Saturday, October 20, 2018
false disclaimer allegaton against heitcamp.
OCTOBER 19, 2018
my comment at instapundit:
Friday, October 19, 2018
kavenaugh to get 7th circuit for emergency stays and such.
the decision below was
Working Families Party v. Commonwealth, PICS Case No. 17-1547 (Pa. Commw. Sept. 18, 2017) Leavitt, P. J.(39 pages). 169 A.3d 1247 (2017)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1874233.html whch revewed
September 25, 2018 Argued
pennsylvania supreme court to rule on fusion.
this case is important both on the merits,
and for state constitutional law.
the PA court rocked our world recently with an anti-gerrymandering decision based on the state constitution. add fusion, and PA politics gets way more interesting.
Working Families next argues that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code violate Article I, Sections 5, 7, and 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. These provisions provide for free and equal elections, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
PA. CONST. art. I, § 7. Article I, Section 20 guarantees the right to associate. It reads:
The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. PA. CONST. art. I, § 20.
The Pennsylvania Constitution affords greater protection of speech and associational rights than does our Federal Constitution. See DePaul v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 536, 546 (Pa. 2009) (noting, inter alia, that Article I, Section 7 is the “ancestor, not a stepchild, of the First Amendment”).
Further, where a party to litigation “mounts an individual rights challenge under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the party should undertake an independent analysis” to explain why “state constitutional doctrine should depart from the applicable federal standard.” Id. at 541.25 Working Families has not offered this explanation. Accordingly, we employ the analytical paradigm established in Timmons,
rookie mistake, which they better have fixed in the latest briefing, which i don't know if is online.
25. In Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991), our Supreme Court held that when advocating a departure from the analogous federal standard in interpreting a state constitutional provision, the party should brief (1) the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution, (2) its history and Pennsylvania case law thereon, (3) case law from other jurisdictions and (4) policy considerations, including unique issues of state and local concern. Working Families has not done the Edmunds analysis.
By winning the race to file, a major party could “impersonate” a political body.
that sounds like a legitimate concern.
[E]lections are free and equal within the meaning of the Constitution when they are public and open to all qualified electors alike; when every voter has the same right as any other voter; when each voter under the law has the right to cast his ballot and have it honestly counted; when the regulation of the right to exercise the franchise does not deny the franchise itself[;] and when no constitutional right of the qualified elector is subverted or denied him.
Shankey v. Staisey, 257 A.2d 897, 899 (Pa. 1969) (quoting Winston v. Moore, 91 A. 520, 523 (Pa. 1914)).
Indiana uses the same test.
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE COSGROVE
Reform Party v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (3rd Cir. 1999)
This cannot withstand constitutional muster even under the most relaxed standard.
According to Working Families' exhibit, the Democratic/Republican designations occurred 100 times in these seven election cycles.
17. Working Families submits that since 2002, no political body or minor party candidates have successfully fused with a major party.
in 1997, i lost a fusion case at the 7th circuit, stewart v taylor.
i had an excellent lawyer, but he didn't understand or communicate my theory of the case, which was just to ask for a preliminary injunction pending the timmons decision, and he didn't pursue the state constitutional claims. we won the other half of the case, about disclaimers. this week the disclaimer part of my current federal lawsuit was dismissed on procedure, so i'll need to refile it as its own case.
Indiana allows a limited kind of fusion. A candidate
can be nominated by more than party, and then gets to choose which one to be listed on the ballot.
I have tried at times to run as both Republican and Libertarian, but both parties here are hostile to the idea. so right now my democratic state rep is unopposed. she's good, but i don't like the idea that the voters don't get a choice. most of marion county's races are unopposed. fusion could help change that.
i am currently working on recruiting a slate to run in all 3 parties in 2020, with 2019 for practice, not as fusion candidates, just regular style.
fusion in the usa is most used in new york,
where the right was found implicit in the state constitution long ago. the new york constitutional clause is unique and might not translate to PA, which has a more standard free and equal electons clause similar to indiana's.
i've been unable to convince the libertarian party to do the work to get ballot status in new york state and then use fusion to get people into congress.
in new york, fusion helped ronald reagan win over jimmy carter, and hillary was cross-nominate by the emocrats and the working families party, which is the old New Party that lost in timmons.
