Monday, June 29, 2026
- 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
RE: Inquiry Regarding Constitutional Framework and Analysis for H.R. 9110 (The PAID Act)
Dear Ms. Qasem, Ms. Sims, and Ms. Castro,
I am writing to you today as a constituent to learn more about the legislative development and legal foundation of H.R. 9110, the Promoting Authenticity with Influencer Disclaimers (PAID) Act, which was jointly introduced by Representatives Mark Takano and André Carson.
As our offices look to update campaign transparency laws for the modern digital era, I am highly interested in the constitutional strategy behind this bill. Given the unique First Amendment protections afforded to individual expressive speech, I am hoping your legislative teams can share a copy of the constitutional analysis or legal memoranda prepared during the drafting process.
Specifically, I would appreciate understanding how the offices plan to reconcile the disclosure mandates in H.R. 9110 with the strict legal boundaries established across the following string of controlling and foundational Supreme Court precedents:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1858); Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960); First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, No. 23-1342 (2026); and Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-1105 (2026).
I look forward to reviewing any background materials or legal briefs your offices can share on this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Indianapolis, IN Address]
[Your Phone Number / Email]
If
Title: Our Right to Vote is on the Ballot: Why Bloomington Students Can—and Should—Stand Their Ground
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently blocked student voters in Bloomington. By pausing a lower court's ruling against Indiana's student ID ban, the court made it legal to reject university IDs at the polls. If you attempt to vote using your Indiana University ID, you will be turned away or forced to use a provisional ballot that may not count. This decision assaults youth civic participation, but it cannot be the final word. Bloomington students denied their constitutional right to vote can take direct, immediate action—and here is exactly how to do it. [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5]
Do not sit at home or quietly accept a rejected ballot. Go to the polls and intentionally offer only your student ID.
Forcing the state to turn you away based solely on your university identification establishes a concrete legal injury. Because you can return later with a state-accepted ID to ensure your actual vote counts, you risk nothing electorally—but you gain everything legally.
Indiana history proves this playbook works. In 1998, when Indianapolis set up illegal drug roadblocks, a citizen named Joell Palmer heard about it on television, jumped in his car, and went out to hunt down the checkpoint to confront the injustice. He was unlawfully searched, but he did not back down. He took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, won a landmark 6–3 victory, and forced the city to pay him $10,000 in damages.
If you go to the polls and get turned away for using your student ID, you follow Palmer's exact blueprint. You immediately exit the booth with the legal standing required to strike back.
From there, the course of action is clear: file a Help America Vote Act (HAVA) complaint, file a State Tort Claims complaint, and immediately sue the state or join an ongoing mass lawsuit.
We urge Bloomington student voting coalitions, campus legal clinics, and civil rights organizations to mobilize. Set up rapid-response networks outside polling places to help students document these rejections. Pair those students with civil rights attorneys to file lawsuits. When governments suppress your rights, the most effective response is to sue. If Indiana refuses to accept your student ID at the ballot box, force them to accept your lawsuit in a federal court. [
1]
Robbin Stewart is the GOP candidate for Marion County Clerk. [
1]
Friday, May 22, 2026
San Bagentos fas a fustion case in Michigan, involkving the Libertarian party there and a radical middle faction, Common Sense party. I could test my AI skills by knocking out an amicus in support, or maybe on neither side.
caption
toc
interest of amicus
summary of argument
argument
caption
toc
interest of amicus
I was a fusion candidate in Indiana in 1996 when I was nominated by the Libertarian and Republican Parties for Center Township Advisory Board.
In Stewart v Taylor the 7th circuit denied a preliminary injunction, citing swamp v kennedy, without resolving state constitutional claims. My theory of the case, which my lawyer failed ot understand, was to ask for a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until Timmons was announced, in case Timmons upheld the 10th circuit. It did not.
A different part of that case upheld my right to campaign signs with the wording of my choice. My protected speech was "Robbin Stewart for Township Board."
I was a Libertarian Party activist from 1976 onwards. I am currently running for Marion County Clerk as the GOP candidate. I have previously run for Marion County Clerk as the Libertarian Candidate. The current leadership of the Indiana Libertarian party is unwilling to crossnominate me, mistakenly thinking it is illegal as well just being opposed. Indiana allows crossnomination, and then the nominee gets ot choose which ballot to appear on, but not both. It is a very limited form of fusion, not what is being asked for here.
