soapbox

 why alaska policy forum cert should bve granted.

imporantce:  

free elections require free speech. otherwise you get potempkin elections. yick wo v hopkins.

the important question here is question 3.

the case has properly teed up the question of whether talley and barnette  are still valid, or whether we return to the jim crow days of chaplinski and gobitis, and allow core political speech to be censored or criminalized.

Here APF was not fined even $1 (maine case) ($10) Talley or $100 (McIntyre). However, they were and are threatened with enforcement. First Choice, 9-0, establishes that APF has standing. Nor would their case be mooted by an election being over. Roe v Wade, overturned on other grounds.

This case presents an opportunity to discuss whether Roe's finding of a right to privacy under the constitution survives the case's reversal as to abortion.  

Plaintiffs are more focused on ending the Furgatch reign of error, an interesting but far less important question.

Plaintiffs are correct that the Furgatch principle is unworkable in practice. The Furgatch case  itself illustrates this. "Don't let him do  it!" What does this mean? Vote for Ed Clarke? John Anderson? Ronald Reagan? Blow up the voting booth? Attempt a coup?  Hang Mike Pence? Harvey Furgatch was a complex person, and his message was ambiguous. 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2017/06/22/harvey-furgatch-eccentric-political-player-was-one-for-the-books/

For all his adult life, he carried a copy of the Constitution in his jeans. As president of the local ACLU, Furgatch rushed to the aid of Laurence and Geraldine McGilvery, La Jolla bookstore owners arrested in 1962 for selling a copy of Henry Miller’s “Tropic of Cancer” to an undercover cop.

Furgatch put up the money for the couple’s legal defense. A raucous trial resulted in a clean verdict: Miller’s tale was art, not porn.

During the ‘70s, Furgatch lived in a 750-square-foot Mission Beach house, an early roller-skater on the boardwalk and performer with the Mission Beach Marching Kazoo Society. Son Caleb recalls Gov. Jerry Brown and other prominent pols crowding into the bungalow to seek the bearded sage’s counsel.

Frequently the implied, non-express message of such ads may be, 1, vote, 2, get your friends and family to vote, drive people to the polls, become a community organizer, get involved. 3. give me money so i can keep running the ad.  Multiple interpretations are possible. So also with Baker, which could be a sign for a bakery. "Mondale!" is not express advocacy, Tone of voice matters. Mondale! said dismissively or questioningly is not an endorsement. 

@cite article obit of furgatch 

To be the functional equivalent of express advocacy, it must be advocacy and must be express. The intent of the limiting construction in Buckley v Valeo was to exclude most political advocacy. Only express advocacy could be regulated through disclosure. Otherwise political speech would be chilled, threatening First Amendment interests, In McConnell v. FEC, the court below found as a fact that 93% of ads do not contain express advocacy.   

"Many people will vote for smith on tuesday" is news coverage, not advocacy, even if it contains magic words vote for smith. It fails the second prong of the express advocacy test.

"I like Ike" is not express advocacy. It  is implied advocacy.  It is unclear to me what the court meant in Citizens United when it discussed the Hillary film as the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The court decided, 8-1, on these statutory interpretation grounds, and did not reach  constitutional issues. It then had several pages of dicta in praise of disclosure and disclaimers as less burdensome alternatives  that a complete ban on corporate election speech. 

If the court takes the case, I encourage the court to closely scrutinize the role of the campaign legal center in drafting, enforcing, and litigating these cases. By arguing for a "public right to know" the activities of think tanks, they have been undermining roe v wade, katz, barnette,  naacp, miranda, the landmark cases I grew up learning about. 

CLC was a party or amicus to Citizens United, and it did not turn out the way they hoped. But they seized on one confusing passage in the dicta of part IV to make an argument that has been adopted by Gaspee Project v. Mederos, No on E v Chiu   Smith v Helzer etc.

This argument is wrong for 6 reasons. We are not sure it is being made in good faith. 

CU did not overule Talley or McIntyre.

CU did not rule on the constitutionality of the disclaimer provisions. That was not at issue. Instead, plaintiff, an express advocacy expert, brought 4 as-applied challenges to the statute, which each lost.

