Friday, October 29, 2010
Charles White and Indiana disclaimer rules:
Charlie is the front-runner for the Indiana Secretary of State. He's the republican and is endorsed by the incumbent theodore "todd" rokita, who is running for congress.
The Dem has a strange name, Vop Ossily. Seems a nice guy, but he's way behind in the polls. "Nevertheless, White leads the race for Secretary of State 47 percent to 31 percent" - channel 8. I support Mike Wherry, the Libertarian, because getting 2% is how they keep their ballot status.
Anyway, Charlie's gotten some bad press lately, when it was found out he didn't really live in the city council district where he's been a citycouncilman,and has been voting somewhere he doesn't live.
Today's microscandal is that one of his staff left a disclaimer off a flyer.
Indystar article.
Once again, Democrats are trying to get criminal charges brought against Republican secretary of state candidate Charlie White. And once again, the Fishers man is saying he simply made a mistake.
This time, White's campaign mailed material promoting White but didn't disclose who paid for the mailings, which is required by law.
But of course it isn't required by law, since disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional per Talley and McIntyre, even after CU. An earlier version of Indiana's statute was found unconstitutional in my case Stewart v Taylor (1997),
but my lawsuit against the revised statute, Majors v Abell, was inconclusive. It did get a "dubitante" opinion from judge easterbrook. I haven't followed up with a new lawsuit yet.
My former senior partner, Dr. RJ Tavel, sent me the article. I wrote to Charlie's campaign and got a nice email back. I'd sent them a couple of recent amicus briefs I've written about how disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional. I also wrote to the Star reporter.
Maybe this is the time to mention it looks like the first circuit clerk rejected my amicus in NOM v McKee. There was a printing error and some of the pages weren't double spaced. Package came back but I haven't looked at it yet.
So I've written a brief explaining why Talley is still good law, but it's not considered filed yet.
If Charlie White gets elected, I'll be very interested to see his position on disclaimers. It's the election division that actually handles these, which is under the Secretary of State but is its own thing, with co-chairs appointed by the governor.
So White can't just give an order to stop enforcing the unconstitutional statutes, but he could make a strong suggestion.
White and I are on opposite sides of the voter ID controversy - today I once again was told I wouldn't be allowed to vote,and after some discussion cast a provisional ballot that probably won't be counted. But there may be other areas we can work together on.
Here's a pic of Manual Talley
Charlie is the front-runner for the Indiana Secretary of State. He's the republican and is endorsed by the incumbent theodore "todd" rokita, who is running for congress.
The Dem has a strange name, Vop Ossily. Seems a nice guy, but he's way behind in the polls. "Nevertheless, White leads the race for Secretary of State 47 percent to 31 percent" - channel 8. I support Mike Wherry, the Libertarian, because getting 2% is how they keep their ballot status.
Anyway, Charlie's gotten some bad press lately, when it was found out he didn't really live in the city council district where he's been a citycouncilman,and has been voting somewhere he doesn't live.
Today's microscandal is that one of his staff left a disclaimer off a flyer.
Indystar article.
Once again, Democrats are trying to get criminal charges brought against Republican secretary of state candidate Charlie White. And once again, the Fishers man is saying he simply made a mistake.
This time, White's campaign mailed material promoting White but didn't disclose who paid for the mailings, which is required by law.
But of course it isn't required by law, since disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional per Talley and McIntyre, even after CU. An earlier version of Indiana's statute was found unconstitutional in my case Stewart v Taylor (1997),
but my lawsuit against the revised statute, Majors v Abell, was inconclusive. It did get a "dubitante" opinion from judge easterbrook. I haven't followed up with a new lawsuit yet.
My former senior partner, Dr. RJ Tavel, sent me the article. I wrote to Charlie's campaign and got a nice email back. I'd sent them a couple of recent amicus briefs I've written about how disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional. I also wrote to the Star reporter.
Maybe this is the time to mention it looks like the first circuit clerk rejected my amicus in NOM v McKee. There was a printing error and some of the pages weren't double spaced. Package came back but I haven't looked at it yet.
So I've written a brief explaining why Talley is still good law, but it's not considered filed yet.
