Tuesday, August 15, 2017

On early returns, it's Moore-Strange and Jones-Kennedy in the runoff, but, Jones crushed Kennedy too badly. Wait, Jones has enough to avoid the runoff, I think. So Kennedy is out, and I've now lost interest.


wapo on alabama senate. no news yet as fr as results or exit polls.

I have not seen good polling in today's senate primary. Moore v Kennedy?

Oh it gets way better:
 But public polls, which his campaign disputes, have found him well short of 50 percent and running behind an African American military veteran, with little political experience, who happens to be named Robert Kennedy Jr.

A Naval Academy graduate (who went on to get an MBA from Duke), 

link to photo.

Sunday, August 13, 2017




Thursday, August 10, 2017


Thursday, July 20, 2017

McCain brain tumor confirmed. People were wondering after his incident of aphasia last month at a senate hearing.

Friday, July 14, 2017


Monday, July 10, 2017

robbin –

Today the ACLU legal team filed a lawsuit demanding transparency and accountability from Trump’s Election Integrity Commission. The name of the case? ACLU v. Trump.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Ashcroft to hold meetings in Ashland, California

That's an inside joke for missouri people.


front page of today's sunday star.

Thursday, July 06, 2017


Running Tally of Laws Potentially Broken by Pence-Kobach Commission, or By Commissioners





Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Voter fraud commission may have violated law,


President Trump’s voter fraud commission may have violated the law by ignoring federal requirements governing requests for information from states, severed experts on the regulatory process told The Hill.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

via hasen.

Notes on meeting with Lesley Crane, lawyer for speaker of the house/GOP caucus, and Jill, staff counsel for the house of rep, or whatever her title is.

Confirming our conversation, we met today and discussed both IC 3-9-3-2.5 and IC 3-5-3-2-6, if that’s the right cite, disclaimers and the $100 threshold for fines under the Indiana Campaign Finance Act.
I enjoyed speaking with you both and think we had a productive meeting. I am following up with a few of the case sites we discussed. The briefing in Majors has a more comprehensive list of the relevant case law, but these are the highlights.

The landmark case establishing that disclaimer requirements are unconstitutional was Taley v California (1960). The better known case is McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995).
The case which applied McIntyre to Indiana’s former IC 3-9-3-2 was Stewart v Taylor (S D Ind. 1997).
I received a settlement of $7,000 in that case. I had put up a sign that said “Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday”.

When the legislature passed 3-9-3-2.5, re-instating the provisions that they had just been told were unconstitutional, I brought Majors v Abell. Cite. I eventually lost that case 2-1 at the 7th circuit.

I am ready to begin future rounds of litigation – I need the money – but I have no objection to a legislative solution, repealing IC 3-9-3-2.5.

Recent controlling cases include Reed Town of Gilbert and AID v Open Society, which said it is a basic principle of First Amendment law that the government cannot tell people what they must say.

This references a long line of compelled speech cases including Barnette v W Virginia Board of Education, Wooley v Maynard, Riley v Foundation for the Blind, and Tornillo v Miami Herald, among others.

There have been at least two other cases which applied McIntyre to Indiana statutes, Ogden v Marendt and Mulholland v Marion County Election Board, which I mentioned settled for $80,000, after the Board spent 150,000 retaining private counsel to handle the case.

We can avoid that sort of thing by repealing the statute. Alternatively, what both caucuses might prefer is to redraft the statute to have it apply only to corporate speech. I think such a statute would pass muster under the First Amendment in light of Citizens United, although it might have problems under Article I section 9 of the Indiana Constitution.

Thanks again for today’s meeting.
I wrote this while my internet was briefly down, so I need to add in some cites before sending.

Court House Regular is working on a website to allow law firms to find appearance attorneys (also known as "Step-Up" and "Coverage" attorneys) directly - that is, without having to use appearance brokers. 

The advantage to you is that by eliminating the intermediary and their fee, law firms can pay less while appearance attorneys can earn more. The confusion that an intermediary can cause is eliminated as well. 

Right now, the website is being built at www.courthouseregular.com

If you are registering as an attorney that does appearance work, click on "Register to Receive and Place Assignments". You can then create a profile including the courts that you are willing to go to, which allows law firms to search for you by court house. 

