[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

Thu Oct 20 13:20:26 PDT 2011

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>

It makes sense from the standpoint that not everything is a
left/right/center political calculation, and this is one good example of
that.

What's far more relevant than left vs right is insider/outsider status,
majority class/suspect class, or status quo supporters vs. reform-revolution
supporters.  The  main reason "more mainstream groups worried about
harassment" do not get the "exemption" is because the mainstream has as much
reasonable expectation as anybody in society that legal remedies and law
enforcement will be adequate to the task.  The Socialist Workers' Party by
no means can expect the same level of law enforcement diligence or
enthusiasm.

Jim Bopp, Bill Maurer, and Eugene Volokh and others can get this "exemption"
on equal terms when they are a distinct group that is on street corners
struggling with active government hostility toward their point of view
instead of having being invited to the US Supreme Court every term or two to
tee up another issue for the most powerful legislators and constitutional
redrafters in our land.

If there were a widely successful campaign to paint Jim Bopp not simply as
wrong, but as truly anti-American, and cops and people like that tended
heavily to believe such nefarious garbage, then and only then would this
petition secrecy movement be anything like the Socialist Workers Party in
terms of qualifying for the extremely narrow exemption that's been held to
exist.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *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*
>
> *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<http://mc/compose?to=wmaurer@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 <http://mc/compose?to=lehto.paul@gmail.com>
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
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/bcb1f0b2/attachment.html>