Doing a bit of online research, I've run into that unpublished case which tells the backstory of Margaret McIntyre. Read the whole thing, as they say.
McIntyre, 115 S. Ct. at 1514. The April 27th meeting marked the beginning of a long
and unpleasant battle over the tax levy in Westerville. See Hansen v. Westerville City
Sch. Dist., Nos. 93-3231, 93-3303, 1994 WL 622153 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 1994), cert. denied
115 S. Ct. 2611 (1995). http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/43/43.F3d.1472.93-3303.93-3231.html, unpublished opinion tells the story of mcintyre.
McIntyre is often discussed as if she was a "lone pampleteer", and some of the statutes have been revised to provide lone pampleteer exceptions. But she was part of a larger gang, some of whom sued after being attacked by cops at a public hearing on the tax increase.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Special prosecutor appointed in Shaffer case
by Billy Wolfe STAFF WRITER
Friday, June 26, 2009 6:32 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — Harrison Chief Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell appointed a special prosecutor Wednesday to handle the criminal case against City Councilman Martin Shaffer.
Shaffer was arrested June 1 for his role in the production of an anonymous document that criticized members of city council.
Bedell said Wednesday that Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson, or one of Wilson’s designees, will handle the case.
Wilson was out of town Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
Harrison County Prosecutor Joe Shaffer has stepped down from the case because Martin Shaffer is his uncle.
Clarksburg Police arrested Councilman Shaffer the day before the recent municipal election and charged him with two misdemeanors for violating state election laws.
Two other arrest warrants have been issued in connection with the case. Both suspects are in Arizona and have not yet been served with the warrants, according to Clarksburg Police Lt. Robert Matheny.
As previously reported, the state law that authorities cited in Shaffer’s arrest has been under a federal injunction since 1996. The injunction permanently bans enforcement of the law.
The law states that “no person may publish, issue or circulate” anonymous material that either supports or aids the defeat of a candidate for public office. The law may be enforced only if the material includes “express advocacy.” Examples of express advocacy include phrases like “vote for” and “support.”
Although the so-called newsletter criticized councilmen Sam “Zeke” Lopez and Jim Hunt, it made no official endorsements.
At least two national nonprofit law firms have come out strongly against the arrest, saying that police violated Councilman Shaffer’s right to freedom of speech.
Shaffer said he has been in contact with both the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics. The agencies have been advising Shaffer on his legal rights, he said.
The story also has been reported on by national political blogs like the Daily Kos.
The West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, which advised police on the legality of the arrest, has refused to comment on the ongoing investigation.
City Manager Martin Howe, who publicly announced the city was launching an investigation into the newsletter’s origins during an April 26 press conference, deferred all questions to the police department. Howe has called the document “slanderous,” and “illegal.”
Shaffer has also chosen a lawyer for his defense.
Morgantown attorney Traci Cook, who is Harrison County’s former chief assistant prosecutor, confirmed Wednesday she will represent the councilman in court.
Cook did not wish to comment on the case just yet.
“We are still in the early stages,” she said.
In another turn of events, City Attorney Greg Morgan said a citizen has issued to him a notice to “cease and desist” with Councilman Shaffer’s prosecution.
According to the notice, “Shaffer’s conduct, and that of the others, was legal, and he was subjected to a false arrest.”
Morgan said the individual is “entitled to have their opinion and to have it heard” but that he is not the appropriate person to receive the notice. He said the notice should have instead been issued to the prosecutor handling the case.
Morgan said Wednesday he will forward the cease and desist notice to Wilson’s office.
Staff writer Billy Wolfe can be reached at (304) 626-1404 or by e-mail at bwolfe@exponent-telegram.com
by Billy Wolfe STAFF WRITER
Friday, June 26, 2009 6:32 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — Harrison Chief Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell appointed a special prosecutor Wednesday to handle the criminal case against City Councilman Martin Shaffer.
Shaffer was arrested June 1 for his role in the production of an anonymous document that criticized members of city council.
Bedell said Wednesday that Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson, or one of Wilson’s designees, will handle the case.
Wilson was out of town Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
Harrison County Prosecutor Joe Shaffer has stepped down from the case because Martin Shaffer is his uncle.
Clarksburg Police arrested Councilman Shaffer the day before the recent municipal election and charged him with two misdemeanors for violating state election laws.
Two other arrest warrants have been issued in connection with the case. Both suspects are in Arizona and have not yet been served with the warrants, according to Clarksburg Police Lt. Robert Matheny.
As previously reported, the state law that authorities cited in Shaffer’s arrest has been under a federal injunction since 1996. The injunction permanently bans enforcement of the law.
The law states that “no person may publish, issue or circulate” anonymous material that either supports or aids the defeat of a candidate for public office. The law may be enforced only if the material includes “express advocacy.” Examples of express advocacy include phrases like “vote for” and “support.”
Although the so-called newsletter criticized councilmen Sam “Zeke” Lopez and Jim Hunt, it made no official endorsements.
At least two national nonprofit law firms have come out strongly against the arrest, saying that police violated Councilman Shaffer’s right to freedom of speech.
Shaffer said he has been in contact with both the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics. The agencies have been advising Shaffer on his legal rights, he said.
The story also has been reported on by national political blogs like the Daily Kos.
The West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, which advised police on the legality of the arrest, has refused to comment on the ongoing investigation.
City Manager Martin Howe, who publicly announced the city was launching an investigation into the newsletter’s origins during an April 26 press conference, deferred all questions to the police department. Howe has called the document “slanderous,” and “illegal.”
Shaffer has also chosen a lawyer for his defense.
Morgantown attorney Traci Cook, who is Harrison County’s former chief assistant prosecutor, confirmed Wednesday she will represent the councilman in court.
Cook did not wish to comment on the case just yet.
“We are still in the early stages,” she said.
In another turn of events, City Attorney Greg Morgan said a citizen has issued to him a notice to “cease and desist” with Councilman Shaffer’s prosecution.
According to the notice, “Shaffer’s conduct, and that of the others, was legal, and he was subjected to a false arrest.”
Morgan said the individual is “entitled to have their opinion and to have it heard” but that he is not the appropriate person to receive the notice. He said the notice should have instead been issued to the prosecutor handling the case.