In 1994 I wrote my LLM thesis on state constitutional law as applied to Libertarian Party ballot access. So I have a bit of expertize to share. My brief is in favor of neither party, but my sympathies are with the MILP.
summary of argument
yeah, it does. LP should win, maybe, i dunno yet. this is placeholder pending more research.
argument
so, i'm running for clerk.
I have not been updating this blog for a while, but this would be a good time to resume.
So if reporters ask where are my white papers I can point them here.
Today's bene fun. I'm working with an AI to identify cases that might have gotten Buckley v Valeo wrong. pages 60 to 65 of buckley.
Friday, March 28, 2025
Saturday, March 16, 2024
hendricks county complaint
in the @ court of hendricks county indiana
county of hendricks
ss
state of indiana
John Doe, plaintiff,
v Cause # _____ Judge _______
Hendricks County Election Board, defendants.
Complaint
Comes now plaintiff John Doe by Counsel and for his complaint states as follows.
1. This is a complaint for declaratory relief, injunction, damages, involving the election board's anti-sign policy, loosely based on IC 3-9-3-2,5.
2.Jurisdiction
3. Venue
4. Parties.
a b and c are the members of the Hendricks county election board.
5. Facts
6 Claims - state art I section 9, 12, 1, art II section, state declaratory judgment act
- federal First, Fourteenth, 42 US 983 et seq.
7 Relief Sought
# posted by gt @ 12:21 AM
Saturday, March 09, 2024
my theory of the case is it's fundamentally unfair, ex post facto,
fails to announce a standard of review on the 17th amendment claim,
severely burdens voting rights,
is in conflict with Trump v Anderson. is in conflict with Harmon v Forssenius,
misapplied Collins v Day, is in conflict with Anderson v Celebrezze, misapplied Takushi, and failed to give deference to the trial court's findings of fact.
two things. first, i'm very interested in the rust case. I would appreciate it if you would keep me in the loop with copies of filings.
I may end up participating as an amicus. Andrew horning, the LP senate candidate, is also willing to be an amicus. alternatively, if you wanted to add me as a party, as a voter with association rights who wants to vote for rust in a free and equal election, I'd be fine with that. maybe it's too late to add parties.
ok the other thing is I recently bought a church building in terre haute, which I will be leasing to a local church group. right now it's my own name, but I want to create a non-profit business entity to take title, to avoid paying property taxes on a church.
that looks like it is in the wheelhouse of your firm.
The court could have used strict scrutiny, pointed to yulee and burson v freeman, and ruled against Rust.
Or, the court could have used the Anderson 4 factor balancing test, and ruled against Rust.
But by using Takushi, the court erred. Since the primary is rapidly approaching, ...
ok, should move for a stay pending appeal from insc, which will be denied, then move at SCOTUS.
4 factor injunction:
irreparable Harmon, yes, balance of burdens yes but arguable, public interest yes, likelihood of success moderate.
balance of burdens: the burden of the court's decision falls most heavily on a non-party, Jim Banks. Banks may be completely innocent here, unless he conspired with the GOP amici. John Rust will live to fight another day, but if Banks becomes senator, he will be tainted with a perception that he stole the office rather than winning a free and equal election. In 1954 Lyndon Johnson entered the Senate as the result of theft and fraud, as documented in the Robert Caro biography. That tainted his subsequent career. I recall in 1968 he announced that he would not run again. This court should "stop the steal", stay the mandate, allow the election to take place, and remand for consideration in light of Anderson v Celbrezze, Norman v Reed, and Trump v Anderson.
= stopping here 4:30 pm saturdaay /3/89/24. need to take a load before dark.
Friday, March 08, 2024
Hi Professor Redacted.
I wanted to bring to your attention an opinion released yesterday by the Indiana Supreme Court, in which a gop senate candidate was removed from the ballot, using the burdick v takushi framework.
The opinion was being written at the same time as trump v anderson, so it does not mention or discuss the trump case, and reaches an opposite conclusion. It was 3-2.
I am skeptical that Burdick is the correct standard to use here, in light of crawford's holding that anderson rather than burdick is the correct standard. But whether the overall conclusion is correct or not is a bit above my pay grade.
