is a quoted lie still a lie?
“[I]f photo ID is available to people willing to scrounge up a birth certificate and stand in line at the office that issues drivers’ licenses, then all we know from the fact that a particular person lacks a photo ID is that he was unwilling to invest the necessary time.” Id

10 b
. In fact, said the court, many of the district court’s findings “support the conclusion that for most eligible voters not having a photo ID is a matter of choice rather than a state-created obstacle.” Id. at 749

but that's the point, a person who chooses not to carry id, or display it without a warrant, should not be disenfranchised in retaliation for that choice.

10 c

here's a nice example of a statement that becomes truth once taken out of context.
“as a fact that the majority of the Supreme Court was wrong” about the benefits of voter ID, including deterring fraud, preserving voter confidence, and maintaining accurate records.

10 d a false claim accurately quoted.

In short, “[p]hoto ID laws promote confidence, or they don’t; there is no way they could promote public confidence in Indiana (as Crawford concluded) and not in Wisconsin. This means they are valid in every state . . . or they are valid in no state.” Id.

. In fact, there is no reason to expect that Alabama’s Photo ID law will somehow cause substantial harm to voter participation or disproportionally affect minorities, when nothing of the sort has happened in over ten years of voter ID in Indiana.

Accordingly, Crawford compels validation of Alabama’s Photo ID law, which is less burdensome than Georgia’s, Indiana’s, or Wisconsin’s.

12 a
The Secretary of State may issue valid voter ID cards at no cost. Ala. Code § 17-9-30(f). Voters need only provide specified information, see Ala. Code § 17-9-30(j), that can be proved by presenting Case: 18-10151 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 20 of 36 13 documents such as a birth or marriage certificate and something with the voter’s....

that's a 24th amendment /poll tax problem, unless those documents are free.

12 b
 And if even that is too difficult, the applicant may sign a voter registration form under oath, thereby confirming the voter’s identity.

if the oath carries a penalty, that could chill seech and raise an equal protection problem.


Alabama also allows a voter without the required photo ID to cast a regular ballot if two election officials present at the polling place positively identify that person as eligible to vote and sign an affidavit attesting to the voter’s identity.

this is a nice feature, but it creates a potential for abuse if selectively applied by race.

Hence, if Indiana’s law did not impose a substantial burden on voting, Alabama’s law cannot either.

Indiana's law does impose a substantial burden on voting, it simply has not yet been proven in court.

federalism and comity require a presumption of good faith

And in all events, neither the history of nor the burdens imposed by the law suggest any discrimination.

now there's an impeachable claim.
naacp v alabama ex rel patterson, 1958, for example. see also the white primary cases.

any decent bio of justice thurgood marshall would have something about alabama and negro voting rights.

17 As a matter of federalism, it is proper to accord the Alabama Photo ID law a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith and without a discriminatory purpose.

18 What is more, the presumptions of validity and legislative good faith should be at their weightiest when the law at issue governs elections—over which states have traditionally had full authority.

see yick wo v hokins, buckley v valeo, mcintyre, exacting scrutiny.

With regard to the presumption afforded legislators, courts presume that the people’s elected representatives act in good faith and in the best interest of their constituents, and the burden is on the party alleging bad faith to prove up its claim.

a tie goes to the speaker, not the state - wrtl v fec ii.

this is a softer version of nullification. it argues feeral couts should play peek a boo and pretend not to notice actual realities, and be blinded by presumtions. caroline products counsels otherwise.

Arlington Heights outlined other factors that may bear on intentional discrimination, but they do not help Plaintiffs here. For example, “[t]he historical background of the decision

For example, “the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns[,]” id. at 45, has no bearing on whether a particular electoral regulation itself prevents minorities from voting.

21 a
Wisconsin’s voter ID law posed no problems because “in Wisconsin everyone has the same opportunity to get a qualifying photo ID.” Id. at.... so it's merely a quote, but still false. see frank v walker.
21 b
 Latinos’ ability or inability to obtain or possess identification for voting purposes . . . resulted in Latinos having less opportunity to participate in the political process . ok.

Friday, April 13, 2018

needs editing

let's see, who was on the trump election panel?



j xtian adams

vermont dem. nope it's maine.

Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap

i'll have to look these up revising as i go.....

oh yeah mike pence. i've met him but we aren't close.


Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation - nuff said.

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell - quite the rogue's gallery here.

Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson. heh. i havent met her, although i've been in her office last month.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Commissioner Christy McCormick

kobach flunky.

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner

i think this guy lost a disclaimer case one time. yesforlife?

Former Arkansas State Representative David K. Dunn (Deceased)

did he know too much?

Wood County (WV) Clerk Mark Rhodes i have no intel on him.

Jefferson County (AL) Probate Judge Alan King

Maryland Deputy Secretary of State Luis Borunda (Resigned)

ok, that's the crew. i will start to keep a file on these folks, see how things add up over time.

lately some of these guys have been in the news.
this coul be a lot between the dems and the media, or maybe they are just asshats. either or both could be true.

trump has pardoned scooter libby. smart move. it helps set a precedent if trump later pardons his own people, or himself.

http://www.fwbusiness.com/opinion/our_view/businessweekly/article_4df90b74-a98a-53e2-98bb-cc3f333c609c.html ft wayne indiana sensible editorial on voter ID affirmations.


non-trivial allegations against rokita.

