<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Friday, November 21, 2014

Shouldn't unconstitutional statutes be repealed?
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/05/ind_law_shouldn.html
a rare guest editorial at the indiana law blog, relevant to Mulholland,

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/18/Houston-Candidate-Files-Lawsuit-Against-Houston-Over-Campaign-Blackout-Period

http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2014/11/20/subpoenas-follow-unresolved-election-complaints/70024650/

The Delaware County Election Board met Thursday but failed to resolve complaints stemming from a recent Yorktown election campaign.
Resolution might be coming soon, however: Before the meeting was over, the board agreed to issue subpoenas for potential witnesses, including one who didn’t show up Thursday to provide answers to the complaints.

Mulholland v Marion County Election Board settled a couple of days ago while I was on a plane.

This was a case I had thought about intervening in if it didn't settle. There was a settlement conference at the end of October,and then it takes a little while to get all the needed signatures.

http://indianalawblog.com/documents/finaljudgmentSIGNED11-18-14.pdf

http://www.aclu-in.org/news/262-decision-upholds-candidate-s-free-speech-rights

http://blogs.wishtv.com/category/jim-shellas-political-blog/

http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/11/democratic-and-republican-attorneys.html

http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/11/mulholland-wins-slating-free-speech.html

edited to add
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68561

Thursday, November 20, 2014

How the 24th Amendment is like a garlic press:

Professor Will Baude at Volokh compares unitasker cooking implements to legal doctrines,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/20/how-is-a-garlic-press-like-a-legal-doctrine/
He was inspired by http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2527648,
On Doctrines That Do Many Things.
Some kitchen implements, like a cleaver, or string, are generally useful, while others have a specific task. While kitchen snobs tend to look down on unitaskers, some are useful and justify their space on the counter or in the drawer. E.g. a can opener. We might only use our cherry pitter once a year, but it is worth having.

I rarely use a garlic press, but I bought one to replace one I broke in our community kitchen.
I cook for about 50 people each Saturday with Food Not Bombs.

The First and 14th Amendments are generalist tools. So we have rules which limit their use.
O'Brien, Anderson v Celebrezze, Burson v Freeman,  are cases that show the First Amendment is not absolute, but involves balancing competing interests.
Caroline Products, and the Slaughterhouse cases also show that the 14th Amendment is far from absolute, but will trigger different standards of review depending on the claims and facts.

The 24th Amendment, on the other hand, is a unitasker. It says you can't charge money to let people vote. The 3rd Amendment is another fine example - the government can't station troops in your kitchen during peacetime. There's only been one Supreme Court case resolving a 24th Amendment issue on the merits. Harman v Forssenius, 1965. In the recent Texas voter ID case, the court dissolved a stay, or stayed an injunction or something, but has not yet reached the merits. In an early morning dissent, Justice Ginsberg brought up the poll tax issue, so this case may see further developments down the road. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf

My thesis is that when a clause of the constitution is highly specific, in the way that the 24th Amendment is specific, there is no need for balancing tests. Courts should not allow the other branches to do that one specific thing that the constitution tells them they may not do. Here, that would be charging money to vote. The lower court opinion, while it may or may not stand as matter of law, does a great job with the facts. It shows how a Texan may be charged $22, or over $100, or over $12, depending on which set of documents they use as voter ID. Even the "free" option comes with costs. The prohibition on using poll taxes and other taxes as an obstacle at the polls should be treated as an absolute.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, faced with the same problem, construed its statute narrowly to prohibit the state from charging money for the underlying documents such as a birth certificate, and remanded to the agency for how to  handle situations such as someone born in another state. Having solved that problem, it went on to uphold the statute more generally. As Christian Adams has pointed out, it would be relatively easy for Texas to amend its voter ID plan to avoid the 24th Amendment issues. Indiana could and should do the same. I oppose voter ID for a whole host of reasons not limited to the taxation issue, but I admit there are things the states could do to fix some of the current constitutional problems with voter ID statutes. Georgia addressed this, by amending their statute to stop charging for IDs.