What I am wondering is whether the Rust and Trump cases are compatible. If the Rust case conflicts as a matter of law with the Trump case, that would be reasonable grounds for a shadow docket motion for a stay. In the next week or so I am likely to either do nothing, draft an amicus, or draft a motion to intervene, which would probably be denied as untimely, but is a filing in which I could make similar points as in an amicus.
Notes on Rust v Morales.
This is the rare 17th Amendment case. I have not gotten to that part of the ruling yet.
The trial court found that John Rust had a right to ballot access under the first and 17th amendments and under Article I section 23. I tend to agree on the first two, and disagree on the state claim; I am confident the 3-2 majority will cite Collins v Day, which has eviscerated section 23.
The Supreme Court took jurisdiction and stayed the ruling, so Rust has been removed from the ballot.
Ooh! I wonder if Trump has any comment.
Then a few weeks ago they formally ruled that Rust is off the ballot, but the written opinions were only announced yesterday (as I write this first draft anyway, it was yesterday.) And I should be doing chores right now instead of diving into this case, but I'm finding it intellectually interesting. More later as Maron would say.
The opinion begins by citing Term Limits v Thornton, which it then fails to follow.
Standard of Review Here, the Affiliation Statute is cloaked with “the presumption of
constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Horner v.
Curry, 125 N.E.3d 584, 588 (Ind. 2019).
I think that is error. That's not the Anderson v Celebrezze standard, relied on in Trump v Anderson. And that error contaminates all the reasoning that follows. The Anderson test was also used in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. I have not read the briefs, but a reasonable argument can be made for strict scrutiny due to the severe burden on voting rights.
Splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do
significant damage to the fabric of government.” storer v brown. Here, the Court acts to splinter the party and remove a restraint on factionalism. Instead of a primary, Hoosier GOP voters such as myself face a coronation. I personally would prefer to vote for a queer egg farmer than one of our incumbent congressmen.
As it happens, the remaining candidate is affiliated with a twice-impeached former president who is continuing his attempt to overthrow the government. Very recently in Trump v. Anderson the US Supreme Court reversed the state of Colorado as to Trump's ballot access. Because these cases were being written at the same time, the Indiana case does not reference the Trump case at all. Yet the Trump case is now the controlling authority, and the Indiana case may need to be re-written.
It does have some good parts.
We start with first principles of free association. The First Amendment,
“applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment,” Reed v.
Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015), prohibits the government from
“abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances,” U.S. CONST. amend. I.
It's going to take me hours to work through this, and I have pressing chores and it's already past noon. Is there any way to make this time billable? I don't think so. I could move to intervene.
add an interests of amicus paragraph here later.
I suspect that procedurally the right thing to do is a motion for reconsideration in light of Trump v Anderson.
# posted by gt @ 12:01 PM
Thursday, March 07, 2024
Email Amy
Share this on Facebook
Share this on Twitter
Home
Contact
Email Amy
Print
Opinion or Question on an issue
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.
For all federal agency casework requests, please fill out our Casework Contact form.
Prefix
First Name *
Last Name *
Address 1 *
Address 2
City *
State *
Zip Code *
Home Phone
Work Phone
E-mail Address *
Subject *
Please type a brief description of the subject of your message
Issue *
Message
ok, the message I sent did not cut and paste here. i'll try again.
# posted by gt @ 12:23 PM
Wednesday, March 06, 2024
Good meeting with potential cocounsel.
We will draft a complaint for Hendricks county, and maybe do an amicus in the sf case.
Monday, March 04, 2024
while we wait for today's opinion announcement, which will probably be trump v colorado,
old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt let me know that alan gura has submitted his cert petition in the san francisco No on E case.
This post is to make a few notes while giving the cert petition a first read.
I quibble semantically with the framing of the question, as whether strict scrutiny or exacting scrutiny applies. here, exacting scrutiny is strict scrutiny, using the McIntyre definition, not the Valeo one.
So point 1, exacting scrutiny is a contronym, explained by the tale of two Buckleys, Buckley v Valeo 1976, and Buckley v ACLF (2000).
Point 2: The parties and the court have chosen to ignore the state cases and the state constitution. The ordinance is void as a matter of state law, Schuster (1980), and probably also violate sthe California right to privacy. This supports Gura's point that the rule does not survive exacting scrutiny because no legitimate state interest.