The Court then discussed disclaimers in dicta, suggesting that in some  future case the court might be open to a narrowly tailored statute directed at for-profit corporations or pay-to-play corporations; regulations of entities which contract with the government. But CU does not suggest disclaimers for individual speech. McIntyre, Gilleo, Grace.   Even for rich old white guys. 

update, oops, this is a case from two years ago.  i might have been tricked by my ai or it might have been my mistake. or maybe it came up as a google alert actually. hmm...

Montana Supreme Court very interesting discussion of voter ID, which it upholds. update wait i think i'm wrong. the link i follwed said they lost, but it look slike thee court allowed students to use ID, similar to the indiana case now at the 7th cir.

MONTANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and MITCH
BOHN, WESTERN NATIVE VOICE. I don't have a direct link, there's a download link. oh https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/115983285.html

It's a significant case even if loses on my pet issue, voter ID. It's a win on the plaintiff's other points, and sets out a state constitutional version of the anderson test. It mentions the heavy hitters, Scalia, Josh Douglass, Justice Brennan. It explores the free and open election clause.

 https://robkinglaw.com/what-should-i-do-if-my-civil-rights-have-been-violated/

 Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34
(1st Cir. 2011) ....................................... 16, 2 

green mountaint future

 interest of amicus.

Stewart was  the plaintiff in Stewart v Taylor which properly found Indiana's  disclaimer statute unconstitutional under McIntyre.  

So the instant case APF represents a challenge to the holding of Stewart.  

I was then the inept counsel in Majors v Abell, resulting in a loss, with a dubitante concurrence. The clerk of the Supeme Court correctly denied filing the petition for cert in Majors when it arrived on the 91st day. I had been in jail and spent my brief printing money on bail. Majors was cited by the court below (was it?). Majors has been cited x times. The dubitante opinion has been cited y times. 

I was co-counsel in Anonymous v Delaware. In that case, the court of chancery held that the statute was so obviously unconstitutional under McIntyre that there was no live case or controversy, and dismissed the suit. But Delaware now enforces the statute.

Currently  I am the GOP candidate for Marion County Clerk. Under IC 3-9-3-2.5, I can be put back in jail for my signs that say "Stewart for Clerk." I was tortured in jail and would prefer to avoid a recurrence. 

My friend Doug Gutsloe (sp?) now deceased was jailed for his political signs. My friend schaefer? in West Virginia was jailed overnight for an alleged disclaimer violation. My amicus helped get the charges dropped.  

Reagan Outdoor was a party in Reagan v Austin. The Court distinguished Reed's strict scrutiny, recognizing a historical exception for on and off premise sign regulation. (right?). This case presents another opportunity to apply Reed's strict scrutiny to political signs.  

 Right now this blog is what I have instead of a campaign website. 

I'm running a fairly relaxed campaign for Marion County Clerk - have yet to spend a first dollar. 

That makes possible asymetric strategies.  

My actual goals are somewhat modest. I hope to reprise Stewart v Taylor, and strike down Indiana's unconstitutional sign censorship again. 

I want Beech Grove to return the van it stole from me, or pay for a new one.  And I'm hoping to stop a $17 million roundabout boondoggle in Beech Grove. I hope to recruit someone to run against the Mayor next year. Running for county clerk might up my visibility for these projects. 

 A cert petition has been filed in Alaska Policy Forum yesterday, the last day to file it. I've read it once so far. I'm working on an amicus.  

 https://blackchronicle.com/midwest/missouri/missouri-leads-coalition-backing-indiana-voter-id-law/

 https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/political-activity-in-minnesota-new-4208273/

• The Asset: We deploy three unused, un-leased junior posters in Marion or Hendricks County for a 4-week cycle.
• The Valuation: We value the space at Reagan's actual, audit-proof remnant rate of $372 per board.
• The Math: 3 x $372 = $1,116. This keeps the in-kind donation 100% legal and strictly under Indiana's $2,000 corporate candidate cap [IC § 3-9-2-4].

• The Copy: The face of the billboard reads simply: "Stewart for Clerk".
• The Anonymity Hook: Under Stewart v. Taylor (1997), Indiana's mandatory political disclaimer law was struck down as unconstitutional. We put up the candidate name with zero disclaimers or tracking tags.
• The Self-Report Bait: Reagan intentionally logs and reports this $1,116 corporate in-kind donation on state compliance portals. This forces a public paper trail, completely neutralizing the need to wait for a "John Doe" rival to file an election complaint.