Morgan said Wednesday he will forward the cease and desist notice to Wilson’s office.
Staff writer Billy Wolfe can be reached at (304) 626-1404 or by e-mail at bwolfe@exponent-telegram.com
Friday, June 26, 2009
wv CONSTITUTION NOTES
3-3. Rights reserved to people.
Government is instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community. Of all its various forms that is the best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
3-7. Freedom of speech and press guaranteed.
No law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be passed; but the Legislature may, by suitable penalties, restrain the publication or sale of obscene books, papers, or pictures, and provide for the punishment of libel, and defamation of character, and for the recovery, in civil actions, by the aggrieved party, of suitable damages for such libel, or defamation.
3-16. Right of public assembly held inviolate.
The right of the people to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, or to apply for redress of grievances, shall be held inviolate.
3-3. Rights reserved to people.
Government is instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community. Of all its various forms that is the best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
3-7. Freedom of speech and press guaranteed.
No law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be passed; but the Legislature may, by suitable penalties, restrain the publication or sale of obscene books, papers, or pictures, and provide for the punishment of libel, and defamation of character, and for the recovery, in civil actions, by the aggrieved party, of suitable damages for such libel, or defamation.
3-16. Right of public assembly held inviolate.
The right of the people to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, or to apply for redress of grievances, shall be held inviolate.
Found a myspace page dedicated to Manual Talley www.myspace.com/manueltalley
1918-- Born in Denver, Colorado;....1922-brother Munroe dies of diphtheria;.... 1944 or 1945-- Jailed for refusal to register for draft. Went on a highly publicized hunger strike to protest segregation in the prison dining hall. Within several months the dining hall was integrated. .......... 1947-- With F.O.R. and Julius [or Cornelius] Steelink, Talley organized the first National Draft Card burning. .......... 1948-- Talley is appointed the first Field Representative for the Los Angeles Chapter of the Congress on Racial Equality (C.O.R.E), leading sit ins, demonstrations and boycotts against businesses who refuse to serve or employ African-Americans. 1949-- Oklahoma Librarian Ruth Brown, which became a widely publicized case of civil rights, reports to Houser that " a visit by CORE Field Worker Manuel Talley gave the group a much needed boost........... 1950-- Talley leaves CORE.....Eventuall he organnizes National Consumers Mobilization for Fair Employment ..........1956-- Talley receives a letter from Martin Luther King, Jr., agreeing with Talley that a boycott of the Los Angeles Transit System would not be advisable, but thanking him for his support. [This letter is published in "The Papers of Martin Luther King, Volume 3, 1997]. .......... 1960-- Talley goes to the United States Supreme Court. The case is called "Talley v. California, 362 US 60." Manuel Talley was distributing leaflets in front of a store urging consumers to boycott of products produced by companies that did not have fair employment practices, that is did not employ African Americans. The police were called and informed him that there was a law that the name and address of the producer of such handbills must be printed on them. Talley took the case to court, stating that this law was in violation of the first Amendment of the United States Constitution, Freedom of Speech. In March of 1960, the Supreme Court upheld Talley's argument. This case is highly important and often referred to in questions of freedom of speech, including freedom of speech on the internet.... 1963 May 8, Talley begins a fast to gain 100,000 signatures on a petition demanding voting rights to blacks in the south. Ends the fast on July 2nd, when goal of 100,000 signatures has been achieved. Later that same year, the US Commission on Civil Rights puts out it's 1963 report calling for protection of southern black voters, which leads to the 1965 Voting Rights Act......... 1986--Died, Los Angeles.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ajtalley/gGB4F2/commentary
I am a civil rights baby, in the truest sense of the term.
My African American father, Manuel D. Talley, committed his life to the struggle. In his 20's, he refused to be inducted into a segregated armed forces. As a result, he was incarcerated in a segregated prison. He then embarked on a highly publicized hunger strike until the warden agreed to desegregate the dining hall.
In 1948, he met my mother, a petite blonde co-ed at UC Berkely. The laws against intermarriage were still in place in California. They were repealed in 1949, and my parents wed in 1950. Soon they had three children, and Dad was still on the forefront of the battle.
Dad led many civil rights activities in the 1950's and '60's. From sit-ins to boycotts to "testing" landlords and employers, to leafletting, Dad continued his dedication to the cause. He took cases to court, and always won. He even took a free speech case to the US Supreme Court (Talley v. California) which is still being used as precedent in current cases.
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Records
Processed by Manuscripts Division staff; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé
UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections
Manuscripts Division
Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
Email: spec-coll@library.ucla.edu
URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/
© 2003
Finding Aid for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Records, ca. 1935-
[ Box 97 ]
[ Folder 18 ]
Handbill Case - Manuel D. Talley
Here's a list of cases about anonymous political speech.
The next step will be to go through these cases and find some good quotes to put into a brief in support of Shaffer.
Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html
ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft_(2004) see Doe v Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301 (2005),
ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html
ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html
American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182
(1999), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-930.ZO.html
Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other
grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998),
THE BROWARD COALITION v BROWNING(ND Fla. 2008)
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/ECO.order.pdf
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf.
Center for Individual Liberty v Ireland 1:08-cv-00190 (W.D.WV 2009)
Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999)http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/
http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/june1decisioncyber.pdf
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html
Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998).
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25(1999), reversed on other grounds,
Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974),42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printing-industries-of-gulf-coast
Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp%5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
State of Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)
Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=05-35752&s=WA&d=40488
Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind.
2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312903321578269?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=02-2204&submit=showdkt&yr=02&num=2204A.P
McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
overruled 67 Ohio St. 3d 391; 618 N. E. 2d 152
Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 330
N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)
http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CDE%5CDE2%5C1974%5C19740731_0002.DE.htm/qx
Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980630/64332.htm
Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),
Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993)http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/nc-supreme-court/jul3093/persilie
Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001)
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/781.html
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d
1422 (8th Cir. 1995),http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf
Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.
1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45.