Otherwise, click on "Register to Place Assignments only".  

So please go to courthouseregular.com and sign up if you are involved with assigning and/or doing appearance work. The earlier you sign up the closer to the top of the search results you'll be as the site develops. 

The site will start being effective once a few thousand or so attorneys sign up - so tell your lawyer friends about it. Oh, and it is free to register.

Remember you have to be an attorney, which means you are licensed in your jurisdiction to practice law.


Frank has died, but the case will continue.

Monday, June 26, 2017

“Could This Put an End to Gerrymandering?”

No, because the bill, which I like, offer nothing to the GOP, which merely controls the house, senate, and presidency. It's too big of a chaange and lacks a constituency. Merely eing a good idea is not enough. Historically, something like this used to be the norm, except without thee ranked voting angle.

Things I like about it are that it features at large voting to increase minority participation, which I have argued many times to no audience. It would be great news for the Libertarians; they would have a shot at winning a few seats. But it won't pass, unless it offers something of value to the GOP. Perhaps it could be sold as a way for, say, the tea party faction, or the Koch machine, to pick up seats. But that won't win the leadership or the rank and file.
What does the GOP want that it otherwise can't get? I don't know offhand.

I will try to find a link to bo burnham's song about gerrymandering, which is running through my head.

Saturday, June 24, 2017



Friday, June 23, 2017


J Christian Adams, bomb-throwing.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017


The usual from Hans.

I am at a CLE on Indiana Legislative Update.
There was some discussion of Reed v Town of Gilbert.
I tthink of the case mainly about a landmark standard of review case,
requiring strict scrutiny for content-based censorship.
But their focus is on the exact fact pattern of Gilbert - political signs.
So there's some new indiana statute that restricts the ways towns can
restrict political signs. It sounds problematic but possibly constitutional, but I'll ned to look at the statute.

It seems to me I could rely on Reed v Gilbert to revisit the issues in Majors v Abell, where Posner said more guidance was needed.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Handel wins runoff 53%. As expected; that was a safe GOP seat, but it was close enough to be worth challenging.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gops-karen-handel-beats-democrat-jon-ossoff-in-georgia-house-race-1498011241 I -think- this link is not paywalled.
Hasen's prayers answered; it is outside the margin of litigation, and probably not thge result of fraud or vote buying. I don't know whether the holding of the election moots the case about the re-opening of voter registration for the run-off. That is, I dont think it moots the issues, but I doubt the parties will continue to litigate, but they might.

from my inbox;

Hello from St. Louis Public Radio!

Just a quick note to make sure you saw politics editor Erica Hunzinger's extensive reporting on the implementation of Missouri's new voter ID law. Your questions helped drive her quest to get some real answers about exactly how voter ID will work when it goes into effect on July 1. Have a look at her story here, as well as an interactive checklist designed to send people in the right direction to make sure they can vote. 

As always, we appreciate you taking the time to ask questions and encourage you to keep sending Curious Louis your queries

We're also launching a voting round of questions about voter ID that didn't quite fit into this story so keep a look out for that later this week. 

Thanks again for participating!


Engagement Producer
St. Louis Public Radio | 90.7 KWMU

Monday, June 19, 2017



Saturday, June 17, 2017


Thursday, June 15, 2017


group is collecting info on how to run for school board, all across the country.


Wednesday, June 14, 2017


That's terrible journalism. It basically reprints a government press release with no other viewpoint nd no factchecking. We don't know what the court did or didnt do. Quite likely, it scheduled  hearing for a temporary injunction. That's the usual way these things go. But who knows, the article doesn't say.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017



Sunday, June 11, 2017

Disclaimer issue in tight San Antonio run-off


The issue here was not that fliers must have a disclaimer; that's already been found unconstitutional in Doe v Texas. The claim is that the fliers falsely stated the name of the group that published them,
strong texas values.
 It took a turn toward nasty this week when a direct-mail hit piece against Nirenberg purported to be from a group that apparently does not exist, operating out of a P.O. box near the San Antonio airport.
The supposed source of the mailer, Strong Texas Values, is not registered with the City Clerk’s Office or the Texas Ethics Commission, according to local news reports. Falsifying the origin of an injurious political mailer is a Class A misdemeanor in Texas, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. 
I think the statute either doesn't apply here, or runs into constitutional problems. But I don't know all the facts, aand I havent looked closely at the statute.
OK, here's more on the flier and the controvery:
They did not allow my comment:
"Your article suggests thaat fliers are required to state their author. But that statute was found unconstitution back in 2003. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1686198/doe-v-state/. Freedom of speech to say what you want in a political flier is one of our strong texas values. - Robbin Stewart."

