[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Mon Oct 17 14:42:13 PDT 2011
Yes, and that is because there was no organized campaign to harass the R-71
contributors like the organized campaign to harass the Prop 8
contributors. The names and addresses of the Prop 8 contributors were posted on the
Internet and one site map quested them. No one did this to the R-71
contributors. However, one of the organizations asking for the R-71 signers were
one of the very organizations that organized the harassment of the Prop 8
contributors. So, in California, the strategy was harassment of the Prop 8
contributors while in Washington the strategy was to harass the r-71 signers.
If this ruling stands, then it is open season on all contributors, petition
signers, etc. Those with scant regard for the democratic process will be
free to employ tactics of harassment and intimidation against political
opponents. Blacks, gays and leftist were harassed yesterday; conservatives and
Christians are harassed today. And no one is safe from the thugs and
bullies tomorrow. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/17/2011 5:25:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ABonin at cozen.com writes:
Jim, as you know, the Court also notes that the financial contributors to
the anti-gay efforts in Washington had long been disclosed, and they
suffered no harm as a result:
Further still, [Protect Marriage Washington] secured donations to finance
the campaign for R-71. It is undisputed that between May and November of
2009, PMW reported 857 contributions to its cause. The names and other
personally identifying information of these donors has been public knowledge for
over two years. Doe has had ample time and opportunity to contact these
individuals, some of which likely signed the R-71 petition in addition to
donating to PMW’s R-71 campaign. Even if none of these donors signed the R-71
petition, their experiences are far more closely related to the issues at
hand than the random “evidence” supplied by Doe based on experiences of
individuals around the country and the now stale experiences of those persons
involved with Proposition 8. However, Doe has failed to supply sufficient,
competent evidence that the publically known donors – as active supporters
of R-71 – have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals
based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would
satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this
case.
Adam C. Bonin | Cozen O'Connor
1900 Market Street | Philadelphia, PA, 19103 | P: 215.665.2051 | F:
215.701.2321
_abonin at cozen.com_ (mailto:abonin at cozen.com) | www.cozen.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 5:16 PM
To: rhasen at LAW.UCI.EDU; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Doe v. Reed, more news
This statement in the court's opinion is the key to the court's erroneous
decision:
"While Plaintiffs have not shown serious and widespread threats,
harassment, or reprisals against the signers of R-71, or even that such activity
would be reasonably likely to occur upon the publication of their names and
contact information, they have developed substantial evidence that the public
advocacy of traditional marriage as the exclusive definition of marriage,
or the expansion of rights for same sex partners, has engendered hostility
in this state, and risen to violence elsewhere, against some who have
engaged in that advocacy."
The court required the Plaintiffs to prove that the signers of the R-71
petition were themselves subject to harassment. Of course, this is to
require an impossibility since the petitions have never been released to the
public, so that the public does not know who to target for harassment.
However, the court does find that the Plaintiffs have proven that "public advocacy
of traditional marriage as the exclusive definition of marriage, or the
expansion of rights for same sex partners, has engendered hostility in this
state, and risen to violence elsewhere, against some who have engaged in
that advocacy." We believe under the law that this is all that one has to
prove, since making public the signers of R-71 would disclose the identity of
people who advocate traditional marriage to the public for harassment. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 10/17/2011 3:06:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
_Breaking News: District Court Rejects Harassment Claims in Doe v. Reed_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24330)
Posted on _October 17, 2011 12:05 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24330) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
The state of Washington_ just won summary judgment_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/doevreed-summary-judgment.pdf) on remand in the
Doe v. Reed case involving disclosure of the names of people signing a
referendum concerning Washington State’s gay rights law.
>From the opinion:
Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that
hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a
few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either
that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or
unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or
unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to
control the same, should disclosure be made. This is a quite different
situation than the progeny of cases providing an as-applied exemption wherein
the government was actually involved in carrying out the harassment, which
was historic, pervasive, and documented. To that end, the evidence supplied
by Doe purporting to be the best set of experiences of threats,
harassment, or reprisals suffered or reasonably likely to be suffered by R-71 signers
cannot be characterized as “serious and widespread.”