Inspector Training Schedule

2018 Primary Election Inspector Training Schedule                    
Training DateNewClass Start Time
Saturday, April 14, 2018New9am
Saturday, April 14, 2018New2pm
Saturday, April 14, 2018New6pm



placeholder for a possible article on how to challenge voter id one voter at a time.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

i sent an edited version of this today.
Marion County Election Board
Today I was given a slate card.
I thought about doing a similar one myself. I went into the election board office to ask if there were any rules about what I would have to put on a slate card. In response, I was given a copy of the 2017
campaign literature flyer from the SOS office.


WHAT does the disclaimer have to state? The language required for the disclaimer depends on who authorized and who paid for the literature or material. The individual, organization, or committee must include the following statement or the equivalent as a disclaimer...

(3) If not authorized or paid for by the candidate, the candidate’s committee or its agents: Paid for by John Doe, Mary Parker and Bill Jones, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (4) If a regular party committee distributes a slate card, or sample ballot with three or more candidates listed; campaign materials such as handbills, posters, and brochures to be used by political party volunteers; materials distributed by party volunteers for a get-out-the-vote drive: Paid for by Tecumseh County ABC Party Committee.

The reason for this inquiry is to make sure that what was stated in the brochure is your actual position. You might want to review stewart v taylor, ogden v marendt, and mulholland v marion county election board.

Please respond within 10 days so I have time  to instruct the printer. Thanks, Robbin Stewart.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19972000953fsupp104711857 stewart v taylor

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/264/785/2507687/ ogden


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kCeIvQ6qw5V5z-fV9gJtekW-iRVO0RvI6m6pD-Hgi88/edit?pli=1 mulholland complaint

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1660991.html mulholland

Mailer complaint

Keith Clock, the Chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party, filed a complaint against Republican Secretary of State candidate, Charlie White, in late October 2010 after he received a mailer from White's campaign that he claimed did not include a disclaimer of who paid for it. If true, this would have been a violation of the Indiana Code. White's campaign responded to the accusation by stating that the this was "a simple mistake that was made during the editing process, and was clearly unintentional as all our other print literature has the disclaimer."[20] The case was handed over to special prosecutors - Republican John Dowd and Democrat Daniel Sigler - on Friday, November 12th.[21]


Delaney, Brienne Brienne.Delaney@indy.gov

2:24 PM (2 hours ago)
to Janetme
Mr. Stewart,
If you have a question about slate cards and how the code applies in Marion County, please consult your attorney.

Brienne Delaney
Director of Elections
Marion County Election Board
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld will both be joining the Board of Advisors at one of the nation’s largest cannabis corporations.
“I’m joining the board of #AcreageHoldings because my thinking on cannabis has evolved,” Boehner announced on Twitter Wednesday. “I’m convinced de-scheduling the drug is needed so we can do research, help our veterans, and reverse the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities.”

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Tina Smith will succeed resigning Sen. Al Franken.

I didn't realize we had a senator Smith, much less two. Vote for Smith! This blog endorses Smith. Note the lack of a disclaimer.

alias smith and jones?

Tina Smith is not to be confused with Senator or is it congresswoman Smith, Tad Cochran's replacement. 23 female senators now, if I count right.


house speaker paul ryan won't seek re-election this fall, the hill announced, joining a long list of exiting republicans.



Twitter Announces Support for Honest Ads Act—Though It Won’t Help With Much of the Problems with Twitter

Two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, and one Republican, John McCain, recently introduced the Honest Ads Act, which aims to require online political ads to include information about who paid for them. Political ads on television, in print and on the radio must already do this, but Google and Facebook had successfully lobbied to be exempted from the requirement. - the Economist.

So the "honest ads act", as you can guess from the title, is a proposal to enact another unconstitutional internet censorship scheme.

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Another clue is that it's co-authored by john mccain, the man who brought you citizens united, wrtl i and ii, free enterprise club, western traditions, and other such landmark first amendment cases that struck down parts of mccain-feingold.

This more recent attack on the internet - long term far more dangerous than the russian incursions - is the usual suspects with the usual agenda, given a new causus belli. Remember the Maine. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin. Remember how an attack on 9/11/2001 by Saudi Arabians was used as a pretext to attack Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan, a war that's gone on for 16 years so far at least, with little progress or objective.

Here, the 'honest ads act' violates the principle that the government may not, usually, compel political speech. It's the old conflict between gobitis and barnette. wooley v maynard, miami herald v tornillo, AID v open society, talley and mcintyre are other landmarks saying the same thing.

Twitter is making a tactical mistake in endorsing an unconstitutional bill.
It can be claimed, correctly, that they are trying to use the power of government to muzzle their competitors. i think that's on the wrong side of history. i could be wrong. maybe free speech is passe, and no longer needed. as for me, i took an oath to defend the constitution, and i am gullible enough to take that seriously.
I seek counsel to challenge such regulation. So far Lee Goodman isn't returning my emails. How about you?

What helps protect internet firms today is that they have remained generally popular among consumers by offering cheap services and widely used products. But if a crunch comes, the big tech companies may find themselves haunted by their behaviour now. - the economist again, which i am quoting out of context here.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?