Nirenberg defeats Taylor by large margin.

Sec. 255.004. TRUE SOURCE OF COMMUNICATION. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person enters into a contract or other agreement to print, publish, or broadcast political advertising that purports to emanate from a source other than its true source.
(b) A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person knowingly represents in a campaign communication that the communication emanates from a source other than its true source.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
This comes a few sections later in the election code than the disclaimer statute struck down in Doe. I think this statute would have to be construed narrowly, or run into the constitutional problems of Doe.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

ACORN Flawed Business Model Apparently Reappears in Indiana Voter Registration Effort


I agree that it's  a flawed business model to have quotas for registration, but the business model was foisted on acorn by some states that made it illegal to pay per registrati
 on. I don't recall whether Indiana is one of those. My roommate was working at this group, for $15/hr, and got caught up on some of his back rent before the story hit and they shut down. He's been working lately  as a volunteer at the county HQ, is behind on his rent again, and I'm evictting him. It's been a strange bedfellows situation; he doesn't understand how I can be a Republican or why I wanted to vote for Trump in the primary, where they didnt let me vote.


McCain deathpool

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Some Kentucky libertarians won their challenge to a campaign finance rule that named the gop and democrats specifically.
winger via hasen:


from the opinion: Gables v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940, 945 (6th Cir. 1998).
I'm pretty sure that's Gable v Patton, not Gables. Gable was wrongly decided and upheld an unconstitutional disclaimer statute. Kentucky has a long history of upholding unconstitutional disclaimer statutes; what I call the Kentucky exception to the First Amendment.

The court applied strict scrutiny on speech claims, intermediate on finance claims; that seems right.

Equal protection challenges to election finance restrictions under the Fourteenth Amendment must survive “exacting scrutiny.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 44-45 (1976). “The restriction can be sustained only if it furthers a vital governmental interest that is achieved by a means that does not unfairly or unnecessarily          
 Case: 2:15-cv-00155-WOB-JGW Doc #: 122 Filed: 06/06/17 Page: 8 of 35 - Page ID#: 4627 9 
burden either a minority party's or an individual candidate's equally important interest in the continued availability of political opportunity.” Id. at 94 

That's a third definition of execting scrutiny that I havent noticed before. "Exacting" scrutiny can by lax, as in elsewhere in Valeo, or strict, as in McIntyre. This seems a bit more in between, but leaning toward strict. I may need to re-read the 100 page Valeo opinion again, in order to be able to use this passage when courts use Valeo as an anything goes standard.

These are off the cuff remarks while I am driving through Wisconsin with not enough sleep; I may  or may not revise this later.

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

https://vettingroom.org/2017/06/06/professor-amy-coney-barrett-nominee-to-the-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-seventh-circuit/ via howard.



I probably won't get around to writing a rebuttal.


Provisional ballots will be counted if the signature provided matches the one the state has on file or if the voter returns with documentation.

This might be enough to make it hoold up in court, if it actually works out that way in practice.
I wonder if Jay ccould convince Indiana to adopt such an alternative.

United States v Reality Winner. Has a ring to it.


Monday, June 05, 2017

word for the day: hen·di·a·dys
  1. the expression of a single idea by two words connected with “and,” e.g., nice and warm, when one could be used to modify the other, as in nicely warm.

‘Necessary and Proper’ and ‘Cruel and Unusual’: Hendiadys in the Constitution” (Virginia Law Review 2016), new conspirator sam bray.

New Report Says Thousands of PA Voters (Including 17K in Philly) Registered on Time But Could Not Vote Because of Administrative Delays

If this pans out, it could be a big deal.
And this does not look like voter suppression–more like bureaucratic incompetence.
Is there liability here? Is negligence enough?

WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) - Former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory is urging state lawmakers to pass a new voter ID law because he said he knows “a lot of noncitizens” voted last fall.
The News & Observer of Raleigh reports (http://bit.ly/2qNPqOF ) McCrory urged GOP legislators Saturday at the state Republican Party convention to pass a law limited to requiring voters to show identification.
The U.S. Supreme Court last month ruled against reinstating North Carolina’s voter ID law, which also changed ballot registration and early voting requirements.
The State Board of Elections found 41 noncitizens cast ballots last year. They were legal residents who were registered to vote, meaning an ID requirement likely wouldn’t have stopped them.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

odds are the court won't choose to hear this disclaimer case.

The petitions of the day are:
Issue: Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

I got asked today to write an op ed on voter ID, so that's now item 74 on my to do list, and this post is a note to myself to get to work on it.

This wasn't what I meant to paste into this post. But I'll put it up anyway.

To: Mark Duncan
Center Township Constable
Julia Carson Center
300 E Fall Creek Pkwy N Dr #130

From: Robbin Stewart
gtbear@gmail.com. 5/31/17

I am writing concerning an event that took place today in the courtroom of the Center Township Small Claims Court.

I was present in the building for the purpose of filing a small claim. It was my first time in the building; my previous visits to marion county small claims were at the city-county building location.
Court was in session, so I stopped in to observe proceedings, while filling out my small claim.

I was approached by a bailiff, who told me that I could not be there, and ordered me to leave the courtroom. I reminded him that courts are open under Indiana law, and as a member of the public I had a right to be there. He was adamant that I must leave, so I left. His attitude was hostile, rude, authoritarian, and menacing. I went to the clerk’s window, and explained the problem. I was directed to speak to a senior clerk, who at first told me there was nothing she could do. I asked who was in charge and was given your name.
I sat on the floor in the hallway to fill out my paperwork. The clerk who took my filing was helpful and professional, kudos to her.

Later, this same senor clerk told me that she had spoken to the judge, that I did have a right to be in the courtroom, that the bailiff was new. The bailiff was present but did not speak to me.

Because the problem was promptly resolved, I do not think it will necessary for me to file a notice of tort claim.

Let me identify some of the legal issues involved.

When I was unwillingly ejected from the courtroom, my rights under the open courts provision of the Indiana constitution were violated.

My right to due course of law under Article I section 12 was violated.

When a person is ejected, under color of law, from a place she has a right to be, this constitutes a seizure, both under Article I section 11, and the Fourth Amendment.
Consequently, an action under 42 USC 1983 would be in order.

I am a person who has previously won a case against the county, Stewart v Taylor, which came out of my race for Township Board, so I have an interest in trying to correct problems when the township or county is violating the rights of citizens. Please train and supervise the bailiff so that this sort of incident does not recur. I would appreciate receiving a written letter from the bailiff – either to gtbear@gmail.com, or P O Box 29164, so that I can see that they understand what they did wrong and how it isn’t going to happen again. If I receive a satisfactory letter, that will conclude the matter.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017


J Christian Adams group claims 1700 illegal aliens voted in Virginia.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Glaring error by the New York Times in its attack on North Carolina Republicans:

NY Times:
In Washington, efforts by this state’s Republicans to cement their political dominance have taken a drubbing this month. On May 15, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina elections law that a federal appeals court said had been designed “with almost surgical precision” to depress black voter turnout. A week later, the court threw out ....
Of course the Court did not strike down the North Carolina election statute; it took no action in that case, other than to deny cert.

The Chief Justice spelled this out in his statement regarding the denial.

"Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that “[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482, 490 (1923)."

Will we see a correction?

I also take issue with the New York Times stylebook using "law" to describe a statute that's been found unconstitutional, void, and not a law, under Marbury Madison, but I lost that war a long time ago.

Otherwise, this is a fine story and good reporting by the Times and Michael Wines.

Sunday, May 28, 2017


Saturday, May 27, 2017


He had joined the office in January. Court records show he had been handling several visa and passport fraud cases not too mention the DNC voter fraud case in which “volunteers” were caught shredding republican absentee ballots. Coincedentaly, his body was found in Debbie Wassermann Schultz’s district.



Thursday, May 25, 2017

The texas house bill amending the struck down voter ID scheme has an affidavit option, but imposes substantial penalties for false statements on the affidavit.