I live in Indiana,and have been denied the vote repeatedly since 2006, because I am unwilling to show the voter ID I have bought and paid for. I am convinced this is unconstitutional, and that as person whose votes aren't being counted, I have standing. Not everyone agrees. I have lost at both state and federal levels, and due to res judicata issues I am not suing over my most recent denial earlier this month. I had tried to recruit a few other people to be potential plaintiffs, but one ended up not voting, another showed their ID, and a 3rd was not challenged when they didn't show ID.
I have a pending public records request for the names of the people who didn't have their provisional votes counted due to ID issues in Marion County,and maybe one of them would be willing to sue.

 At this point my analogy breaks down. I'm not sure exactly how a poll tax is like a garlic press.
But I know I support freedom of the press, and the right to vote.





Friday, November 14, 2014

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Election-violations-may-have-forced-resignation-of-county-elections-administrator-57490.shtml#.VGZxV_nF_94

corruption in el paso?

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/the_take/2014/11/did_voter_id_suppress_the_vote_or_not.html?wpisrc=newstories

my own experience with voting this cycle was as usual i voted a provisional ballot that will get thrown away. i will not be doing a lawsuit, at least not with me as plaintiff.

of the 3 people i'd asked to be testers, one was allowed to vote w/o ID, one showed ID, one didn't vote. i've filed a publci records request for the info on who was turned down with a provisional ballot, for marion county/indianapolis,and i will forward that to the moral mondays folks, just in case their promise of counsel actually comes through.

Saturday, November 08, 2014

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156

Why everyone still hates the airline industry, in one tweet


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=united+breaks+guitars

I rarely fly, but tonight I have to buy a ticket to hawaii.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/russell-brand-4-billion-spent-on-elections-but-feeding-the-homeless-is-illegal/

On the weekends I volunteer at Food Not Bombs. Friday night we fed 65 people at a gallery opening, today about 30 at our usual spot downtown. Today's menu was lentil curry, cheese bread, salad, crackers, something else I forget. The city is trying to shut us down. Threatening letters and visits from the health inspectors.We are trying to buy an old church so that we'll have a better kitchen.
The recent arrest of some ministers in Florida is getting lots of press.


"Klingenschmitt really believes in exorcisms for gay people and that the president is demon-possessed. And 17,000 voters in Colorado really did choose, on purpose, to make Klingenschmitt a state lawmaker."

Thursday, November 06, 2014

http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/11/1000-votes-maui-gmo-farming-ban-squeaks-by/


My sister's sign.


Wednesday, November 05, 2014

http://townhall.com/columnists/caseygiven/

this guy has the credentials to back up his column on the conservative case against voter ID.
http://townhall.com/columnists/caseygiven/2014/11/04/the-conservative-case-against-voter-id-laws-n1913645

http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-voter-id-cards-auctioneers/
got this posted at hasen

ed morrisey argues that angus king and even joe manchin could switch parties. that is, king,an independent, could caucus r instead of d. dunno, but i wouldn't rule it out.

indiana:
While the exact partisan breakdown of each chamber was not finalized at press time, Republicans appeared headed to own up to 71 seats in the 100-member House and 40 seats in the 50-member Senate when the Legislature convenes in January for a four-month session focused on the state budget.
That would be an increase of two GOP seats in the House and three in the Senate; a significant blow to Statehouse Democrats who had hoped to whittle down the Republican majorities toward a possible Democratic takeover of at least the House by the end of the decade.

the country
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/05/republican-sweep-extends-to-state-level/?tid=trending_strip_6

Cool Moose affiliated candidate gets 22% on RI Gov. race, spent $40.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2lbqpu/good_guy_bob_healey/

http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html



Although the final vote came in around 58 percent, under Florida law, the amendment needed 60 percent of the vote to become a constitutional amendment. 
MedMarijuana loses in FL, but a loss like that is  a win. Legislators will have a hard time
keeping pot illegal for cancer patients, knowing 58% of thier constitu-ents disagree.
Pot is now legal in Oregon and Alaska, and legal-ish in DC.

All 3 IPS School Board incumbents lose election
All three IPS School Board incumbents lost their seats in Tuesday’s election.
The newly elected board members were supported by the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and education reform groups like Stand for Children Indiana.

In Indiana, where 321,475 people applied for a concealed handgun license during this same time period, black men are 5.54 times more likely to be denied a license than white men, while black women are 7.26 times more likely to be denied one than white women. Whether we are talking about Texas or Indiana, if you are black, you are significantly less likely to be issued this form of identification.

