Friday, November 30, 2018
Motl, Overreach, and the Supreme Court.
update: but wait, is it motl, or mangan? who's on first? ok it was Motl at the 9th circuit, now a new guy holds the office.
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/Portals/144/2018decisions/56%202018-05-02%20Or.%20Denying%20Pet%20Rehearing.pdf?ver=2018-05-02-141514-233
Lair v Motl may, for the first time in a generation, directly challenge the Buckley v Valeo paradigm that has ruled election law since the mid-70s, when Brennan and Marshall often found a 5-4 majority. Or not; the court may pass on the case or address a narrower set of questions.
But there seem to be 5 confirmed federalists ready to take on the agenda of restoring the lost constitution from exile. Major players in this game of scones include James Bopp, the Institute for Justice, Denver's independence institute, the Koch Brothers, and the Volokh Conspiracy.
To be clear, I am an ardent fanboy of these organizations, even if I was and am inspired by Marshall and Brennan.
These groups have an agenda, and now they have the judges. But they still need cases and controversies, to get their pet issues before article iii courts. So this post, or essay, or rant, is about overreach.
McCain - Feingold, bcra, bic-ra, is the canonical example. The reform faction cheered when Bush signed the bill even while expressing concern about its constitutionality. They cheered again when McConnell v FEC mostly upheld the bill. But the result, orchestrated by Bopp, was Citizens United, which overturned the anomolous Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The significance of McConnell was the strong dissent by Justice Scalia. The reform faction had overreached.
Maybe we are seeing something similar with voter ID in places like North Carolina, Missouri, and Arkansas. Maybe not. Each amended its state constitution to reimpose jim crow obstacles to voting, now that section 5 of the voting rights act is gone. Section 5 held that any state that voted for Goldwater in 1964 must obtain federal permission to change its voting procedures.
The recent cases from cole county missouri, home of jefferson city,
suggest that Jay Ashcroft has overreached. North Carolina seems on the brink of similar overreach. I digress.
This is a rant about Motl. I think it's Jonathan
Motl. As top censor of election speech in Montana, he is understandably motivated by that state's history of robber barrons, big spending, and corruption.
But didn't he already get benchslapped in Western Tradition?
Motl, time after time, is over-reaching, going far beyond what the first amendment allows.
In so doing, he is setting up the kind of cases Jim Bopp looks for.
Ellen Weintraub take note.
Undercutting my argument here is that motl is only the most recent officeholder in the case; it started years ago. but he has made himself a target by his shenanigans.
Just as Nader was called a spoiler in Bush v Gore, Motl, and his successor, may be a spoiler in Montana's scheme to defy the first amendment and the supremacy clause.
-30-
update: but wait, is it motl, or mangan? who's on first? ok it was Motl at the 9th circuit, now a new guy holds the office.
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/Portals/144/2018decisions/56%202018-05-02%20Or.%20Denying%20Pet%20Rehearing.pdf?ver=2018-05-02-141514-233
Lair v Motl may, for the first time in a generation, directly challenge the Buckley v Valeo paradigm that has ruled election law since the mid-70s, when Brennan and Marshall often found a 5-4 majority. Or not; the court may pass on the case or address a narrower set of questions.
But there seem to be 5 confirmed federalists ready to take on the agenda of restoring the lost constitution from exile. Major players in this game of scones include James Bopp, the Institute for Justice, Denver's independence institute, the Koch Brothers, and the Volokh Conspiracy.
To be clear, I am an ardent fanboy of these organizations, even if I was and am inspired by Marshall and Brennan.
These groups have an agenda, and now they have the judges. But they still need cases and controversies, to get their pet issues before article iii courts. So this post, or essay, or rant, is about overreach.
McCain - Feingold, bcra, bic-ra, is the canonical example. The reform faction cheered when Bush signed the bill even while expressing concern about its constitutionality. They cheered again when McConnell v FEC mostly upheld the bill. But the result, orchestrated by Bopp, was Citizens United, which overturned the anomolous Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The significance of McConnell was the strong dissent by Justice Scalia. The reform faction had overreached.
Maybe we are seeing something similar with voter ID in places like North Carolina, Missouri, and Arkansas. Maybe not. Each amended its state constitution to reimpose jim crow obstacles to voting, now that section 5 of the voting rights act is gone. Section 5 held that any state that voted for Goldwater in 1964 must obtain federal permission to change its voting procedures.
The recent cases from cole county missouri, home of jefferson city,
suggest that Jay Ashcroft has overreached. North Carolina seems on the brink of similar overreach. I digress.
This is a rant about Motl. I think it's Jonathan
Motl. As top censor of election speech in Montana, he is understandably motivated by that state's history of robber barrons, big spending, and corruption.
But didn't he already get benchslapped in Western Tradition?
Motl, time after time, is over-reaching, going far beyond what the first amendment allows.
In so doing, he is setting up the kind of cases Jim Bopp looks for.
Ellen Weintraub take note.
Undercutting my argument here is that motl is only the most recent officeholder in the case; it started years ago. but he has made himself a target by his shenanigans.
ballotpedia: Jonathan Motl was the author of two initiatives proposed for the November 2008 ballot in Montana, the Montana Home and Community Care Act (2008) and Montana Healthy Kids Plan Act, I-155 (2008).
Motl was partner in the law firm of Reynolds, Motl & Sherwood in Helena, Montana from 1982 through 2013. In 2013, he was appointed to the role of Montana Commissioner of Political Practices. He is a member of the State Bar of Montana, Montana Trial Lawyers Association, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. He serves on the boards of the Montana Justice Foundation and the Montana Public Interest Research Foundation. In 1979-1981, he was a staff aide to Ralph Nader.
Comments:
Post a Comment