My question is, does this violate the 24th Amendment?

In the earlier litigation the appeals court reversed the trial court's finding of a 24th A violation, and the supreme court has not addressed the issue since 1966, aside from a mention in Justice Ginsberg's dissent from denial of a stay.

Under the court of appeals' standard, whatever exactly that is, does the chilling effect of prosecution for using an affidavit create an obstacle to voting, as did the poll tax waiver reciept in Harmon v Forssenius?

There are of course other constitutional concerns under the first and 14th Amendments, but I think it raises the 24th A question. That's all I have time for right now.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017



Two lawsuits about recall elections.


Monday, May 22, 2017

I have no opinion yet on today's 5-3 decision on North Carolina redistricting, Cooper v Harris.

But it's always a good time to keep in mind Cooper v Aaron. That was a case fromm the 1950s, or was it 1960? (1958, same year as Alabama v NAACP) that held, so much for "all deliberate speed"; the southern states needed ot get witt the program and implement the desegregation ordered by Brown v Board. It was an assertion of power by the judical branch over the legislative and executive, and an assertion of federal power over the states. During the Trump admistration whether 4 years, or less, or 8 years, these tensions will be at issue.


North Carolina's 12th district was the subject of Shaw v. Reno509 U.S. 630 (1993), Hunt v. Cromartie526U.S. 541 (1999), and Easley v. Cromartie532 U.S. 234 (2001).
I remember Shaw v Reno, but I have not kept track of the more recent cases; redistricting  and gerrymandering just isn't an issue I follow closely.

Today's decision was a win for Rev. Barber, the charismatic and confrontational leader of the N Car. NAACP who I have worked with slightly in his Moral Mondays program. The attemp to get an Indiana chapter going seems to have fizzled, or maybe I've just fallen out of touch.

Friday, May 19, 2017

I wonder if felon disenfranchisement raises 19th amendment issues? it's mostly males who are felons, probably enhanced among blacks. can the 15th and 19th and maybe 14th be chained together?


The GOP is running its anti-abortion playbook against voting rights — and it’s working

Want to know what the future of voting rights looks like? Look at how the GOP went after abortion.

post deleted, mistakenly posted to wrong blog.


The piece of House legislation presented was authored by Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, and mirrors the legislation passed in the Senate by Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, earlier in the session.

I suggest we call it the 2017 PhilKing Voter ID Act.

(terminology note: according to my stylebook, it's an Act or  bill and if passed a statute, but not a "law" until constititutional issues are resolved. Some people are comfortable using the term "law" to refer to a void unconstitutional statute; I'm not.)

Filking, see Filk Music: Filk music is a musical culture, genre, and community tied to science fiction/fantasy/horror fandom and a type of fan labor. The genre has been active since the early 1950s, and played primarily since the mid-1970s.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

5 Winter v. Wolnitzek, 186 F.3d 673, 693 (E.D. Ky. 2016)

A case to read, if I can ever get around to it.


Having just briefly skimmed it, I endorse his nomination to the 6th circuit. When I ran for judge, I encountered many of these restrictions on speech by judicial candidates. Mn GOP v White was supposed to have settled much of this.
here is the letter opposing him.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017


I don't know if an independent can win in philly, but it's worth a shot.
ah, apparently he's not running as an independent but in today's primary.
with 11%, Krasner has a strong lead.

Friday, May 12, 2017


FBI raids office of Republican campaign consultant in Annapolis



FBI may be investigating russian money laundering to trump campaign via internet fundraising and a bunch of small gop ad brokers.


Trump warns sacked FBI chief Comey not to 'leak' conversations.

Because what we need right now is more Watergate references.
In the old days, it was said that J Edgar Hoover's FBI could take out any politican that stood in his way. Deep Throat was Mark Feltz, #3 at the FBI. I don't know if the FBI will take an active role in investigating Trump, and whether firing Comey made that better or worse for Trump.

Note how "Repub,ican" is in the headlines, which it should be, but contrast with

Ex-Florida Congresswoman Convicted of Taking Money Meant for Charity.