I can think of several possible partial explanations for the disparity.
Blacks are less likely to live in rural areas and want the gun just for hunting.
Blacks, as a group, are more likely to use a gun for offensive purposes, shooting or robbing people.
Blacks are more likely to have a felony conviction, and may be more likely to have a record of mental illness. 
Blacks may be less willing or able to spend the extra funds to have their application "typed" at a bail bond agency, which knows the score and can streamline acceptance.
Blacks may be less adverse to submitting an application that won't be granted.

Still, these figures are problematic for Texas. I'm not sure Indianans can use a gun license as a voting license.


Koch beats Reid in Nevada:
Neither Harry Reid or the Koch brothers were on the ballot, but Reid will no longer be majority leader of the senate. He will probably, but not definitely, be minority leader.
The GOP took the Nevada house and senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/05/republican-sweep-extends-to-state-level/?tid=trending_strip_6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/05/harry-reid-the-unamerican-and-soon-to-be-former-senate-majority-leader-good-riddance/
I don't agree with much of what bernstein says here, but it discusses the Koch/Reid conflict.









My senate predictions were off  a little. I didn't foresee the GOP getting NC, and I had the other guy in KS. The GOP won Georgia outright instead of having to do a runoff.
I was right about AK, AR, IA, MT, SD, WV, LA. So they get 9, not 7. I had NH as a long shot.
I didn't think it would be close in VA.

I may have one new case coming out of this cycle, but can't say anything about it yet.

No upsets at home in Indiana or Cincinnati where I am blogging from.
Tarbell got 4% as a write-in. His campaign signs are all over the neighborhood I'm staying in.
He'd gotten 44% two year ago, but got back int he race too late yto get the D nomination.



Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Even in Washington, D.C, that border town with Southern efficiency and Northern charm, a Republican mayoral candidate looks set to put together a respectable performance.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/03/return-of-the-northeastern-republican.html

http://yourfuckingpollingplace.com/

Monday, November 03, 2014

http://www.indianaforefront.com

a bunch of hoosier political bloggers, site is new to me.

(WASHINGTON) -- North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan is sitting on the most expensive hot seat in Senate history.

Spending in her Senate race against Republican State House Speaker Thom Tillis topped $100 million, according to the Sunlight Foundation -- $10 million more than the second most expensive Senate contest this year in Colorado, and roughly $30 million more than the priciest race in history before 2014.
link

senate poll update:
colorado: GOP has slight lead.
iowa: tied, lean r
new hampshire: statistical tie
ga: runoff expected
alaska: gop only up by 1%
louisiana: 50% chance of GOP pickup, 50% runoff.
nc Dem+3.
KS tie
AR gop +8

so gop pickups include WV SD LA AR IA which am i forgetting? Montana.
CO AK too close to call. assume 1 each.
ind pickup KS maybe.
that's the 50-50 scenario. but i know i'm forgetting one. With MT that's 51.
long shot: NH.

"Joni Ernst would mean — coming to the United States Senate — that Mitch McConnell would be leader of the United States Senate, who agrees with her on everything," Reid told Politico.

The Dems will probably get the senate back in 2016, when the GOP has to defend more seats.




Sunday, November 02, 2014

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/18/state-appeals-ruling-calling-marion-county-judicial-election-system-unconstitutional/17460479/

forget if i posted this yet.




http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/02/yes-hoosiers-really-election/18268303/

http://www.ibj.com/articles/50281-morris-another-plea-to-vote

In 2004, participation in the election by registered voters was about 50%. In 2005, Indiana enacted voter ID. In this week's election, turnout is expected to be about 25%. Should we blame voter ID?

Well, of course not. One trend we saw starting with the 2006 election was that in the over 65 crowd, who can do no-excuse absentee balloting, absentee ballots about doubled. I haven't seen the stats for that since 2006. It would be a useful number to track.

