Subject: Andrew Jackson lives
From: "J. J. Gass" <jj.gass@nyu.edu>
Date: 2/17/2004, 3:47 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

It appears that the Sixth Circuit's striking down of Kentucky's ban on electioneering within 500 feet of a polling place is not being meticulously respected in today's special election for a vacant federal House seat.  According to the Lexington CBS affiliate (http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=1649511&nav=4CAKKszA):

Earlier today, there was more than just voting going on at certain polling places in Lexington.

In fact, the actions of a few people prompted the board of elections to make some quick changes to the election process.

Volunteers from the Kentucky Fairness Alliance were at eleven voting precincts asking voters questions about same-sex marriages.
Many voters were upset and called and complained to the county clerk about being approached.

Pastors of local churches being used as voting stations threatened to shut down the polls.

Fayette County clerk Don Blevins, "We were put in a position of having to take an action to preserve the voting process, to protect voters. They have the right to go the polls unimpeded, unintimidated."

The Fayette County board of elections made a unanimous decision to reinforce a 500 foot electioneering ban for the rest of the day, which a federal court struck down just months before, but is currently under appeal.

The Kentucky Fairness Alliance volunteers were upset by the decision, but did relocate.

The Kentucky Fairness Alliance (http://www.kentuckyfairness.org/), according to its mission statement, "seeks to advance equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people through leadership development, public education, and by encouraging participation in the democratic process."  I suppose that'll teach conservative pastors to volunteer their churches as polling places.

No word yet on whether the K.F.A. plans to sue the state officials, who I doubt could reasonably claim qualified immunity in light of last month's decision in Anderson v. Spear; the panel not only struck down the 500-foot buffer zone as too large but also said that to avoid vagueness and overbreadth concerns, the statute had to be construed (even within the old 50-foot zone) as prohibiting only express advocacy.


J. J. Gass
Associate Counsel, Democracy Program
212-998-6281
jj.gass@nyu.edu

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
fax 212-995-4550
www.brennancenter.org