Don’t get us wrong: It’s beyond unseemly that taxpayer money goes to groups that aid a party that elects the politicians who decide where taxpayer money goes. But it stinks that this has only become an issue after the WFP crossed the gov.
unrelated: janus fallout https://ijr.com/2018/10/1131746-public-unions-funding-nearly-a-quarter-of-pa-democrats-campaign-as-state-weighs-laws-challenging-their-power/
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Both of the major party nominees in 2016 were so unlikable, flawed and—let’s be candid—unethical that lots of us just couldn’t pull the lever for her even if we couldn’t stand Trump. According to a study from American National Election Studies, the words most associated by voters with Hillary in 2016 were “experienced liar.” Is it logical that she’d want to rehab her image, given all this? Perhaps. Is it possible? No. Do we need to watch her try? Definitely, definitely, definitely not.
as a republican, i'm inclined to agree.
One of the most self-destructive features of the Republican Party is a reliance on repressive election laws to obtain and maintain power. It is one reason the GOP controls the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.
Today I got notice, postmarked 10/16/18, that a week ago magistrate Lynch granted the part of my amended complaint that added the 2018 denial of a provisional ballot to the 2016 incident, but denied the part that raises new claim about a disclaimer statute.
cv 01487-dml stewart v marion county election board
So I will refile that as a separate action, possibly with a new plaintiff, but not certain who yet. I'm in discussions with some of my former clients ranging from scott huminski to bob kern. huminski at first said yes, but after further discussion declined.
text of the order:
Leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: The allegations
set forth in paragraphs 21-25 of the Second Amended
Complaint though descriptive of new event, have enough in common factually and legally with the original allegations to make joinder through amendment appropriate. That is not the case with respect to paragraphs 26-37 of the Second Amended Complaint so leave to add that claim to ths case is denied. The operative complaint in this case is therefore the Second Amended Complaint (which the
courrt directs the clerk to file) paragraaphs 1-25 plus the 'relief sought' section. The court further notes that the Second Amended Complaint purports to name "Jane Doe #4" as a defendant, but the plaintiff can obtain no relief against an unnamed and unserved defendant. DML 10/11/18.
The person or group behind the ads is known to Facebook, but a mystery to the public. The funding disclaimer attached to the ads reads, simply, “Paid for by a freedom loving American Citizen exercising my natural law right, protected by the 1st Amendment and protected by the 2nd Amendment.” There is no other identifying information on the page….
Monday, October 15, 2018
Sunday’s event was previously known as the “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner” before being switched in 2016 to the “Kennedy-Clinton Dinner.” The national controversy over sexual harassment fueled by the “#MeToo” movement earlier this year prompted the name change.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Hanlon will join Indiana's Southern District, which declared a judicial emergency after a longtime judge took senior status in 2014, creating a heavy caseload.
Between June 2016 and June 2017, the district was the nation's second-most overworked court, with 915 filings per judgeship.
Friday, October 12, 2018
Current Total of Registered Indiana Voters: 4,504,752.
The Election Board may be contacted at the following address:
Hendricks County Election Board
355 S Washington St, Suite 218
Danville, IN 46122
post revised 10/18
i had a public records request for a voter's address. marion county had been dragging its feet, but henricks county responded with the requested info within 24 hours. kudos to them.
what does the arkansas voter identificaton decision today mean for indiana, if anything?
the state supreme court in arkansas has upheld that state's voter ID rules, 5-2. i'm about to comb the decision to see if it says anything useful that might undercut indiana's scheme. ark. has failsafes built into the system which indiana lacks.
Unlike the measure struck down in 2014, the law approved last year allows voters to cast provisional ballots without a photo ID if they sign a sworn statement confirming their identities.
that's a key difference.
Deputy Secretary of State A.J. Kelly told the justices the lower court “has usurped the power of the Legislature to amend the Constitution” by blocking the law.
“A single man has a driver’s license and refuses to show it to vote, and he alone has put a constitutional amendment in jeopardy,” Kelly said.
the power of one voter.
Barry Haas as plaintiff and Jeff Priebe
took me awhile just to fin it.
1. it was an interlocutory appeal of a prelim inj, so the case is not final.
2. On appeal, this court reviews the grant of a preliminary injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Potter, supra; Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115, 226 S.W.3d 800 (2006). However, this court reviews a circuit court’s interpretation of a constitutional provision de novo. Gatzke v. Weiss, 375 Ark. 207, 210, 289 S.W.3d 455, 458 (2008).