If Charlie White gets elected, I'll be very interested to see his position on disclaimers. It's the election division that actually handles these, which is under the Secretary of State but is its own thing, with co-chairs appointed by the governor.
So White can't just give an order to stop enforcing the unconstitutional statutes, but he could make a strong suggestion.
White and I are on opposite sides of the voter ID controversy - today I once again was told I wouldn't be allowed to vote,and after some discussion cast a provisional ballot that probably won't be counted. But there may be other areas we can work together on.
Here's a pic of Manual Talley
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
california AG candidate acts unethically by filing disclaimer complaint
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/kamala-harris-prepares-complaint-against-national-gop-organziation-over-attack-ad.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/kamala-harris-prepares-complaint-against-national-gop-organziation-over-attack-ad.html
Saturday, October 23, 2010
andre carson shows up in the "muslims wearing things" blog. carson is a muslim, is my congressman, has a heck of a ground game, signs everywhere, lots of cousins, hefty rolodex, turns out the early voters in long lines. he's a little weak on constituent services. i wrote asking for tickets to citizens united and never heard back.
Free Doug Guetzloe
hasen this morning linked to a new york times article about fake and real tea party candidates backed by democrats. this paragraph caught my eye.
(On Friday, Mr. Guetzloe was sentenced to 60 days in prison for a misdemeanor campaign violation relating to an anonymous political flier he sent four years ago, but his sentence does not start until after the election.)
To any newcomers to this blog, I'm active in the area of disclaimers statutes, which were found unconstitutional in 1960 in Talley v California, but are still being illegally enforced in many states. welcome electionlawblog readers.
his bio and contact info
Among other things hehas, er, had, a radio show, so this is a case of "journalist faces jail for political speech."
He's also facing separate heat over not having a disclaimer for a link on his website in 2008.
I then found this article.
Political consultant Doug Guetzloe sentenced to 60 days in jail
October 22, 2010|By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel
Orange Circuit Judge C. Jeffery Arnold has sentenced political consultant Doug Guetzloe to 60 days in the Orange County Jail in his 2006 misdemeanor involving a campaign-flier violation.
The political consultant won't have to report to jail until Nov. 3, a day after the election. He had asked for his sentence to be withheld until then so he could help participate as a consultant in various campaigns.
Guetzloe was adjudicated guilty this afternoon, and Arnold said he could participate in a work release program. Guetzloe was also fined $1,000.
After today's proceeding, Guetzloe and his attorneys said it is likely he will appeal the sentence.
Guetzloe's case had lingered and continued to be argued in state and federal appellate courts since November 2006, when he pleaded no contest to 14 misdemeanor counts under state election law.
At that time, Arnold postponed Guetzloe's 60-day jail sentence pending the expected appeal. His sentence at that time also included three years of probation and $7,500 in fines.
In 2008, however, the 5th District Court of Appeal tossed 13 of the 14 charges, saying the additional counts amounted to "double jeopardy" and that he was improperly charged for the same crime.
The one remaining charge, however, stuck.
The case stems from a 2006 mailer Guetzloe sent anonymously during a Winter Park election. The flier included a police report about then mayoral candidate David Strong's 1999 dispute with a neighbor in which he smeared dog excrement on the neighbor's neck and shirt.
The flier did not include a required disclaimer identifying it as a paid electioneering communication. The mailer went to more than 5,000 households, according to court documents.
The language in the statute has since changed and Guetzloe and his attorneys argued that it would be impossible to prosecute him under the same law today.
Check back for details.
muckraker coverage. a critic: Doug Guetzloe is a Male Shoveness Pig cnn old clip the man they love to hate (clip).
Some of the florida cases on disclaimers include:
Doe v Mortham (narrowly construed the statute down to almost nothing)
Smithers v FlaEC - unreported ACLU case found statute unenforcable
I forget if Broward County Condo assn. is Georgia or Florida. Florida,
Broward Coalition v. Browning.
Ok, here's the first of many? updates.
The case is procedurally complex.