Schuster v. Imperial County (1980)http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx
Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),http://supreme.justia.com/us/361/147/
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960),http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003)
Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/221/376/526348/
Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html
West Virginians for Life v Ireland (W.D.WV 2009)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987), http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.943.85-2736.85-2641.85-2323.html
Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/705/case.html
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-969#FNopinion1.7
Yes to Life PAC v. Webster, http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Hornby/2000/DBH_02072000_2-99cv318_YES_PAC_V_WEBSTER.pdf
Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244 (E. D. N. Y. 1968), vacated on other grounds (mootness)sub nom. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)http://law.jrank.org/pages/12637/Zwickler-v-Koota.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=ny&navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=241
People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962)
People v Drake
ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (2004)http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller
Tornillo v Miami Herald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo
"Where at all possible, government must curtail speech only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem at hand, and must avoid infringing on speech that does not pose the danger that has prompted regulation." Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 265, 107 S.Ct. 616, 93 L.Ed.2d 539 (1986)
fr10] At least ten state and lower federal courts have applied exacting scrutiny to protect various forms of anonymous political speech. See, e. g., State v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001); Washington Initiatives Now v. Ripple, 213 F. 3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000); Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Erie, 99 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W. D. Pa. 2000); State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P. 2d 597 (Alaska 1999); Yes for Life PAC v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Me. 1999) and Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999); American KKK v. City of Goshen, 50 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N. D. Ind. 1999); Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W. D. Ark. 1998); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S. D. Ind. 1997); West Virginians for Life v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036 (S. D. W. Va. 1996); and Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 906 F. Supp. 1071 (W. D. Va. 1995).
State of North Dakota v Reisler http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/412.htm (Offtopic)
mic ag op 1996 http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06895.htm
Page 1 http://www.doj.state.or.us/agoffice/agopinions/op8266.pdf
March 10, 1999
No. 8266
This opinion is issued in response to questions presented by Colleen Sealock, Director of the Elections Division in the
Office of Secretary of State Phil Keisling.
FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED
Does ORS 260.522,
(1)
which prohibits most anonymous signs, publications and broadcasts used in political campaigns,
violate the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution or the United States Constitution?
ANSWER GIVEN
The statute as currently written is unconstitutional. The liberty to produce and distribute anonymous campaign material is
protected by free speech guarantees. Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution,
(2)
the Legislative Assembly
may not restrain "the free expression of opinion" or restrict a person's right to "speak, write, or print freely on any subject"
unless the limitation was well-established at the time that free speech guarantees entered the federal or state constitutions
and was not a limitation that those guarantees were designed to eliminate, or unless the limitation is directed not at speech
per se but at the effects of the speech. No historical exception covering anonymous political speech exists, nor does ORS
260.522 focus on effects as opposed to speech per se. Therefore, the statute violates Article I, section 8
N Dakota AGO http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JlazyuKJnXkJ:www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/2001/Advice/022601-Boucher.pdf+N.Dakota+v.+N.D.+Ed.+Assoc+%22%27262+N.W.2d+731%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
496 F2d 204 United States v. P Insco (5th Cir 1974) http://openjurist.org/496/f2d/204
http://www.vjolt.net/vol3/issue/vol3_art1.html Anonymous Internet Communication and the First Amendment: A Crack in the Dam of National Sovereignty by Michael H. Spencer
1918-- Born in Denver, Colorado;....1922-brother Munroe dies of diphtheria;.... 1944 or 1945-- Jailed for refusal to register for draft. Went on a highly publicized hun
Manuel D. Talley Memorial Page's Friend Space (Top 6)http://www.myspace.com/manueltalley
United States v. Donald H. Segretti, infra, without opinion
Canon v. Justice Court for the Lake Valley Judicial District of El Dorado County, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 231;
Insco:
Where freedom is at stake, ambiguities and doubts as to statutory application, manifestly existing here, must be resolved in favor of the accused. See, e.g., United States v. Enmons, 1973, 410 U.S. 396, 411, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 35 L.Ed.2d 379; Rewis v. United States, 1971, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493; United States v. Etheridge, 6 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 951, cert. denied sub nom., Cole v. United States, 1971, 400 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 463, 27 L.Ed.2d 442; United States v. Illinois Central Ry., W.D.Tenn. 1967, 269 F.Supp. 236, 240.
Reversed.
[cite wisc rtl v fec] tie goes to speaker
Huntley v. Public Util. Commn. of Cal. 69 Cal. 2d 67 (1968) (recorded telephone messages); Bogalusa v. May, 252 La. 629 (1968) (circulars and pamphlets); Opinion of the Justice, 306 Atl. 2d 18 (Maine, 1973) (authors of newspaper editorials); Opinion of the Justices, 324 Atl. 2d 211 (Del. 1974) (same); People v. Mishkin, 17 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 243 (1962) affd. 15 N. Y. 2d 671 (1964), affd. on other grounds sub nom. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966) (disclosure of publisher or printer); Matter of Figari v. New York Tel. Co. 32 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 434 (1969) (recorded telephone messages). Cf. Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. App. 1974)
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1974%5C19740228_0040593.FL.htm/qx
See City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (1968) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down a municipal ordinance prohibiting the distribution of circulars and pamphlets which did not identify the distributor); State v. Fulton, 337 So.2d 866 (1976) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute prohibiting the publication and distribution of any material concerning a candidate, where the material did not identify the person responsible for its publication); State v. Burgess, 543 So.2d 1332 (1989) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute which prohibited the publication, distribution, or transmission of ''any oral, visual, or written material containing any statement which makes scurrilous, false, or irresponsible adverse comment about a candidate . . . or about a proposition to be submitted to the voters, unless the publication contains the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for its publication.'')
Morefield v. Moore (Ky. 1976), 540 S.W.2d 873; State v. Acey (Tenn. 1982), 633 S.W.2d 306.
The abolition of anonymity, 40 Tenn.L.Rev. 301. http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/DLR.AbolitionTLR.pdf
The next step will be to go through these cases and find some good quotes to put into a brief in support of Shaffer.
Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html
ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft_(2004) see Doe v Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301 (2005),
ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html
ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html
American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182
(1999), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-930.ZO.html
Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other
grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998),
THE BROWARD COALITION v BROWNING(ND Fla. 2008)
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/ECO.order.pdf
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf.
Center for Individual Liberty v Ireland 1:08-cv-00190 (W.D.WV 2009)
Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999)http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/
http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/june1decisioncyber.pdf
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html
Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998).
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25(1999), reversed on other grounds,
Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974),42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printing-industries-of-gulf-coast
Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp%5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
State of Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)
Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=05-35752&s=WA&d=40488
Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind.