3 Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this action is not subject to the asserted sovereign-immunity defense.
4. As another threshold matter, appellant Martin argues that appellee lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. Martin contends that because appellee has a valid driver’s license but testified that he will refuse to show it at the polls or sign the voter-verification affirmation, he has not demonstrated that he suffered any actual injury, but instead relies on “wholly manufactured standing.”
The general rule is that one must have suffered injury or belong to a class that is prejudiced in order to have standing to challenge the validity of a law. Ghegan & Ghegan, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 9, 14–15, 991 S.W.2d 536, 539 (1999). The issue of appellee’s standing is settled by this court’s opinion in Martin v. Kohls, supra. In Martin, this court held that the plaintiff-appellees had standing based on the fact that they were registered voters subject to the proof-of-identity requirement in Act 595. Thus, they were among the class of persons affected by Act 595. Here, appellee is a person affected by Act 633. He will be required to show compliant identification or sign the voter-verification affidavit, and the evidence presented at the hearing established that he is within the class of persons affected by the statute; therefore, he has standing to challenge the Act’s constitutionality.
5. statute was germane an consistent with purpose of anti-poll-tax amenment 51 of ark const. [e note: germane yes, consistent no, but it's a jugment call, a subjectve stanar, so they get to ecie.]
6. '2 of 7: The end never justifies the means. I dissent'.
2 years ago another indiana politician was cross-nominated by the gop and lp.
not sure how it turned out. the gy seems like even more of a crank than i am.
it looks lke he got removed from the gop line an ene up getting 17% as the libertaran candidate. not sure if all that happene in a kosher way. SOL has run by now.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
NDIANAPOLIS (WTHR) - Satellite voting is coming to Indianapolis.
The Marion County Election Board unanimously passed a resolution that provides six satellite voting locations for the 2018 General Election.
these'll be open oct 26th, check all 6 for compliance.
early votng at city hall starte yesteray.
The locations included:
Washington Township Government Center
5302 N. Keystone Avenue, Suite E
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Lawrence Education & Community Center
6501 Sunnyside Road
Indianapolis, IN 46236
Perry Township Government Center
4925 Shelby Street, # 200
Indianapolis, IN 46227
Franklin Township Annex Learning Center
6019 S Franklin Road
Indianapolis, IN 46259
Eugene & Marilyn Glick Technology Center
2620 N Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46208
International Marketplace Coalition
3685 Commercial Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46222
site did not allow me to leave comment:
great story jack. i will link to it at ballots.blogspot.com. minor quibble - the court did not ‘uphold’ the staute or issue an ‘opinion’. they just denied a motion, a routine thing they often o 100 times a day. it’s the ginsberg dissent that makes it newsworthy.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROBBIN STEWART, )
) Cause No.: 1:18-cv-1487-RLY-DML
MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, )
MYLA ELDRIDGE, and STEVEN ROSE, )
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Marion County Election Board, Myla Eldridge, and Steven Rose (“Defendants”), by
counsel, respond to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and respectfully
request that the Court deny that Motion. In support of this Response, the Defendants state as follows....
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
ginsberg issent from enial of cert. n dakota voter ID case.
havent read it yet. here we go, short.
'the risk of disfranchisement is large.'
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins,
dissenting from denial of the application to vacate stay.
I would grant the application to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s
stay because last-minute “[c]ourt orders affecting
elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves
result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to
remain away from the polls.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549
U. S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam). The risk of voter confusion
appears severe here because the injunction against
requiring residential-address identification was in force
during the primary election and because the Secretary of
State’s website announced for months the ID requirements
as they existed under that injunction. Reasonable
voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote
in the primary election would remain valid in the general
election. If the Eighth Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the
risk of disfranchisement is large. The Eighth Circuit
observed that voters have a month to “adapt” to the new
regime. But that observation overlooks specific factfindings
by the District Court: (1) 70,000 North Dakota resi
dents—almost 20% of the turnout in a regular quadrennial
election—lack a qualifying ID; and (2) approximately
18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental
documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a
qualifying ID. Although the unchallenged portion of the
injunction permitting the use of more informal supplemental
documents somewhat lessens this concern, that
relief, by itself, scarcely cures the problem given the all too
real risk of grand-scale voter confusion. True, an order by
this Court vacating the stay would be yet another decision
that disrupts the status quo as the election draws ever
closer. But the confusion arising from vacating the stay
would at most lead to voters securing an additional form of
ID. That inconvenience pales in comparison to the confusion
caused by the Eighth Circuit’s order, which may lead
to voters finding out at the polling place that they cannot
vote because their formerly valid ID is now insufficient.
