[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

[Bill Maurer]

Thanks, Paul.  I have thought about it, and read your response, and have
concluded that it's not a workable standard and I don't think it is
designed to be.  Unless you are part of a larger organization with a
history of harassment, the only way to meet the standard to protect your
anonymity is to have your name and address be released and then be
subject to harassment.  At that point, you can go into court and say,
"I'd like to remain anonymous because I released my name and address and
I got a brick through my window."  The judge can then reply, "But your
name and address is already out there.  What can I do?"    

 

In other words, except for the Socialist Workers Party (who, like the
NAACP, would probably not qualify today for the protections of their
contributors recognized in their eponymous cases), individuals and new
political movements will never qualify for the exemption until it's too
late.  This may explain why the Socialist Workers Party exemption is
rarely, if ever, used by anybody but the Socialist Workers Party.  While
Catch-22 may make for an entertaining satire of the military
bureaucracy, it does not make for an adequate standard when the issue is
the protection of people exercising their constitutional rights.

 

Bill

 

________________________________

From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:42 AM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: Hamilton, Kevin J. (Perkins Coie); JBoppjr at aol.com;
ABonin at cozen.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu; Bev Harris
Subject: Re: [EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

 

 

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/20111020/1bfcf320/attachment.html>