• The Action: Local zoning boards or inspectors will attempt to issue a citation or order the sign's removal, citing local off-premises sign restrictions.
• The Lawsuit: Reagan immediately files a Section 1983 federal civil rights lawsuit and an injunction under Indiana Article 1, Section 9.
• The Groundwork: Because this is a pure, documented, non-commercial political sign, it triggers strict scrutiny. It bypasses the weaker commercial rules from City of Austin v. Reagan (2022) and forces the city to defend censoring the First Amendment.

• The Funding Ask: Reagan's leadership takes the live Indiana pilot case straight to the Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee.
• The National Play: Reagan pitches Bradley to issue direct legal grants to the Institute for Justice (IJ) or the Pacific Legal Foundation to co-counsel the case and print a flotilla of supporting amicus briefs.
• The Corporate Payback: Once won, Reagan secures a national legal model to systematically dismantle local municipal zoning codes and timeline restrictions across every state they operate in.

1. On June 30, 2026, Defendant attempted to make a lawful public records request at the police records desk, wherein staff refused to provide more than five records, citing an unwritten "5 records per day" rule.
2. Upon Defendant requesting a copy of the explicit written policy authorizing said limitation, the clerk refused to produce any written policy or statutory basis for the restriction, displaying crossed arms and outward hostility.
3. The clerk further obstructed access by hostilely insisting that Defendant provide the date of birth of his attacker as a mandatory condition for the release of records, which was wholly unreasonable and served to deny Defendant his statutory right to public records and violate his protections under the Indiana Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment.
4. The clerk completely refused to provide any records regarding the individual named Michelle, wrongfully using the arbitrary five-record cap as a shield to block critical evidence.
5. In direct retaliation for Defendant contesting these bad-faith barriers, staff实用ly summoned armed law enforcement officers to intimidate Defendant, actively violating his rights and forcing him to abandon his lawful pursuit of public records.
6. Defendant has since verified the target individual's full legal name and identifiers as Michelle M. Rhotan Russell, Date of Birth September 20, 1980.
7. The clerk's categorical refusal to provide any information on this specific individual under the guise of an uncodified numerical limit constitutes an absolute denial of public records and a direct obstruction of Defendant's ongoing defense.
8. The actual target individual and assailant is Dennis Dewight Washington Jr.
9. By hiding records concerning this specific target and demanding identifiers Defendant did not possess at the desk, the clerk actively protected an assailant while stripping Defendant of his constitutional right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect throughout the justice process.
10. In direct retaliation for Defendant contesting these bad-faith barriers, staff summoned armed law enforcement officers to the front counter to intimidate and harass Defendant.
11. These responding officers stood with crossed arms and an uncooperative posture, creating a hostile environment that forced Defendant to leave the building for his own physical safety without receiving his lawful records.
12. A law enforcement officer followed Defendant from the records counter up the elevator to the 15th Floor.
13. This persistent tailing constituted an ongoing act of official intimidation while Defendant was attempting to speak with Human Resources regarding the department's public records policies.
14. While on the 15th floor, an official asked Defendant why he wanted access to the 16th floor of the building.
15. This questioning demonstrated that Defendant was being monitored and tracked across different levels of the facility while trying to file his paperwork.
16. After being questioned, Defendant left the building and wandered the downtown area in an extremely distressed state of mind (a New York state of mind).
17. Defendant attempted to seek immediate assistance at the Office of the Public Access Counselor (PAC) to report the records obstruction, but found the office closed to walk-ins.
18. Finding the Public Access Counselor (PAC) office closed to walk-ins, Defendant scrawled a handwritten note and left it directly in the door to formally request an appointment.

• Diala Qasem (Legislative Director, Rep. Carson)
  diala.qasem@mail.house.gov
• Megan Sims (Chief of Staff, Rep. Carson)
  megan.sims@mail.house.gov
• Adrienne Castro (Legislative Director, Rep. Takano)
  adrienne.castro@mail.house.gov