Similarly, voter ID is not the main reason people in Indiana vote less than in Illinois.
In 2010, Illinois turnout was 51 percent of registered voters, compared to 41 percent in Indiana. In 2006, Illinois recorded 49 percent turnout versus 40 percent in Indiana. Illinois had 52 percent turnout in 2002, while Indiana was at 39 percent.
Even in 1982, a recent peak year for Indiana midterm turnout at 62.5 percent, voter turnout in Illinois was 65 percent.
In presidential and Indiana gubernatorial election years, such as 2012, voter turnout rates in Illinois (59 percent) and Indiana (56 percent) are more similar.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/crossing-the-line----voter-turnout/article_8035f5e1-99a8-5470-8633-e1232f27571e.html (annoying chipotle ad)


The law turnout this week is not (solely) because people have stopped voting due to voter ID.
My point is, some of the voter ID apologists have been claiming that voter turnout, especially among minorities, has been up since Indiana passed voter ID. That had little to nothing to do with voter ID,and everything to do with, first, a tight late primary contest between Clinton and Obama, and then 2 cycles of the first half-black president. Voter ID wasn't the reason for the upturn, and isn't the reason for the downturn this week. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/02/yes-hoosiers-really-election/18268303/Voter ID probably discourages 1 to 2 percent of Indiana (former) voters, partially offset by higher turn-out by those upset about disenfranchisement. Usually, 1-2% doesnt swing an election. Sometimes, however, it does. I am the 1%.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/02/voter-fraud-real-threat-integrity-elections/

this article/editorial has the wrong conclusions, but addresses important questions.
. As John Fund and I outline in our new book.. oh, never mind. Oh, it's Hans, never mind.
or there's this one by Ed Meese. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/02/edwin-meese-kenneth-blackwell-election/18126049/



http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2400.htm 

tune in tuesday for election results.

As a final point, because the majority finds the law constitutional, the majority is not required to 
address the State’s contention that these plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the voter ID law, and 
does not do so. I believe all citizens have the standing to attack a statute that unconstitutionally denies 
any voter the right to exercise his or her electoral franchise. We all have an interest in an election that is 
lawful, and the right to vote is meaningful only if others of like mind are also entitled to vote according to 
the Constitution. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a right that is more clearly a ―public right‖ than the 7
right to vote and participate in a lawful election. It therefore may be enforced under the public standing 
doctrine long recognized by this Court and most recently reconfirmed in Cittadine v. Department of 
Transportation, 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 2003).
In sum, the plaintiffs’ allegations of substantial impediments to the exercise of the right to vote are 
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the complaint. I would remand this case to permit the 
plaintiffs to attempt to prove their case. Boehhm, dissenting in Rokita v LWV

Because there is not article III, standing is different in Indiana courts than in federal courts.
I recently found a lawprof post criticizing my litigation in Stewart v Marion County Election Board,
saying I didnt have standing, so I've been thinking about this.
I think the district court was wrong in saying I didn't have standing, but I didn't appeal that case.
For more on standing see Majors v Abell (posner) and Stewart  v Taylor (S.D Ind. 1997).


http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/10/ind_courts_prof_5.html

article re state constitutional law in indiana

http://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol47p1217.pdf

Saturday, November 01, 2014

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/01/ohio-kentucky-judicial-races-choices/18265883/ from hasen.

this could be an opportunity for the libertarians, if they had their shit together.

The Dow-Jones is at 17,390.52. Gas is $3/gallon. Unemployment is what, 6%, 
Housing prices are up, a little. The Nasdaq Composite COMP, +1.41%  rallied 64.60 points, or 1.4%, to 4,630.74 and closed at the highest level since March 2000. Gold sinks as dollar soars: Gold prices GCZ4, -2.09%  were trading at levels not seen since 2010, dropping nearly $34 to $1,164.30, with the dollar USDJPY, +2.84%  trading around ¥112.01.
These factors should be good for the party holding the white house. But in a 4 billion election, it isn't seeming to matter.

a modest proposal

Ilya Shapiro IShapiro@cato.org

Oct 31 (1 day ago)
to DavidDalelaw-election
Yes and this is why we must restrict megaphones, printing presses, laptops, and internet access; otherwise those without resources to buy such things will be drowned out by the voices of those who do. Also, if I hear something critical of me on the news or read about it in the newspaper, I should have a right to respond. After all, we must keep the field level. Maybe we should just create zones to which to restrict political speech (and it's too hard to police the express/issue advocacy line so just anyone expressing in public a thought tangential to policy issues will be fined if not in that zone). For that matter, some people live closer to the polling station than others; they should be forced to walk around the ballot box until they've covered as much ground as their more distant neighbors. But wait, some of those people are disabled and can't walk; ok, voting is only allowed in wheelchairs. But not everyone can afford a wheelchair, so taxpayers will fund them. Aw heck let's just give the government all the money and property and let it figure out how much we get to use for ourselves, perhaps according to some rubric of how much we deserve...
 