Paragraph 7 finally gets around to mentioning that she's a Democrat. She intends to seek a new trial, and I express no opinion about whether she's guilty, legally or morally.
update: the instapundit made this same point yesterday.  https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/264708/



FBI may be investigating russian money laundering to trump campaign via internet fundraising and a bunch of small gop ad brokers.

Thursday, May 11, 2017


note to self: send a resume to the Biden center at U of Del.

When Roosevelt appointed Joe Kennedy to head the new Securities and Exchange Commission, he said "It takes a thief to catch a thief." Now Trump has appointed Kobach to look for voter fraud.
Kobach's rise to power reminds me a bit of the doctor in Urula LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven.
Kobach somehow became a law professor at my alma mater UMKC. He then parleyed that into a race for Kansas Secstate. he then got the legislature to give him prosecution powers so he could chase voter fraud. He was on Trump's transition team, I think. Now he has a national pulpit. We'll see what he does with it.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017


placeholder for a post on eisenhower and the 26th amendment.

Nebraska Lawmakers Kill Voter ID Amendment Proposal

for now anyway. 

Friday, May 05, 2017

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/05/branstad-signs-controversial-voter-id-bill-into-law/311568001/ (link plays annoying music)

"Iowa voters soon will need to show identification at the polls under a new law signed Friday by Gov. Terry Branstad. 
The measure overhauls Iowa's election laws through a series of changes that Republicans say are needed to ensure the integrity of the process and to prevent fraud, but which Democrats and others argue will suppress votes by creating barriers for the poor, elderly, people with disabilities and minorities. "

So Iowa passed that voter ID bill, so what are the details, and who is suing?

I do not know whether thebill, now act, is constitutional in its details.

Kansas court upholds grandfather clause on rational basis review.

Next up, literacy tests, poll taxes, lynching?

I forget the name of the 1915 grandfather clause case. Guinn v United States?
I don't think it was US v Classic (1940).
The Texas voter ID litigation seems like a continuation of the white primary cases,
Nixon v Herndon, Nixon v Condon, etc. I'm a little rusty on that history.
Yes, Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915).

It seemed odd the court made no mention of Guinn.


Not sure yet where the daily bruin is. I'm guesssing a California public college, which would make its internet regulations unconstitutional - both state and federal.

University of California Los Angelos.

Thursday, May 04, 2017

I wondered what the indiana law blog would have to say on the early voting lawsuit, but it turns out it shut down last week. This might be a bluff to get more funding, but for now it's gone. But it lives on as a twitter account.

All the cool blogs have moved to twitter.

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

I heard a rumour that Indiana Common Cause filed suit against Marion County for not having more than 1 early voting location. details may follow.


it was suggested to me that i contact julia re my voter ID issues, which is a good tip.

ah here we go


edit: of course hasen already covered this earlier today. i am in a news vacuum while at work so ,u blogging is  a bit off.


I see this lawsuit as a bit of a long shot.

With votes still waiting to be counted supporters of the sugary-drink tax have conceded the election in what is turning out to be a lopsided defeat.
The city ballot measure would have levied a two-cents-per-ounce tax on distributors of sugary drinks; revenue from the tax would have expanded early childhood education in the city.
Early unofficial results, around 9:30 p.m., from the city clerk show 63% voted against the ballot measure, while 37% voted for it.
The New Mexican will soon have district-by-district voting data, as well as expanded coverage of the decision, on its homepage, santafenewmexican.com.
The vote brings to an end a brief but hotly contested special-election campaign that drew millions in out-of-state donations and a spotlight to Santa Fe, the latest progressive outpost to consider such an initiative.
But unlike Philadelphia, Berkeley, Calif., and others, Santa Fe turned it down, suggesting resistance to what opponents said was a regressive and unfair tax, targeting lower-income families.
Opponents of the proposed tax argued it would discourage the purchase of sugary drinks and thus imperil the revenue source for the proposed prekindergarten expansion.
This story is developing. Check santafenewmexican.com for more.

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

It was election day in Carmel Indiana today. A referendum, probably to riase school taxes. It's an off year for most elections, and I didnt realize this one was happening, but someone caame into work with an "I voted" sticker.

Yup, school tax hike. Hamilton County is a rich suburb north of Indy.

If I'd known this was happpening I might have been able to organize some opposition, or at least monitor the polls for irregularies.

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