2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312903321578269?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=02-2204&submit=showdkt&yr=02&num=2204A.P
McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
overruled 67 Ohio St. 3d 391; 618 N. E. 2d 152
Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 330
N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)
http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CDE%5CDE2%5C1974%5C19740731_0002.DE.htm/qx
Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980630/64332.htm
Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),
Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993)http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/nc-supreme-court/jul3093/persilie
Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001)
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/781.html
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d
1422 (8th Cir. 1995),http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf
Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.
1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45.
Schuster v. Imperial County (1980)http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx
Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),http://supreme.justia.com/us/361/147/
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960),http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003)
Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/221/376/526348/
Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html
West Virginians for Life v Ireland (W.D.WV 2009)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987), http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.943.85-2736.85-2641.85-2323.html
Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/705/case.html
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-969#FNopinion1.7
Yes to Life PAC v. Webster, http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Hornby/2000/DBH_02072000_2-99cv318_YES_PAC_V_WEBSTER.pdf
Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244 (E. D. N. Y. 1968), vacated on other grounds (mootness)sub nom. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)http://law.jrank.org/pages/12637/Zwickler-v-Koota.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=ny&navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=241
People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962)
People v Drake
ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (2004)http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller
Tornillo v Miami Herald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo
"Where at all possible, government must curtail speech only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem at hand, and must avoid infringing on speech that does not pose the danger that has prompted regulation." Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 265, 107 S.Ct. 616, 93 L.Ed.2d 539 (1986)
fr10] At least ten state and lower federal courts have applied exacting scrutiny to protect various forms of anonymous political speech. See, e. g., State v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001); Washington Initiatives Now v. Ripple, 213 F. 3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000); Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Erie, 99 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W. D. Pa. 2000); State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P. 2d 597 (Alaska 1999); Yes for Life PAC v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Me. 1999) and Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999); American KKK v. City of Goshen, 50 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N. D. Ind. 1999); Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W. D. Ark. 1998); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S. D. Ind. 1997); West Virginians for Life v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036 (S. D. W. Va. 1996); and Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 906 F. Supp. 1071 (W. D. Va. 1995).
State of North Dakota v Reisler http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/412.htm (Offtopic)
mic ag op 1996 http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06895.htm
Page 1 http://www.doj.state.or.us/agoffice/agopinions/op8266.pdf
March 10, 1999
No. 8266
This opinion is issued in response to questions presented by Colleen Sealock, Director of the Elections Division in the
Office of Secretary of State Phil Keisling.
FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED
Does ORS 260.522,
(1)
which prohibits most anonymous signs, publications and broadcasts used in political campaigns,
violate the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution or the United States Constitution?
ANSWER GIVEN
The statute as currently written is unconstitutional. The liberty to produce and distribute anonymous campaign material is
protected by free speech guarantees. Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution,
(2)
the Legislative Assembly
may not restrain "the free expression of opinion" or restrict a person's right to "speak, write, or print freely on any subject"
unless the limitation was well-established at the time that free speech guarantees entered the federal or state constitutions
and was not a limitation that those guarantees were designed to eliminate, or unless the limitation is directed not at speech
per se but at the effects of the speech. No historical exception covering anonymous political speech exists, nor does ORS
260.522 focus on effects as opposed to speech per se. Therefore, the statute violates Article I, section 8
N Dakota AGO http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JlazyuKJnXkJ:www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/2001/Advice/022601-Boucher.pdf+N.Dakota+v.+N.D.+Ed.+Assoc+%22%27262+N.W.2d+731%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
496 F2d 204 United States v. P Insco (5th Cir 1974) http://openjurist.org/496/f2d/204
http://www.vjolt.net/vol3/issue/vol3_art1.html Anonymous Internet Communication and the First Amendment: A Crack in the Dam of National Sovereignty by Michael H. Spencer
1918-- Born in Denver, Colorado;....1922-brother Munroe dies of diphtheria;.... 1944 or 1945-- Jailed for refusal to register for draft. Went on a highly publicized hun
Manuel D. Talley Memorial Page's Friend Space (Top 6)http://www.myspace.com/manueltalley
United States v. Donald H. Segretti, infra, without opinion
Canon v. Justice Court for the Lake Valley Judicial District of El Dorado County, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 231;
Insco:
Where freedom is at stake, ambiguities and doubts as to statutory application, manifestly existing here, must be resolved in favor of the accused. See, e.g., United States v. Enmons, 1973, 410 U.S. 396, 411, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 35 L.Ed.2d 379; Rewis v. United States, 1971, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493; United States v. Etheridge, 6 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 951, cert. denied sub nom., Cole v. United States, 1971, 400 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 463, 27 L.Ed.2d 442; United States v. Illinois Central Ry., W.D.Tenn. 1967, 269 F.Supp. 236, 240.
Reversed.
[cite wisc rtl v fec] tie goes to speaker
Huntley v. Public Util. Commn. of Cal. 69 Cal. 2d 67 (1968) (recorded telephone messages); Bogalusa v. May, 252 La. 629 (1968) (circulars and pamphlets); Opinion of the Justice, 306 Atl. 2d 18 (Maine, 1973) (authors of newspaper editorials); Opinion of the Justices, 324 Atl. 2d 211 (Del. 1974) (same); People v. Mishkin, 17 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 243 (1962) affd. 15 N. Y. 2d 671 (1964), affd. on other grounds sub nom. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966) (disclosure of publisher or printer); Matter of Figari v. New York Tel. Co. 32 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 434 (1969) (recorded telephone messages). Cf. Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. App. 1974)
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1974%5C19740228_0040593.FL.htm/qx
See City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (1968) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down a municipal ordinance prohibiting the distribution of circulars and pamphlets which did not identify the distributor); State v. Fulton, 337 So.2d 866 (1976) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute prohibiting the publication and distribution of any material concerning a candidate, where the material did not identify the person responsible for its publication); State v. Burgess, 543 So.2d 1332 (1989) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute which prohibited the publication, distribution, or transmission of ''any oral, visual, or written material containing any statement which makes scurrilous, false, or irresponsible adverse comment about a candidate . . . or about a proposition to be submitted to the voters, unless the publication contains the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for its publication.'')