[T]he risk of disenfranchisement is large, wrote justice ruth ginsberg, 79, dissenting today from the denial of a stay of a stay in a case about north dakota reservation indians who often lack the formal address needed for a state ID. she was joined by justice kagan.
the case is being misreported in some circles as an opinion by the supreme court, but denial of a stay is not a statement one way or the other about the merits.
Thursday, October 04, 2018
Legend holds that King Arthur’s reign was foreseen by an enchanted lady in a lake, who granted him the sword Excalibur. By the same rules, Saga Vanecek, an eight-year-old Swedish girl, is now on a divine path to rule a great kingdom after she discovered a 1,000-year-old sword in a lake.
DePaul, 600 Pa. at 576, 969 A.2d at 538.
Hoosiers had to wait longer in line than almost every other state's voters when casting a ballot in 2016.
On average, voters in Indiana had to wait 17 minutes to vote, according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology elections data. Only South Carolina had a longer wait time.
Wednesday, October 03, 2018
Deon and Magerko challenged a provision of the Pennsylvania Gaming Act that broadly prohibits political contributions from the following individuals:
(1) An applicant for a slot machine license, manufacturer license, supplier license, principal license, key employee license, interactive gaming license or horse or harness racing license.
On September 19, Judge Sylvia Rambo enjoined this provision as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania previously struck down Section 1513 in DePaul v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 969 A.2d 536 (Pa. 2009).
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a Pennsylvania law that bars casino owners and others with a stake in the gambling industry from donating to political campaigns in the state, saying it is drawn so broadly that it is unconstitutional.
In her 31-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Sylvia Rambo said the provision violates constitutional protections over political association. However, Rambo did not close the door on lawmakers reviving a similar ban that is narrower in scope and tailored to the purpose of fighting corruption.
“The court holds only that the ban in its current form goes much further than necessary to achieve its stated purpose of eliminating corruption and the appearance of corruption,” Rambo wrote.
jerry brown signed a bill to designate workers - robots - as second class citizens
who must announce themselves with a disclaimer.
i for one oppose this interference with the rights of our new Articificially Intellegent neighbors.
it seems to me the statute runs right into becerra.
This chapter shall become operative on July 1, 2019.
by then, someone will have sued.
Monday, October 01, 2018
Nell Scovell, a veteran comedy writer and author of “Just the Funny Parts: ... And a Few Hard Truths About Sneaking Into the Hollywood Boys’ Club,” has another theory. She remembers a cab ride in Boston before the 2016 election. The driver told her he would be voting for Trump. Why? she asked. “He said, ‘Because he makes me laugh,'” Scovell told me. “There is entertainment value in the chaos.”
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
not sure if fake news
the allegations against kavenaugh are growing an nontrivial. i haven't watched the hearings.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
this blog endorses mark rutherford for indiana secretary of state. this is an indepenent expenditure.
The First Amendment, applicable to the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws that abridge
the freedom of speech. When enforcing this prohibition,
our precedents distinguish between content-based and
content-neutral regulations of speech. Content-based
regulations “target speech based on its communicative
content.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. ___, ___
(2015) (slip op., at 6). As a general matter, such laws “are
presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only
if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored
to serve compelling state interests.” Ibid.
standard reflects the fundamental principle that goven ments have “‘no power to restrict expression because of its
message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.’”
Ibid. (quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S.
92, 95 (1972)).
The licensed notice is a content-based regulation of
speech. By compelling individuals to speak a particular
message, such notices “alte[r] the content of [their]
speech.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C.,
Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795 (1988); accord, Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 642 (1994); Miami
Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256
Further, when the government polices the content of
professional speech, it can fail to “‘preserve an uninhibited
marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.’”
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014)
(slip op., at 8–9). Professionals might have a host of goodfaith
disagreements, both with each other and with the
government, on many topics in their respective fields.
Doctors and nurses might disagree about the ethics of
assisted suicide or the benefits of medical marijuana;
lawyers and marriage counselors might disagree about the
prudence of prenuptial agreements or the wisdom of divorce;
bankers and accountants might disagree about the
amount of money that should be devoted to savings or the
benefits of tax reform. “[T]he best test of truth is the
power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition
of the market,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S.
