[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

[Paul Lehto]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

> ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
>   [snip]
>
> **2.                  **It would seem that, under the district court’s
> decision, unless you are part of some larger group that is routinely is
> harassed and coerced, the only way to successfully argue that you will be
> subject to harassment and coercion if your name and address is released is
> to demonstrate that you’ve suffered harassment and coercion because your
> name has been released.   At that point, what’s the point?  The only thing
> that gets the signer protection is the very thing the signer wishes to
> avoid.  How is that a workable standard?****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve never heard an answer to either of these questions.
>

Just think, Bill.  One has to suffer actual, cognizable and usually
pecuniary harm to have standing in any court in the United States.  Thus,
following your logic above, you attack the US legal system as a whole,
because "the only thing that gets the signer [plaintiff] protection is the
very thing the signer [plaintiff] wishes to avoid.  How is that a workable
standard?"

Sure, there's also injunctive relief, but injunctive relief typically
requires a showing of the inadequacy of legal remedies, and also a showing
of IMMINENT and irreparable harm.  These are standards that can't possibly
be shown in order to establish a justification for the kind of extremely
broad petition-signer secrecy that is being advocated here and elsewhere.
THey don't want petition signer secrecy/unaccountability just where it can
be proved in a court of law, they want it everywhere.

By asking why one has to wait around and see if one is damaged or harmed in
the feared way, one is suggesting that mere inchoate fear without the
specifics necessary for an injunction or restraining order should be enough
to justify a blanket secrecy rule for petition signing.  But such blanket
secrecy renders checks and balances on the validity of those signatures
essentially meaningless.

The very foundation of our legal system requires a showing of actual harm or
at least imminent harm combined with a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits, prior to taking legal action. Otherwise the action is not ripe, or
it is moot and purely speculative.    Particularly where speech is involved,
PRIOR RESTRAINTS are  highly disfavored, and the action being advocated here
by some here is in the nature of a prior restraint intended to prevent
speech or action that might possibly be harassing toward someone.   So that
is why everyone, not just petition signers, has to "wait around" to see if
their fears come true to a sufficient extent to be heard in a court of law.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill  ****
>
> ** **
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111019/fcbf9847/attachment.html>