Morefield v. Moore (Ky. 1976), 540 S.W.2d 873; State v. Acey (Tenn. 1982), 633 S.W.2d 306.
The abolition of anonymity, 40 Tenn.L.Rev. 301. http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/DLR.AbolitionTLR.pdf
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The 9th circuit en banc handed down a decision in Magic Mike v Seattle that hold that street performerss can't be required to buy permits and wear identification badges, citing the right to anonymous speech found in McIntyre and Watchtower v Stratton.
And in Tennessee, here's a link about the Battle of Athens, when WWII-era GI's fought crooked local politicians over voter fraud.
I haven't seen any new news about the Clarksville situation. It now looks like the Citizens United case will come out Monday, the last case of the term. It might or might not say useful things abou election speech rights.
And in Tennessee, here's a link about the Battle of Athens, when WWII-era GI's fought crooked local politicians over voter fraud.
I haven't seen any new news about the Clarksville situation. It now looks like the Citizens United case will come out Monday, the last case of the term. It might or might not say useful things abou election speech rights.
Friday, June 19, 2009
hey blogger this is not a spam blog
[update, problem fixed, blog is working again]
I was interviewed by Billy Wolf of the clarskburg exponent-telegram, so maybe i'll be in the news tomorrow. I'm waiting to hear from slashdot or volokh about more coverage.
I was interviewed by Billy Wolf of the clarskburg exponent-telegram, so maybe i'll be in the news tomorrow. I'm waiting to hear from slashdot or volokh about more coverage.
the cease and desist notice and the amicus letter
The second post borrowed from ballots.blogspot.com
Friday, June 19, 2009
Here are copies of some documents I filed or distributed yesterday in Clarksburg West Virginia.
[I just noticed there's nowhere on the menu to access the archives. Guess I'll need to fix that.]
Notice to cease and desist
To: City of Clarksburg, County of Harrison, State of West Virginia.
From: Robbin Stewart, Stewart & Associates.
Cc: media, public.
Re: prosecution related to anonymous flier
Date: Friday, June 05, 2009
Recently there has been a controversy over the mailing of a flier critical of the City of Clarksburg administration. Following an investigation, three arrest warrants were issued, on charges of distribution of anonymous campaign literature and conspiracy to do so.
City councilman Martin Shaffer was arrested, and faces the possibility of jail or fines.
Shaffer’s conduct, and that of the others, was legal, and he was subjected to a false arrest.
In 1960, in Talley v California, the Supreme Court held that anonymous political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that disclaimer regulations which seek to outlaw anonymous speech are unconstitutional and void.
Talley, along with NAACP v Patterson ex rel Alabama (1958) and Bates v Little Rock (1961) are some of the key cases of the Civil Rights movement, establishing the foundations for the current understanding of the rightt o privacy under the First Amendment.
The Court has upheld this ruling each time the question returned to the court, for example in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995), Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), McConnell v FEC note 88 (2003), and Watchtower v Stratton (2005).
Decisions of the Supreme Court, and the Constitution, are binding on states and cities and state and local officals and employees. Talley is well-established law, and there is no qualified immunity when it is violated.
In 1994, I encountered a similar situation when one of my campaign posters was confiscated.
In Stewart v Taylor, Indiana’s disclaimer statute was found to be unconstitutional, and I was awarded $7,000. Since then, I have monitored states’ compliance with McIntyre and Talley. See for example my amicus brief in CFIF v Ireland.
The prosecution of Shaffer and others is illegal, a violation of federal civil rights acts including the Ku Klux Klan Act, 17 USC 241. It is tortious under 42 USC 1983. It is unethical, both in the sense that it is morally wrong, and that it is within the jurisdiction of West Virginia’s Ethics boards. It is misconduct, for those involved who are members of the West Virginia Bar. (I am not a member, and am writing this as a private citizen, do not represent anybody, and take no side in the disputes about the content of the flier. My concern is solely with the false arrest under the unconstitutional statute.)
It is unAmerican. In America we confront speech with more speech, not by arresting our politcal opponents on false charges. It is a violation of the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitutions. I reasonably believe that the false arrest violates the free speech and free elections clauses of the West Virginia Constitution, although I am not aware of any cases directly deciding the issue.
I strongly encourage you to immediately dismiss the charges against Shaffer and the others.
If there are any lingering questions about the constitutionality of the statute, it would be appropriate to seek an advisory opinion from the Attorney General of West Virginia.
Please let me know how you intend to proceed.
===
To: Magistrate Gizzy Davis
Clarksburg Courthouse 306 Washington Ave
Clarksburg, WV 26301
From: Robbin Stewart
Box 29164 Cumberland IN 46229-0164 gtbear@gmail.com
Re: State v Martin Shaffer et al.
CC: Shaffer, Prosecutor
Your honor,
Recently in your court the City has charged City Councilman Martin
Shaffer and two as-yet-unnamed others with distributing anonymous
political literature.
I do not have the case number. When I went to your court on Friday it
was 4 pm and the office was closing and they would not allow me to see
the file.
I am submitting this in the role of an amicus curiae.
I have extensive experience in cases about anonymous political literature.
In 1996, I won Stewart v Taylor, which found Indiana's disclaimer
statute to be unconstitutional under McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Commission. Since then I have continued to be involved in the issue.
The West Virginia statute regulating disclaimers on political
literature is unconstitutional under Talley v California (1960) and
McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission (1995), and cannot be enforced by
this or any other court without violating the oath of office to
uphold the constitutions. West Virginians for Life v Smith, 919 F. Supp 954 (1996), 960 F Supp 1036 (1996). The charges against Shaffer should be
dismissed immediately, and the arrest warrants against the other two
should be quashed. There be no conspiracy charges when the activity conspired in is legal.
My amicus brief in the CFIF v Ireland/Right to Life v Ireland case
goes into more detail on this. I will send you a copy when I get back
to my office in Indiana.
Additional reasons Shafffer has committed no crime are that,
1) as far as I can tell, the mailing did not contain any express
advocacy; it did not say "vote for __" or "elect ___" or other such
terms that would bring it within the purview of the statute.