Guetzloe had pleaded no contest, in state court, butfiled something in federal court. The federal court found the statute unconstitutional and enjoined it, [in Broward County] but the state is proceeding anyway. Meanwhile a state appeals court dismissed all but one of 14 charges. I haven't seen the filings. I'm basing this on this article:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-28/news/os-doug-guetzloe-sentencing-set-20100827_1_doug-guetzloe-new-sentencing-date-sentencing-hearing
Maybe a habeus petition is in order? I've never done one of those. I feel like I know the merits of his dispute pretty well, but procedure is over my head.
here, courtesy of one of his enemies, of which he seems to have many, are some docs from the florida election commission.
http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2010/06/more-trouble-for-convicted-criminal.html
he's apparently highly litigious, dozens of cases.
Ax the Tax, Founder and Chairman. Since 1982, Ax the Tax has successfully led thirteen (13) anti-tax efforts that have resulted in a savings to taxpayers of over $10.5 billion in taxes.
from one online bio at http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/a-fox-news-connection-to-the-orlando-triple-murder-suicides
ok this link is helpful:
http://centralfloridapolitics.com/2009/06/29/1st-amendment-rights-1-state-of-florida-0/
It turns out Guetzloe is being sent to jail for violating the same statute that was declared void by a federal judge in IJ's Broward County case.
That, it seems to me, represents some extreme judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.
I've alerted IJ although my guess now is that they already know about it.
(On Friday, Mr. Guetzloe was sentenced to 60 days in prison for a misdemeanor campaign violation relating to an anonymous political flier he sent four years ago, but his sentence does not start until after the election.)
To any newcomers to this blog, I'm active in the area of disclaimers statutes, which were found unconstitutional in 1960 in Talley v California, but are still being illegally enforced in many states. welcome electionlawblog readers.
his bio and contact info
Among other things he
He's also facing separate heat over not having a disclaimer for a link on his website in 2008.
I then found this article.
Political consultant Doug Guetzloe sentenced to 60 days in jail
October 22, 2010|By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel
Orange Circuit Judge C. Jeffery Arnold has sentenced political consultant Doug Guetzloe to 60 days in the Orange County Jail in his 2006 misdemeanor involving a campaign-flier violation.
The political consultant won't have to report to jail until Nov. 3, a day after the election. He had asked for his sentence to be withheld until then so he could help participate as a consultant in various campaigns.
Guetzloe was adjudicated guilty this afternoon, and Arnold said he could participate in a work release program. Guetzloe was also fined $1,000.
After today's proceeding, Guetzloe and his attorneys said it is likely he will appeal the sentence.
Guetzloe's case had lingered and continued to be argued in state and federal appellate courts since November 2006, when he pleaded no contest to 14 misdemeanor counts under state election law.
At that time, Arnold postponed Guetzloe's 60-day jail sentence pending the expected appeal. His sentence at that time also included three years of probation and $7,500 in fines.
In 2008, however, the 5th District Court of Appeal tossed 13 of the 14 charges, saying the additional counts amounted to "double jeopardy" and that he was improperly charged for the same crime.
The one remaining charge, however, stuck.
The case stems from a 2006 mailer Guetzloe sent anonymously during a Winter Park election. The flier included a police report about then mayoral candidate David Strong's 1999 dispute with a neighbor in which he smeared dog excrement on the neighbor's neck and shirt.
The flier did not include a required disclaimer identifying it as a paid electioneering communication. The mailer went to more than 5,000 households, according to court documents.
The language in the statute has since changed and Guetzloe and his attorneys argued that it would be impossible to prosecute him under the same law today.
Check back for details.
muckraker coverage. a critic: Doug Guetzloe is a Male Shoveness Pig cnn old clip the man they love to hate (clip).
Some of the florida cases on disclaimers include:
Doe v Mortham (narrowly construed the statute down to almost nothing)
Smithers v FlaEC - unreported ACLU case found statute unenforcable
I forget if Broward County Condo assn. is Georgia or Florida. Florida,
Broward Coalition v. Browning.
Ok, here's the first of many? updates.
The case is procedurally complex.