I think I'll dress up as Harrison Bergeron tonight.
 
Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Cato Institute

Another disclaimer complaint in Indiana, combined with a residency issue.


http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2014/10/election-complaint-filed-against-fort.html

here's one from florida
http://insidevero.com/2014/10/21/charlie-wilson-wrong-on-campaign-sign-law/

another from Indiana.

http://www.wkvi.com/2014/10/starke-county-election-board-discusses-political-signs-travel-board-votes/#more-68641

http://www.wkvi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Campaign-Sign-Complaint-Oct.-24-2014.pdf



the election is tuesday. i had to look it up to be sure.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/13vvzd/i_am_trevor_potter_stephen_colberts_personal/
trevor potter ama from a year ago. found while searching for something else.

ah, here we go
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2klvel/last_minute_proposal_snuck_in_that_allows_the/

Friday, October 31, 2014

note to self: i didn't get anything done this week on writing to the FEC about internet disclaimers.

http://www.fec.gov/members/statements/Goodman_Hunter_Petersen-Statement_Encouraging_Public_Comment.pdf

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/10/fec-internet-squabble-february-hearing/

Maybe I should see if slashdot has covered this. I never read or post to slashdot anymore.

Had a few posts picked up by electionlawblog.org:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67709

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67628




McConnell, in cahoots with the KY GOP, sent out a mailer accusing his opponent Grimes of election violations. She has sued alleging that this is voter intimidation and defamation. She's asking for damages and injunctive relief.

I think she loses on the intimidation claim, but can go forward with the defamation claim, under the public figure/public concern standard of actual malice. I'm not comfortable with the request for injunction. Hard to explain why, but I'm not sure it's in the public interest to prohibit campaign material, even when its sleazy and defamatory. Granted there's irreparable harm,and arguments can be made for the other 3 factors for injunction. Maybe Rick, a remedies professor, will have more analysis, but he's just skeptical of the suit, while deploring the mailing.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67776

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67772

Gotta say that is some quick litagating. Lawsuit filed same day. It's almost like there are armies of lawyers standing around waiting to sue somebody.

I had favored McConnell in this race until now. She's cuter. He's been a fighter for freedom of speech. I think this hurts his cause. I do not know offhand the Kentucky constitution's stance on election speech which is defamatory.

The text is easy to find, but I don't know the case law. Wasson v Kentucky sets out some general theory about the Kentucky constitution, but doesn't address defamation.

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.


Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. It's right there in section 1. and see sections 8 and 9:


Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.


In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libel the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Nice self-enforcing clause:

To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Found the relevant case, haven't read it closely. http://volokh.com/2010/10/26/preliminary-injunctions-in-libel-cases-forbidden-permanent-injunctions-allowed/

http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2010-SC-000182-I.pdf

II I . ANALYSIS UNDER THE SECTION ONE AND SECTION EIGHT OF THE
KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION
Independently of the First Amendment analysis set forth above, we also
conclude that the injunction is in violation of the free speech provisions set

forth in Section 8 and Section 1(4) of our Kentucky Constitution.

 In this vein, we conclude
that Section 8 may be interpreted consistently with the modern rule that

defamatory speech may be enjoined following a judicial determination of falsity.

In summary, consistent with the modern rule, we construe Section 8 as
permitting an injunction against false, defamatory speech, but only upon a

final judicial determination that the speech is false.

So she doesn't get the temporary injunction she asks for, but maybe she gets the permanent injunction. Is there a Purcell problem with issuing that before the election? After the election, is it moot, or capable of repetition yet evading review? Grimes will probably not run against McConnell again, but I think it's a justiciable issue.


http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/john_odonnell_broke_clean_camp.html

http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/103114.html#058776

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio State Bar Association on Thursday asked Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell to stop running a negative TV ad against his Ohio Supreme Court race opponent, Justice Judith L. French.