Here is another excerpt from the Court’s conclusion:
Considering the foregoing, Doe’s action based on Count II falls far short
of those an as-applied challenge has been successfully lodged to prevent
disclosure of information otherwise obtainable under the PRA. Thus, the State
’s undoubtedly important interest in disclosure prevails under exacting
scrutiny.
While Plaintiffs have not shown serious and widespread threats,
harassment, or reprisals against the signers of R-71, or even that such activity
would be reasonably likely to occur upon the publication of their names and
contact information, they have developed substantial evidence that the public
advocacy of traditional marriage as the exclusive definition of marriage,
or the expansion of rights for same sex partners, has engendered hostility
in this state, and risen to violence elsewhere, against some who have
engaged in that advocacy. This should concern every citizen and deserves the full
attention of law enforcement when the line gets crossed and an advocate
becomes the victim of a crime or is subject to a genuine threat of violence.
The right of individuals to
speak openly and associate with others who share common views without
justified fear of harm is at the very foundation of preserving a free and open
society. The facts before the Court in this case, however, do not rise to
the level of demonstrating that a reasonable probability of threats,
harassment, or reprisals exists as to
the signers of R-71, now nearly two years after R-71 was submitted to the
voters in Washington State.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24330&title=Breaking%20News:%20District%20Court%20Rejects%20Harassment%20Claims%2
0in%20Doe%20v.%20Reed&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_referendum_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=56) | Comments Off
_“>From $25 to $10,000,000: A Guide to Political Donations”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24328)
Posted on _October 17, 2011 12:01 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24328) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
NYT launches very interesting_ interactive campaign finance guide_
(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/17/u
s/politics/a-guide-to-political-donations.html?hp) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24328&title=“
From%20$25%20to%20$10,000,000:%20A%20Guide%20to%20Political%20Donations”&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) |
Comments Off
_“Deep Sea Burial forms first corporate ‘super PAC”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24325)
Posted on _October 17, 2011 10:23 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24325) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
WaPo _reports_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deep-sea-burial-forms-first-corporate-super-pac/2011/10/17/gIQABaRnrL_story.html) . My earlier
coverage is _here._ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24304)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24325&title=“Deep%20Sea%20Burial%20forms%20first%20corporate%20‘super%20PAC”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“U.S. District Court Judge in Ohio Orders Secretary of State to Put
Libertarian Party on 2012 Ballot”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24322)
Posted on _October 17, 2011 10:21 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24322) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Libertarians _win one_
(http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/10/17/u-s-district-court-judge-in-ohio-orders-secretary-of-state-to-put-libertarian-party-on
-2012-ballot/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24322&title=“
U.S.%20District%20Court%20Judge%20in%20Ohio%20Orders%20Secretary%20of%20State%20to%20Put%20Libertarian%20Party%20on%202012%20Ballot”
&description=)
Posted in _ballot access_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46) |
Comments Off
_“Appeal filed in NJ voting-machines lawsuit”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24319)
Posted on _October 17, 2011 10:19 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24319) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Andrew Appel has posted_ this item_
(https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/appeal-filed-nj-voting-machines-lawsuit) at Freedom to Tinker.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24319&title=“Appeal%20filed%20in%20NJ%20voting-machines%20lawsuit”
&description=)
Posted in _voting technology_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40) |
Comments Off
_Absentee Ballot Fraud Leads to Mayoral Resignation_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24316)
Posted on _October 17, 2011 9:01 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24316) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
See _here_
(http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/mayor-resigns-following-voter-fraud-investigation/nFG6R/) (via _RNLA_
(https://twitter.com/#!/TheRepLawyer/status/125954902311714816) ). Once again voter fraud a state voter
id law would not deter.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24316&title=Absentee%20Ballot%20Fraud%20Leads%20to%20Mayoral%20Resignation&descri
ption=)
Posted in _absentee ballots_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53) ,
_election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) | Comments Off
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
____________________________________
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any
penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
____________________________________
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain
information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to
the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended
recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or
you believe that you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail,
including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The
unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail,
including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by
anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
attorney/client or other privilege.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/8a5c22ea/attachment-0005.bin>
View list directory