Guetzloe had pleaded no contest, in state court, but
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-28/news/os-doug-guetzloe-sentencing-set-20100827_1_doug-guetzloe-new-sentencing-date-sentencing-hearing
Maybe a habeus petition is in order? I've never done one of those. I feel like I know the merits of his dispute pretty well, but procedure is over my head.
here, courtesy of one of his enemies, of which he seems to have many, are some docs from the florida election commission.
http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2010/06/more-trouble-for-convicted-criminal.html
he's apparently highly litigious, dozens of cases.
Ax the Tax, Founder and Chairman. Since 1982, Ax the Tax has successfully led thirteen (13) anti-tax efforts that have resulted in a savings to taxpayers of over $10.5 billion in taxes.
from one online bio at http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/a-fox-news-connection-to-the-orlando-triple-murder-suicides
ok this link is helpful:
http://centralfloridapolitics.com/2009/06/29/1st-amendment-rights-1-state-of-florida-0/
It turns out Guetzloe is being sent to jail for violating the same statute that was declared void by a federal judge in IJ's Broward County case.
That, it seems to me, represents some extreme judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.
I've alerted IJ although my guess now is that they already know about it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
this blog endorses richard sanders for re-election to the washington supreme court.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
http://courtlistener.com/ca9/UCM/human-life-of-washington-inc-v-chair-bill-brumsick/
I had not realized that the washington disclosure case also was a ruling on disclaimers. Rick Hasen blogged about it a few days ago, but I hadn't looked at the case until now.
The 9th circuit opinion is erroneous. It fails to apply strict scrutiny,and does not even mention the controlling precedents, Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, and Buckley v ACLF.
The complaint is somewhat defective, in that it fails to make claims under the Washington constitution, where it could have relied on the No on 119! case.
I haven't read the briefs yet. This case is similar to NOM v KcKee in Maine, in which I recently submitted an amicus brief to the First Circuit explaining how the district court had gotten the disclaimer issue wrong, and pointed to a controlling state constitutional decision.
Here it's the 9th circuit that has erred. I would have to check to see whether this is the case where the Supreme Court just denied interim relief - I think that was the other Bopp case from Washington. Might revise this post after a little homework.
I found this case using a new search tool from http://courtlistener.com.
OK, this is not that other case; this is a case that only came down a few days ago.
Here is the campaign legal center's press release bragging about having misled the court into applying the wrong standard of scrutiny.
Here (pdf) is the center's amicus brief; I will want to read it before saying more yet.
OK, the Center's brief does mention McIntyre in a footnote on page 14, just to point out that the term 'exacting scrutiny' has been used ambiguously. Then later, p.25, it misrepresents ACLF. The Center's brief and the Ninth Circuit opinion use the term 'disclosure' in an over-broad way. ACLF instead breaks down 'disclosure' into two different categories, reporting and disclaimers. ACLF subjects reporting requirements to Valeo-style intermediate scrutiny and disclaimers to strict scrutiny. The brief conveniently cites ACLF as to reporting requirements, but fails to mention that ACLF unanimously applied strict scrutiny to the disclaimer requirements.
I do not know what Human Life of Washington's next step will be; will it seek en banc review, head straight to the Supreme Court, or maybe bring a case in state court.
Commenting on the case to the election law list, Jim Bopp said "As Yogi Berra put it: 'It ain't over, until it is over.'"
My own next step should be to go find the HLW's briefs and see how we got here.
There's a few other things I need to go do today, so I might not get to that yet.
I did not find the appeal briefs online. A few of the earlier filings are, such as the state's reply to the motion for preliminary injunction.
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/WA/Doc44-PI-Response.pdf
That filings reminds me that the current decision by a panel of the 9th circuit is incompatible with an earlier 9th circuit ruling, ACLU of Nevada v Heller.
For this reason, en banc review would be appropriate.
I had not realized that the washington disclosure case also was a ruling on disclaimers. Rick Hasen blogged about it a few days ago, but I hadn't looked at the case until now.
The 9th circuit opinion is erroneous. It fails to apply strict scrutiny,and does not even mention the controlling precedents, Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, and Buckley v ACLF.
The complaint is somewhat defective, in that it fails to make claims under the Washington constitution, where it could have relied on the No on 119! case.
I haven't read the briefs yet. This case is similar to NOM v KcKee in Maine, in which I recently submitted an amicus brief to the First Circuit explaining how the district court had gotten the disclaimer issue wrong, and pointed to a controlling state constitutional decision.