2) as far as I know, there is no allegation that Shaffer took any part
in the composition and editing of the mailing, including the decision,
or innocent omission, to include an identification disclaimer. He has
admitted providing the information which was used in the mailing;
there is no claim that he printed or mailed it himself.
3) under Smith v United States, crimes which consist only of speech
must have a mens rea element; they must be intentional rather than
merely negligent.
The West Virginia statute lacks any such mens rea requirement and is therefore
void and unconstitutional.
I enclose several extra copies of this filing for distribution to the
parties, since I do not have their addresses but do not wish to engage
in ex parte communications with the court.
[document was emailed to defendants and prosecutor.]
Respectfully submitted,
Robbin Stewart
Friday, June 19, 2009
Here are copies of some documents I filed or distributed yesterday in Clarksburg West Virginia.
[I just noticed there's nowhere on the menu to access the archives. Guess I'll need to fix that.]
Notice to cease and desist
To: City of Clarksburg, County of Harrison, State of West Virginia.
From: Robbin Stewart, Stewart & Associates.
Cc: media, public.
Re: prosecution related to anonymous flier
Date: Friday, June 05, 2009
Recently there has been a controversy over the mailing of a flier critical of the City of Clarksburg administration. Following an investigation, three arrest warrants were issued, on charges of distribution of anonymous campaign literature and conspiracy to do so.
City councilman Martin Shaffer was arrested, and faces the possibility of jail or fines.
Shaffer’s conduct, and that of the others, was legal, and he was subjected to a false arrest.
In 1960, in Talley v California, the Supreme Court held that anonymous political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that disclaimer regulations which seek to outlaw anonymous speech are unconstitutional and void.
Talley, along with NAACP v Patterson ex rel Alabama (1958) and Bates v Little Rock (1961) are some of the key cases of the Civil Rights movement, establishing the foundations for the current understanding of the rightt o privacy under the First Amendment.
The Court has upheld this ruling each time the question returned to the court, for example in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995), Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), McConnell v FEC note 88 (2003), and Watchtower v Stratton (2005).
Decisions of the Supreme Court, and the Constitution, are binding on states and cities and state and local officals and employees. Talley is well-established law, and there is no qualified immunity when it is violated.
In 1994, I encountered a similar situation when one of my campaign posters was confiscated.
In Stewart v Taylor, Indiana’s disclaimer statute was found to be unconstitutional, and I was awarded $7,000. Since then, I have monitored states’ compliance with McIntyre and Talley. See for example my amicus brief in CFIF v Ireland.
The prosecution of Shaffer and others is illegal, a violation of federal civil rights acts including the Ku Klux Klan Act, 17 USC 241. It is tortious under 42 USC 1983. It is unethical, both in the sense that it is morally wrong, and that it is within the jurisdiction of West Virginia’s Ethics boards. It is misconduct, for those involved who are members of the West Virginia Bar. (I am not a member, and am writing this as a private citizen, do not represent anybody, and take no side in the disputes about the content of the flier. My concern is solely with the false arrest under the unconstitutional statute.)
It is unAmerican. In America we confront speech with more speech, not by arresting our politcal opponents on false charges. It is a violation of the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitutions. I reasonably believe that the false arrest violates the free speech and free elections clauses of the West Virginia Constitution, although I am not aware of any cases directly deciding the issue.
I strongly encourage you to immediately dismiss the charges against Shaffer and the others.
If there are any lingering questions about the constitutionality of the statute, it would be appropriate to seek an advisory opinion from the Attorney General of West Virginia.
Please let me know how you intend to proceed.
===
To: Magistrate Gizzy Davis
Clarksburg Courthouse 306 Washington Ave
Clarksburg, WV 26301
From: Robbin Stewart
Box 29164 Cumberland IN 46229-0164 gtbear@gmail.com
Re: State v Martin Shaffer et al.
CC: Shaffer, Prosecutor
Your honor,
Recently in your court the City has charged City Councilman Martin
Shaffer and two as-yet-unnamed others with distributing anonymous
political literature.
I do not have the case number. When I went to your court on Friday it
was 4 pm and the office was closing and they would not allow me to see
the file.
I am submitting this in the role of an amicus curiae.
I have extensive experience in cases about anonymous political literature.
In 1996, I won Stewart v Taylor, which found Indiana's disclaimer
statute to be unconstitutional under McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Commission. Since then I have continued to be involved in the issue.
The West Virginia statute regulating disclaimers on political
literature is unconstitutional under Talley v California (1960) and
McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission (1995), and cannot be enforced by
this or any other court without violating the oath of office to
uphold the constitutions. West Virginians for Life v Smith, 919 F. Supp 954 (1996), 960 F Supp 1036 (1996). The charges against Shaffer should be
dismissed immediately, and the arrest warrants against the other two
should be quashed. There be no conspiracy charges when the activity conspired in is legal.
My amicus brief in the CFIF v Ireland/Right to Life v Ireland case
goes into more detail on this. I will send you a copy when I get back
to my office in Indiana.
Additional reasons Shafffer has committed no crime are that,
1) as far as I can tell, the mailing did not contain any express
advocacy; it did not say "vote for __" or "elect ___" or other such
terms that would bring it within the purview of the statute.
2) as far as I know, there is no allegation that Shaffer took any part
in the composition and editing of the mailing, including the decision,
or innocent omission, to include an identification disclaimer. He has
admitted providing the information which was used in the mailing;
there is no claim that he printed or mailed it himself.
3) under Smith v United States, crimes which consist only of speech
must have a mens rea element; they must be intentional rather than
merely negligent.
The West Virginia statute lacks any such mens rea requirement and is therefore
void and unconstitutional.
I enclose several extra copies of this filing for distribution to the
parties, since I do not have their addresses but do not wish to engage
in ex parte communications with the court.
[document was emailed to defendants and prosecutor.]
Respectfully submitted,
Robbin Stewart
Long: the original post
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
This article is an ongoing story I am doing about the false arrest of a west virginia city councilman for anonymous political literature, which is free speech protected by the constitution.
Friday update: Was just interviewed by the Clarksburg Telegram-Exponent.
I went back to Clarksburg yesterday. I filed an amicus letter with the court.
The case has been reassigned to a new magistrate after Davis recused because he and Shaffer are friends. The prosecutor recused because he is Shaffer's nephew.