Point 3: The decision is at odds with scotus precedent from barnette to 303. specifically, Talley mcintyre and aclf are the controlling precedents, which were not changed by citizens united, and by Reed v Town of Gilbert, Janus, NIFLA, and 303. Bonta is related but not controlling since it is a disclosure case and not a disclaimer case. Tornillo (pronounced Tor Nil' O) is also controlling, and was the focus of oral argument in a recent compelled speech case (but which one, mental lapse here)
Point 4: The version of Citizens United being promoted by the Campaign Legal Center is wrong for 6 reasons. Cases adopting this theory, including Gaspee Project, Helzer, and the Arizona Free Enterprise case, are erroneous and should be declared overruled.
Point 5: Since 1961, there has been a split of authority in lower courts, with about 1/3 of the cases refusing to follow scotus precedents of Talley McIntyre and ACLF. 60 years is too long a delay to constitute all deliberate speed. As the court did in Cooper v Aaron, it should make a strong unequivocable statement and resolve the split. Tables 2 and 1 list the cases on either side. Failure to have free speech undermines the integrity of the election process. Free elections are preservative of all other rights.
Ok, that's the general idea. 0.50 hours. Now back to reading the filing.
Friday, March 01, 2024
“Indiana Legislature approves bill adding additional verification steps to voter registration”March 1, 2024, 7:14 amvoter id,
voter registration RICK HASENAP reports.Share this:
This must be the busy season. Every day I'm finding some link to send to the electtionlawblog. The editor there uses about half of them. I was going to post this to reddit but got distracted.
# posted by gt @ 10:10 AM
Thursday, February 29, 2024
https://lawyers4reporters.org/
https://boltsmag.org/about/
hasen links to a story about the ohio attorney general denying a ballot measure, the ohio voters bill of rights, because he doesn't like the title. the group claims that he lacks authority to remove a ballot measure.
If that's true, and it's a big IF, this might be reportable misconduct.
I do not assume that the media always has all the facts right. I have not read their complaint, or heard the AG's side of it, or read the text of the proposed initiative So I am not taking sides on the controversy at this time. I'm saying that IF the AG improperly kept the measure off the ballot, that might be misconduct, which could be brought to the attention of the ohio disciplinary authorities. I think AG's, like prosecutors, usually get a pass, but not always.
I live in Indiana, where AG Theodore "Todd" Rokita was recently disciplined for his remarks about a doctor who helped an Ohio teenager get an abortion. I have strong policy disagreements with Rokita, and have concerns about his role in Trump's efforts to abuse the election process, but I want to stress that I have no issues with the man personally, and we got along fine when we once litigated together.
And when I lived in Missouri, AG William Webster was, I think, disbarred, in an incident having to do with worker's comp.
I was a lawyer in Indiana for over 25 years before ever filing a disciplinary complaint against anyone, even when I had strong grounds to do so. I do not believe, for example, that it is proper to use the disciplinary process as a tactic in litigation. Nonetheless, I have begun occasionally filing against what I see as corrupt officials misusing their powers. I think these complaints have been put into the round file so far, but it is an available tactic.
In the Ohio case, I would not be making a complaint, but at most an inquiry. I, or someone else, could send a letter to the Ohio Bar saying, these facts concern me, and perhaps you folks could look into this to see if there is probable cause to think an ethics violation may have occurred, because I myself am not sure.
happy birthday to eugene volokh.
edit: the nebraska AGO, finding a gun control law void under the state constitution and the second amendment, as reported by volokh at the volokh conspiracy, must have been a nice birthday present.
our modern understanding of the 2d amendment comes from Eugene's law review articles, then endorsed by the courts in Emerson, Heller, Cayetano, McDonald and Bruen.
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/disclaimers-on-political-advertisements
maine notes
Independent Expenditures
An independent expenditure is defined in the Maine Election Law (21-A M.R.S. § 1019-B) to mean any expenditure for a communication (e.g., palm cards, newspaper or other media advertisements, phone banks, etc.) that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.
In addition, payments or obligations made to design, produce or disseminate a communication are considered automatically to be independent expenditures if the communication names or depicts a clearly identified candidate and is disseminated within 28 days before a primary election; during the 35 days, including election day, before a special election; or from Labor Day to a general election. Those who wish to disseminate communications naming or depicting a clearly identified candidate within these time periods without the communications being considered IEs must request a determination from the Commission.