"asked".

what is the ohio clean campaign pledge? is it contractually enforceable?  is it coerced?
is it an attempted end run around dreiehaus?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2014/10/odonnell-complaint.html

Bar calls on O'Donnell to remove 'false' ad against French



Thursday, October 30, 2014

unmet legal needs

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/house-republicans-cant-find-anyone-to-sue-the-president/382144/

http://ivn.us/2014/10/28/fight-senate-will-win-control/?utm_source=house&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-2014-10-28
The Fight for the Senate: Who Will Win Control
Good analysis. He thinks it's 50-50, that Roberts will lose Kansas, and it will come down to which party Orman caucuses with. (Everybody's been assuming D, but Orman won't say.)

Other sources have downgrade the chance of senate takeover to about 65%. NC may be in play now, we'd been assuming the D's would keep their small lead. The Supreme Court's role will be controversial if it becomes an R pickup.

meanwhile in the house:

Twenty-three incumbent Democrats are seen as in jeopardy compared to just four Republicans. A greater House Republican majority would mean Speaker John Boehner of Ohio would be able to weather more defections on legislation and still get bills passed.

meanwhile at the statehouse:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/29/election-could-tip-historic-number-of-legislatures-into-republican-hands/

 Why Beth White isn't guilty of anything this time, and what she is actually guilty of.

 America is founded on the idea that people have rights, and these rights can best be protected by a democratic republic, in which the people elect leaders in free and open elections. That includes the right to speak against or for candidates. For example I have the right to put a sign in my yard that says "Vote for Smith".


But in Indiana, where I live, such a sign could earn me 5 years in prison, under a statute requiring the sign to have certain fine print on it of the government's choosing. Trust me, Indiana is somewhere you don't want to be in prison.


The statute's obviously unconstitutional, under both the state and federal constitutions.


Section 9. No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 


Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio are the leading cases that find disclaimer laws unconstitutional. Citizens United found a limited exception: the government can require speech by corporations to have disclaimers. Before CU, corporations were entirely banned from speaking in favor of candidates; now they can do so but with disclaimer rules.


The cases are a subset of the more general principle that the government can't tell you what to say.

Tornillo v Miami Herald, Wooley v Maynard. As they say on TV, you have the right to remain silent.

Recently Beth White got some campaign postcards back from the printer where the disclaimer had been accidentally left off. Beth is our county clerk and is running for secretary of state. She's a Democrat, I'm not. This isn't about partisan politics. I have sued Beth before, over a voter ID policy both she and I think is unconstitutional. She doesn't let me vote, because I won't show ID. So we aren't exactly friends.


But I support her right to hand out her postcards. The state GOP has filed a complaint against her with the state election division. If she wins the fall election (at which she didn't let me vote) she will be the boss of the election division, although they have some independence.


The election division thinks the statute is enforceable,and could fine her, although it can't directly send her to jail, do not pass go. That would be up to the prosecutor, who is also a Democrat.

So we won't likely see a criminal case in which the statute could be found unconstitutional. Instead, it's up to folks like me to file suit, and maybe I will and maybe I won't.

This is an embarrasing situation for White, because she is a defendant in Mulholland v Election Board, because in the 2012 election she sent her goon, a guy named Kip Tew, to seize Zach Mulholland's campaign literature, because it didn't have the fine print about slating disclaimer.

But a federal judge, in Ogden v Marendt, had already declared the slating disclaimer rules unconstitutional and void, so it was unlawful for White to try to enforce them.

That's what she did  wrong and doesn't deserve to be secretary of state, not passing out some postcards that she had every right to pass out. As an elections official and a lawyer, she has sworn to uphold the constitution. When she conspired with Tew to steal Mulholland's fliers, she broke that promise.


 If I could vote, I would vote for the Libertarian candidate. Instead, White is going to throw away my provisional ballot, as she has done 5 times before. I've lost that case enough times I can't sue again, but I've asked some friends to go vote provisional so they will have standing to challenge this other unconstitutional act by White. Ginsberg's recent dissent in the Texas ID case shows that at least 3 of the judges are concerned about how states like Texas and Indiana are charging poll taxes to let people vote. 