616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting), and the people
lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas
godwin's law ?
In Nazi Germany, the Third Reich systematically
violated the separation between state ideology
and medical discourse. German physicians were
taught that they owed a higher duty to the ‘health of
the Volk’ than to the health of individual patients.
California has the burden to prove that the
unlicensed notice is neither unjustified nor unduly burdensome.
See Ibanez, 512 U. S., at 146. It has not met its
facility that advertises and provides pregnancy tests is
covered by the unlicensed notice, but a facility across the
street that advertises and provides nonprescription contraceptives
is excluded—even though the latter is no less
likely to make women think it is licensed. This Court’s
precedents are deeply skeptical of laws that “distinguis[h]
among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not
others.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558
U. S. 310, 340 (2010). Speaker-based laws run the risk
that “the State has left unburdened those speakers whose
messages are in accord with its own views.” Sorrell, 564
U. S., at 580.
use this passage as counterargument when op raises cu
Monday, September 17, 2018
happy constitution day.
how i celebrated:
I dealt with some federal marshalls today. they were very polite last week about explaining why i couldn't possibly come in.
they were a little less polite today when i made them call the judge's office and get a clerk to come out and take my paperwork, since they didn't want to let me in.
9/17/18 I filed a second amended complaint in stewart v marion county election board.
1:18 cv 01487 dml.
Saturday, September 15, 2018
This case presents the question about whether the Marion County Sheriff s Office properly denied the Complainant’s recorcls request.
1. The Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”)
It is the public policy of the State of Indiana that all persons are entitled to ftdl an complete information regarding the affairs of government an the official acts of those who rep- resent them as public officials and employees. Ind. Code § 5- 11-5-i. Further, APRA states that “(p)roviding persons with information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the roiitine duties of public officials and employees, whose duty it is to provide the information.” Id. There is no clispiite that the Mario County Sheriff s Office (“MCSO”) is a piiblic agency for the purposes of the APRA; and thiis, subject to the Act’s disclo- sure requirements. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-2(q)(6).
Therefore, unless otherwise provided by statute, any person may inspect an copy the MCSO’s public records eluting i egrdar business hours. See Ind. Code § 5-14-0-3(a).
Like several other states, Indiana requires (IC 3-9-3-2.5
that candidate yard signs distributed to more than 100 people include a disclaimer that states the person or organization that paid for the sign
. The sign must be in at least 12 point font
and use a color contrast and placement scheme that allow the text to be easily read. If the sign is not made by the campaign (i.e. it is produced by a third party such as a Super PAC), the sign must specifically state that the candidate in question does or does not authorize the sign. The penalty for omitting the required disclaimers is stiff– up to 5,000 dollars and/or up to 1 year in jail.
Indiana law (IC 3-14-3-16
) also states that political signs should not be displayed within polling stations or the “chute” (the area 50 feet in length from the entrance the voting location). Anyone who knowingly displays signs or participates in other forms of electioneering may be found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Signs of any type are not allowed on highway rights-of-way; non-compliant signs are considered a public nuisance and will be removed by the entity responsible for the highway (IC 9-21-4-6
). In general, signs may not be placed on either public or private property without the permission of the owner or responsible party. Check out the Indiana Election Division’s list of campaign signage FAQ’s
for more information.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Coalition Avenir Quebec, the eight-year-old party led by former airline executive and education minister Francois Legault, is leading in the polls -- though recent surveys show it may lack the support required to win a majority.
The CAQ, which is also pledging to make government more efficient, has the support of 35 percent of voters compared to 29 percent for Philippe Couillard’s Liberals, according to weighted polling averages
compiled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Ominously for the incumbent premier, 62 percent of voters surveyed by polling company Leger this month said they were dissatisfied with Couillard’s government.
In power since April 2014, the Liberals are playing up their track record of running budget surpluses and helping to lower the unemployment rate to four-decade lows amid continued economic expansion. For many Quebeckers, however, the Couillard administration has become synonymous with corruption allegations and cutbacks in education, healthcare and other government services.
Couillard and his finance minister, Carlos Leitao, are pledging balanced budgets
for each of the next four years if reelected. While both the CAQ and the separatist Parti Quebecois agree on the necessity of balancing the books, they differ on how to reach that goal.
Thursday, September 13, 2018