I gave the city's attorney a cease and desist letter.
I met with Shaffer. Great guy, useful meeting. He was just off the phone with one of IJ's lawyers. There's an increasing possibility IJ may end up as counsel, nothing definite on that. I'm touch with one of the other two defendants.
I went to a city council meeting; many of the major players in the case all in one room. I found a sign for one of the other councilmen which did not have a disclaimer; Shaffer will go get a picture of it.
I saw the plaque and statute for stonewall jackson's birthplace, got a $7 haircut at a barber shop that's been there since 1903, bought stuff at a white elephant sale for the fire department,and ate at Junebug's, my favorite Clarkburg hole-in-the-wall cafe.
Shaffer is jovial, gets around on a walker due to a broken leg, had a picture of him and Bill Clinton on his wall, had war stories involving Senator Byrd. He's no stranger to suing the government - he recovered half of 2 million his business lost, in a case that lasted 7 years, so he understands these things take time and commitment. I think he's the right plaintiff, and IJ would be the right counsel.
I think there's a good shot at striking down the West Virginia statute.
Still to do: I need to out my amicus letter and cease and desist letter online. -done see above.
Monday update:
Updated Monday, June 8, 2009 ; 06:48 PM
Story by Dani Brake
CLARKSBURG -- The Clarksbug police have issued more warrants in the city council newsletter investigation.
The police have already arrested councilman Martin Shaffer.
Now they've issued warrants for his sister Michelle Waugaman and her boyfriend, John Peterson.
The couple face charges of circulation of written matter and conspiracy, both misdemeanors.
The police say the couple lives in Cottonwood, Arizona and they will try to contact them about the investigation.
http://www.boomboxradio.net/boombox/PlayerSetup/Players/WBOYPlayer.aspx?FileId=185668_wboy
John Peterson
6/12/09 at 8:17 PM Report Abuse
I wish that you would stop referring to us as a COUPLE, I live in Arizona, and Michelle lives in West Virginia, beyond the logistics of it all, Michelle is just recently widowed and I have been happily married for 35 years. The newsletter was not written to change or effect the election, which it didn't, it was written to inform people of some of the facts that they should be aware of. There need to be more published.
- I found out Martin Shaffer has sued the city before, in an open records dispute last year. Also he's a property owner/business owner. So he'll probably have no trouble finding counsel to bring a case against the city for his false arrest, if he chooses to.
- Shaffer is a former member of the Democratic National Committee, says Political Graveyard.
Sunday update: Rick Hasen has linked to yesterday's Billy Wolfe article.
"Law targeting Shaffer may no longer be enforceable"
Following up on this post, Robbin Stewart sends along a link to this article, which begins: "The state law authorities cited in the June 1 arrest of Clarksburg City Councilman Martin Shaffer may not be enforceable, or even constitutional, the legal director of a national nonprofit organization said Thursday."
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:11 PM
Saturday update:
Bingo! Everything's changed now, with this story.
Law targeting Shaffer may no longer be enforceable
by Billy Wolfe STAFF WRITER
Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:21 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — The state law authorities cited in the June 1 arrest of Clarksburg City Councilman Martin Shaffer may not be enforceable, or even constitutional, the legal director of a national nonprofit organization said Thursday.
Edit Friday: Another Daily Kos story I missed on June 4. Watch for possible upcoming coverage by Eugene Volohk.
Edit thursday: Martin tells me there's an article in today's paper based on Reid's column, which I'll google for tomorrow. These are the cops who arrested Martin. Lt. Matheny, left. Right is Chief Goff. Goff is an important local name; there was a Goff who helped found West Virginia during the civil war.
Martin speaks in this newsclip.
>Here's an earlier article I missed: City Police launch probe into mailer.
Harrison County Prosecutor Joe Shaffer said he will need to research case law before he can determine if those who participated in mailing the document committed an offense.
“There is always a balance between the First Amendment and election laws,” he said.
Reid's article has been crossposted to Daily Kos. WVa newspapers online.
Edit Wednesday
Nice article at
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/prosecuting-anonymous-political-speech-thats-whats-criminal
Edit Tuesday:
The statute under which Shaffer was charged was found to be unconstitutional in West Virginians for Life v Smith, 919 F Supp 954 (SDWV 1996) and 960 F.Supp 1036 (SDWV 1996)! The statute is 3-8-12(a), not 3-12-12(a), newspaper had it wrong. I'm at the WV law school running off copies, already bought stamps. I have these cases in my files at home, but it's been awhile since I've looked through them - they are directly on point.
No, that's a slight overstatement:
In WV4Life v Smith, the only relief plaintiffs sought was a declaration that the statute be limited to express advocacy, so that's all the relief that was granted, although the opinion explains why the statute is unconstitutional under McIntyre.
The statute appears to have been amended in light of the Right to Life case.
Probably also violates state constitution, Woodruff v Board of Trustees 319 SE2d 372 (1984)(distributing literature protected under W Va constitution, does not address anonymity.)
A Clarksburg West Virgina city councilman Martin Shaffer has been jailed arrested for being involved in an anonymous flyer. He was defeated for re-election several days later, yesterday.
I'm finding a few stories on it now.
Thursday update: I'm in Clarksburg now, I'll see if I can get in any interviews before they roll up the sidewalks. I found the text of the flier online, thanks to T. David Franklin. http://picasaweb.google.com/MyCityServices/ClarksburgWVNewsletter#
Found Youtube video of the press conferencee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckk1gDFoUbk
http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60163
http://www.wdtv.com/news/local/46775732.html
No, I'm mistaken, he apparently wasn't up for re-election.
The four people elected into City Council Tuesday night include incumbents Patsy S. Trecost II with 863 votes, Jim Hunt with 843 votes, Sam "Zeke" Lopez with 758 votes, and newcomer Mary Mayer with 773 votes.