 When I challenge disclaimer rules, I'm typically fighting liberals and Democrats. When I fight poll taxes, I'm typically fighting conservatives and Republicans. All I'm trying to do is keep America safe for democracy, in which the people elect leaders in free and open elections. 

http://www.voanews.com/content/texas-voter-id-law-discourages-some-voters/2500182.html

The first sentence is wrong.
HOUSTON—
The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the Texas voter identification law, which requires voters to show an approved form of picture ID in order to vote at a poll. 

The Supreme Court did not uphold the statute, which by the way is not a law, since it was found void and unconstitutional. What they did do was rule that it is too close to the election to stop the unconstitutional program now. Appeal of the decision will take place later after the election.

When someone says something wrong, they are either making a mistake or deliberately lying. I cannot tell which is the case here. Please fix the broken article.

Btw thats a terrible sign up and log on procedure.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Beth White hoist by own petard:

http://www.idsnews.com/article/2014/10/secretary-of-state-candidate-violates-election-law


Secretary of State candidate Beth White and current Marion County clerk will be facing penalties after the midterm election on Nov. 4.
The Democratic challenger to incumbent Connie Lawson was outed by the Indiana Republican Party last week for not having a financial disclaimer on postcard-sized 
campaign literature.
Publishing candidate material without a disclaimer is a felony, punishable up to $5,000, one-year imprisonment or both.
my comment: 

White's flyers were not illegal. They were free speech protected by the US and Indiana constitutions.
In 1960 The Supreme Court held in Talley v California that disclaimer rules are unconstitutional. In 1997 in Stewart v Taylor I got Indiana's disclaimer rules declared unconstitutional. See also Ogden v Marendt, and the current case of Mulholland v Election Board. Citizens United found that the government can require disclaimers on speech by corporations, but that doesn't apply to White's postcards. An unconstitutional statute is void and is not law. IDS owes White an apology, but kudos for breaking the story.

ibj photo




Hoist on her own petard: Beth White accused of forgetting disclaimer. . White is a defendant in Mulholland v Board, after she ordered Mulholland's literature seized because the format of the disclaimer was wrong, although a federal court had already ruled that statute unconstitutional.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67628 story now posted at electionlawblog.org

http://wishtv.com/2014/10/22/beth-white-attacks-connie-lawson-admits-error/

http://www.ibj.com/articles/37483-2012-woman-of-influence-beth-white background on beth white.


I like her personally, but I've sued her, in other contexts, and have reasonable disagreements with her about how she does her job.


The indy star is ignoring the story:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/29/3-candidates-vying-for-indianas-secretary-of-state-election-2014-voter-guide-beth-white-connie-lawson-karl-tatgenhorst/18051493/

http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/news/local_news/little-noticed-race-carries-big-political-consequences/article_aefd20ce-0334-5785-8ec0-c9b74368be40.html

Apparently IBJ first broke the story a week ago:
http://www.ibj.com/articles/50112-republicans-to-file-complaint-over-dems-campaign-materials
story is by lesley weidenbener, a franklin college student.

My letter to IN GOP chair
Hi Mr Berry. I've been following the Beth White disclaimer story since yesterday. I'd missed it in the IBJ last week.

You seem to be unaware that the disclaimer statute, IC 3-2-9-2.5, is unconstitutional and void.
Americans have free speech, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that states cannot require disclaimers.
Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio.
Indiana;s disclaimer statute was ruled unconstitutional in 1997 in Stewart v Taylor. I'm Stewart. The legislature then re-enacted the unconstitutional statute,and so far it hasn't successfully been challenged in court. See Majors v Abell.
Odgen v Marendt found a different Indiana statute unconstitutional under McIntyre,and White is in trouble, in the Mulholland case, for violating the court's order in Ogden.   

Citizens United authorized disclaimers for speech by corporations, but that's not at issue here.
Jim Bopp is, besides me, the expert on these statutes,and you might check in with him; I assume you know each other.

The responsible thing to do is to withdraw the complaint. Otherwise White would be in the position to sue you under 42 USC 1983. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on this topic.

Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. 

a different kind of election. a story about my former boss's uncle, who has decided not be reincarnated as the political leader of the tibetan people. http://boingboing.net/2014/10/24/the-dalai-lama-will-not-return.html




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