Independent expenditure communications must generally identify the top three funders (PDF) of the organization making the expenditure.
= this almost certainly violates 1st A and maine constitution, 72 "opinion of the justices" case.
Saturday, February 24, 2024
https://www.fox4now.com/naples/florida-election-police-probe-misleading-texts-in-collier-county
typical tv journalism, only tells one side of the story, the government's side, and doesn't seem to have any way to contact the reporter, mamoud bennett.
there are two issues in the story, which is about texts without disclaimers.
i think texts are intrusive, and requiring the disclaimer might be reasonable. i do think that about phone calls. i do not text myself, and might not be up on the social norms of texting.
but the official goes on to complain about lack of disclaimers on websites and mailers. she has packaged this stuff and sent it to the prosecutors. i would consider that state action. so it's criminal and tortious.
of course the facts might not be as presented on tv, and to dig into this further i might write to the official and request a copy of the packet.
NAPLES, Fla. — Florida's election police are delving into allegations of misleading text messages sent to voters in Collier County, signaling an investigation into potential election crimes.
According to the Collier County Supervisor of Elections Office, numerous complaints have been lodged by voters who received messages falsely thanking them for requesting mail-in ballots.
These messages, however, did not originate from the county.
"We packaged everything we had – some complaints from voters, along with the actual text message and some other things we had received – and sent it to that office of elections crimes and security," stated Melissa Blazier, Supervisor of Elections for Collier County.
Collier County Supervisor of Elections
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Building
3750 Enterprise Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
Supervisor.Elections@CollierVotes.gov
"our mission: protecting the integrity of the election process" [by unlawfully censoring core political speech.]
In accordance with F.S. 119.12, the Collier County Supervisor of Elections office is the custodian of their agency’s public records.
draft only:
softball letter
Dear Ms. Blazier,
I read with interest the recent article on channel 4 by Mr. Bennett in which you said you have sent a packet of material to an election crimes prosecution unit.
If it is possible, I would like to receive a copy of what was sent. If it can be sent by email, great.
If it can only be sent via snailmail, my address is
Robbin Stewart, esq. POB 29164 Cumberland IN 46229.
I am happy to pay any postage or copying fees. If these need to be prepaid let me know. While this is not a formal public records request under FS 119.12, or a subpoena, I trust this letter should be enough.
I may have further comment after reviewing the packet. I do not want to assume that everything in a media report is necessarily gospel truth, so at this stage I am researching the facts.
Thanks in advance,
Robbin Stewart.
softball letter sent 10:22 am 2/24/24 copy to my lawyer.
hardball letter (do not send)
Dear Ms. Blazier,
I am writing to you in your official and personal capacities. This letter is to inform you that you and your office must immediately cease and desist from any further harm to the integrity of the election process by attempting to compel the use of disclaimers in political communications such as websites or mailers. Doing so would be illegal and tortious in light of the controlling United States Supreme Court precedents which include 303 Creative LLC (2023), McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995) and Talley v California, see also Reno v ACLU.
Additionally I would suggest that the disclaimer policy violates the Florida constitution, although the case law is less clear, e.g. Doe v Mortham. You have, I think, sworn to uphold the Florida constitution.
I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to share this information with you. If it would be helpful, I can send you a box of 50 cases agreeing with my position, or I could just email you a table of the cases. None of these matter much anymore now that 303 LLC has ruled, but they go to show this is not something new, but has been the law since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
I have not yet retained local counsel in florida, so we are still in the preliminary discussion phase, but eventually if you resist compliance with what the supreme court has ordered, our response will include but not be limited to litigation. We would try to focus adverse publicity, file disciplinary complaints against attorneys, refer the matter for possible state or federal prosecution, neither of which i would expect to happen, look into any available remedies through a state ethics board or however Florida handles such things, and generally raise hell.
I recognize running elections is a complicated job, and generally commend you on a job well done. That would not excuse deliberate malfeasance when it comes to protecting core political speech.
Please let me know within 10 days what your response is.
[wait 24 hours to revise this draft. do not send.]
billing note 1.0 hours 9:30-10:30