Here it's the 9th circuit that has erred. I would have to check to see whether this is the case where the Supreme Court just denied interim relief - I think that was the other Bopp case from Washington. Might revise this post after a little homework.
I found this case using a new search tool from http://courtlistener.com.
OK, this is not that other case; this is a case that only came down a few days ago.
Here is the campaign legal center's press release bragging about having misled the court into applying the wrong standard of scrutiny.
Here (pdf) is the center's amicus brief; I will want to read it before saying more yet.
OK, the Center's brief does mention McIntyre in a footnote on page 14, just to point out that the term 'exacting scrutiny' has been used ambiguously. Then later, p.25, it misrepresents ACLF. The Center's brief and the Ninth Circuit opinion use the term 'disclosure' in an over-broad way. ACLF instead breaks down 'disclosure' into two different categories, reporting and disclaimers. ACLF subjects reporting requirements to Valeo-style intermediate scrutiny and disclaimers to strict scrutiny. The brief conveniently cites ACLF as to reporting requirements, but fails to mention that ACLF unanimously applied strict scrutiny to the disclaimer requirements.
I do not know what Human Life of Washington's next step will be; will it seek en banc review, head straight to the Supreme Court, or maybe bring a case in state court.
Commenting on the case to the election law list, Jim Bopp said "As Yogi Berra put it: 'It ain't over, until it is over.'"
My own next step should be to go find the HLW's briefs and see how we got here.
There's a few other things I need to go do today, so I might not get to that yet.
I did not find the appeal briefs online. A few of the earlier filings are, such as the state's reply to the motion for preliminary injunction.
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/WA/Doc44-PI-Response.pdf
That filings reminds me that the current decision by a panel of the 9th circuit is incompatible with an earlier 9th circuit ruling, ACLU of Nevada v Heller.
For this reason, en banc review would be appropriate.
Monday, October 04, 2010
ballotpedia is predicting the gop will pick up 623 seats in state legislatures.
i won't be one of those; my polling still shows me losing 2-1.
I found the link at a webcomic (somewhat nsfw)which has the following editorial which is still relevant 2 years later.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
If you're still undecided about the current US election, then you're an idiot and should be hated. This newspost is not about the presidency.
No, rather, I want to make sure everyone looks into the other important votes you'll be casting - things called Propositions, or sometimes just Questions. They're extra issues that voters need to decide on. For example, California's much-reported Prop 8 will eliminate the right to same-sex marriage if passed (as in, if enough people vote "yes").
I think it's important that everyone researches the questions proposed by their state government so they can make an informed decision, so please look into it. That link I just gave you? There's a US map near the bottom of the page. Click on your state and it will hopefully give you a list of all the questions you'll be able to vote on.
Think clearly about your presidential choice - think about what issues matter the most to you, and do not let fear impede the democratic process!
i won't be one of those; my polling still shows me losing 2-1.
I found the link at a webcomic (somewhat nsfw)which has the following editorial which is still relevant 2 years later.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
If you're still undecided about the current US election, then you're an idiot and should be hated. This newspost is not about the presidency.
No, rather, I want to make sure everyone looks into the other important votes you'll be casting - things called Propositions, or sometimes just Questions. They're extra issues that voters need to decide on. For example, California's much-reported Prop 8 will eliminate the right to same-sex marriage if passed (as in, if enough people vote "yes").
I think it's important that everyone researches the questions proposed by their state government so they can make an informed decision, so please look into it. That link I just gave you? There's a US map near the bottom of the page. Click on your state and it will hopefully give you a list of all the questions you'll be able to vote on.
Think clearly about your presidential choice - think about what issues matter the most to you, and do not let fear impede the democratic process!
Friday, October 01, 2010
10/6 update: WA and WV are too close to call. CA Dem, IL GOP. NV close, Reid usually pulls off close elections. There is some spoiler tea party candidate at 7%, plus NOTA. CT Dem. So that puts it at 49 GOP, 48 DEM + NV? and two tossups. I would bet on Rossi and Manchin, but have no data supporting that. www.electoral-vote.com
oops, ky is already gop, not a pick-up, so my numbers were off by one.
expected: AR CO IN NH PA ND MO WI
tossup: IL WA WV
worth watching CA NV CT?
