[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

Thu Oct 20 12:28:36 PDT 2011

While I favor the SWP exemption, I’ve always chuckled at the fact that a group dedicated to the overthrow of the government gets an exemption from disclosure, while more mainstream groups worried about harassment do not.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 

  Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 East Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu> 

http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp <http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp> 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Paul Lehto; Bill Maurer
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; ABonin at cozen.com; Kevin J. (Perkins Coie)Hamilton; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

The Socialist Workers precedent has been granted to three other parties besides the Socialist Workers Party.  They are all socialists, however.  They are the Communist Party, the Freedom Socialist Party, and Socialist Action Party.  All won decisions in federal courts, saying they didn't need to report the names of contributors to their campaigns.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Thu, 10/20/11, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

From: Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org>
Subject: Re: [EL] Doe v. Reed, more news
To: "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
Cc: "Hamilton, Kevin J. (Perkins Coie)" <KHamilton at perkinscoie.com>, law-election at uci.edu, JBoppjr at aol.com, ABonin at cozen.com
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2011, 10:34 AM

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)

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111020/455e101a/attachment.html>