Control of the senate could turn on (allegations of) illegal votes in chicago.
Likely outcome -50-50 split. Possible 51 seats for GOP.
If 50-50, are there any possible party-switchers?
Off to go check the current numbers in CT. Blumenthal still up by 5%.
this post originally read
gop senate pickups:
expected: WA, AR, DE, IN.
tossup: ca, mo, co, pa, wi, oh, ky.
current: 59-41
projected 52-48 +/- 1.
i think the polling numbers will tighten up by fall.
all the polls are saying the gop will win the house;
i don't have enough data to call it.
(moved back to top)
update: expected AR, IN, KY, NH, PA, ND, MO
possibles: CA, WI, WA, CO IL
worth watching: NV. CT. WV. NY2 (Gillinbrand)
So I'm sticking with my 52-48 +/- 1 prediction. No let's make that +/- 2.
If it splits 50-50, Biden becomes even more important.
I could see WA and CO as possible GOP pickups.
I do now think the GOP will win the house, although I can't point to any specific races.
In DE, I like Christine O'Donnell but don't expect her to win.
If Coons wins that means Paul Clark becomes New Castle County Executive,
who has links to the previous Dem. corrupt county leadership.
Delaware is effectively a 1-county state, 2 at high tide. The population of the two southern rural counties has grown a lot since I lived there.
Wait wait, what about Illinois, another toss-up? That would inch the numbers a little closer to a GOP victory or tie.
So my numbers are 51 1/2 to 48 1/2, +/- 2 1/2. It's going to be close.
Update 9/26 Some of the WI polls show Johnson well ahead of Feingold. 9 is starting to seem achievable. Boxer leads in CA, Rand Paul is no sure thing in KY.
One article suggests Boxer may get a boost from Cal voters voting to legalize pot, which is 7 points up in the polls.
In WV D candidate governor Manchin is busy answering federal subpoenas, but still leads most of the polls.
oops, ky is already gop, not a pick-up, so my numbers were off by one.
expected: AR CO IN NH PA ND MO WI
tossup: IL WA WV
worth watching CA NV CT?
Control of the senate could turn on (allegations of) illegal votes in chicago.
Likely outcome -50-50 split. Possible 51 seats for GOP.
If 50-50, are there any possible party-switchers?
Off to go check the current numbers in CT. Blumenthal still up by 5%.
this post originally read
gop senate pickups:
expected: WA, AR, DE, IN.
tossup: ca, mo, co, pa, wi, oh, ky.
current: 59-41
projected 52-48 +/- 1.
i think the polling numbers will tighten up by fall.
all the polls are saying the gop will win the house;
i don't have enough data to call it.
(moved back to top)
update: expected AR, IN, KY, NH, PA, ND, MO
possibles: CA, WI, WA, CO IL
worth watching: NV. CT. WV. NY2 (Gillinbrand)
So I'm sticking with my 52-48 +/- 1 prediction. No let's make that +/- 2.
If it splits 50-50, Biden becomes even more important.
I could see WA and CO as possible GOP pickups.
I do now think the GOP will win the house, although I can't point to any specific races.
In DE, I like Christine O'Donnell but don't expect her to win.
If Coons wins that means Paul Clark becomes New Castle County Executive,
who has links to the previous Dem. corrupt county leadership.
Delaware is effectively a 1-county state, 2 at high tide. The population of the two southern rural counties has grown a lot since I lived there.
Wait wait, what about Illinois, another toss-up? That would inch the numbers a little closer to a GOP victory or tie.
So my numbers are 51 1/2 to 48 1/2, +/- 2 1/2. It's going to be close.
Update 9/26 Some of the WI polls show Johnson well ahead of Feingold. 9 is starting to seem achievable. Boxer leads in CA, Rand Paul is no sure thing in KY.
One article suggests Boxer may get a boost from Cal voters voting to legalize pot, which is 7 points up in the polls.
In WV D candidate governor Manchin is busy answering federal subpoenas, but still leads most of the polls.