Not being elected in Council were "Charlie Thayer" with 722 votes, Tim Gentilozzi with 673 votes, incumbent B. K. Vanhorn with 655 votes, F. Lee West with 434 votes, Paul J. DuPont with 400 votes, Ugo Annibale with 345 votes, and Jim Price with 318 votes.
http://www.wdtv.com/news/46679872.html
The Clarksburg Police and the General Council of the Secretary of State's Office decided to make the arrest late Monday afternoon. Shaffer was arraigned and released on a personal recognizance bond.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=59772
CLARKSBURG -- Clarksburg City Manager Martin Howe held a news conference, Tuesday, to announce that the city has launched an investigation into who distributed a controversial newsletter, over the weekend.Howe has asked the police department, the FBI, U.S. Postal inspectors, the Harrison County Prosecutor's Office, and the Secretary of State's Office, to look into the matter.
The city plans to prosecute whoever is responsible for newsletter, Howe says.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60163
The significance of the story is not that the arrest came the day before the election, but that it was a false arrest under an unconstitutional statute.
Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio hold that anonymous flyers are constitutionally protected free speech.
story developing. welcome electionlawblog.org readers.
story swiped from local paper behind registration wall:
(reprint request pending)
Councilman Martin Shaffer charged with two misdemeanors
by Billy Wolfe and Matt Harvey
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:34 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — Clarksburg City Councilman Martin Shaffer was charged with two misdemeanors — circulation of anonymous written matter and conspiracy — Monday night.
The complaint, filed by Clarksburg Police Lt. Robert Matheny, alleges Shaffer “did knowingly cause to be published and circulated an anonymous ‘newsletter’ that was for the purpose to aid the defeat of clearly identified candidates in the June 2nd, 2009, Clarksburg Municipal Election.” (the rest of the article redacted at request of copyright holder)
==
My letter to the editor of the local paper:
Full Name:Robbin Stewart
Comments: Councilman Shaffer is innocent of the charges against him, and those who charged him may be guilty of violating his federal civil rights,and should be investigated. The landmark civil rights case Talley v California !960) held that anonymous fliers are protected by the First Amendment's right to privacy.
The West Virginia constitution also protects political speech of this type. The statute under which he was charged is unconstitutional and void. His right to help with a flier is the same right that protects this newspaper - freedom of the press. As Americans,and as journalists, we should stand up for Mr. Shaffer.
==
I'm in the neighborhood with time to kill, so I might run down there tomorrow and see what I can dig up.
==
odd coincidence
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306
==
Thursday PM notes. I met with the city manager, Martin Howe, his secretary, the City Clerk, and the police lieutenant in charge of the investigation.
Officially, they have no comment because there is an ongoing investigation.
Unofficially, we talked, and I put them on notice they can't be doing what they are doing.
The magistrate's clerk was closing when I found it, so I haven't seen the file, and the police report isn't in yet because they are focused on a mass murder that happened recently, so I'll be requesting it next week. They said this is the first time anyone from the press has ever asked for a police report, so they will review their procedures. The court's janitor gave me a donut,and I had dinner in a fun hole-in-the-wall on Main Street. I've eaten a lot today because I keep ducking into cafes to jump on wifi - I'm writing this from the Blue Moose in Morgantown.
I didn't find the defendant yet. I have enough new information to have stuff to do next week writing it up, if I end up getting more involved in this.
I have drafted, not yet mailed, a cease and desist notice and an amicus curiae letter to the court.
Robbin Stewart gtbear at gmail com.
note naacp Clarksburg Branch
Phone: (304)363-6353
Address: 916 West Pike Street # 910, Clarksburg, WV 26301
magistrate warren gizzy davis 306 Washington Ave
Clarksburg, WV 26301
(304) 624-8544
Chapter 3 Article 12 subsection 12a of the West Virginia code states "No person may publish, issue or circulate, or cause to be published, issued or circulated, any anonymous letter, circular, placard, radio or television advertisement or other publication supporting or aiding the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate."
===
[it] is doubtful that the provisions of the
challenged statute prohibiting anonymous advocacy can
survive constitutional muster. In the recent case of
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, U.S. , 115 S. Ct.
1511 (1995), the Supreme Court retraced the history of
anonymous publications and fo[und that such publications
have played an important role in the progress of mankind.
The decision to publish anonymously, the Court
concluded, like other decisions concerning omissions
[**16] or additions to content of a publication, is an
aspect of freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment. Id. at 1516.
There are at least two sound policy reasons for
protecting the right of anonymous publication. First, the
decision to publish anonymously may be motivated by
fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about
social ostracism, or merely by desire to preserve as much
of one's privacy as possible. Id. Second, anonymity
enables a writer who is personally unpopular to ensure
that readers will not prejudge the writer's message simply
because they do not like its proponent. Id. at 1517.
The historical role played by anonymous publication,
and its importance to the development of free institutions,
was traced by Justice Black in Talley v. California, 362
U.S. 60, 64-65, 4 L. Ed. 2d 559, 80 S. Ct. 536 (1960).
Justice Black concluded: "Anonymous pamphlets,
leaflets, brochures and even books have played an
important role in the progress of mankind. . . . Even the
Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our
Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is
plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the
most constructive [**17] purposes." Id. In McIntyre, the
Supreme Court struck down, as overbroad, an Ohio
statute which required that any writing intending to
"influence" the voters in any election contain the name of
[*960] the writer. The Supreme Court reasoned that the
Ohio statute applied, not only to candidates and their
supporters, but to individuals acting independently.
McIntyre, 115 S. Ct. at 1521. Similarly, the prohibition
on anonymous voter guides at issue in this case does not
narrowly apply to candidates and their supporters, but
Page 5
919 F. Supp. 954, *958; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4763, **13
sweeps in the activities of independent groups and
individuals engaging in issue advocacy. Based, in part, on
the holding in McIntyre, the court concludes that, when it
applies exacting scrutiny to the West Virginia ban on
anonymous voter guides, there is a strong likelihood that
plaintiffs will succeed on the merits.
The importance and value [**18] of freedom of
speech in a democratic society have been amply
discussed above and need not be reiterated here.
Protection of these values is of critical public interest.
919 F. Supp. 954, *960; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4763, **17
LEXSEE 960 F. SUPP. 1036
WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INC., et al, v. CHARLES R. SMITH,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
WEST VIRGINIA, BLUEFIELD DIVISION
960 F. Supp. 1036; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21126
August 29, 1996
COUNSEL: For WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INC.,: William C. Porth,
ROBINSON & MCELWEE, Charleston, WV. James
Bopp, Jr., John K. Abegg,
CHARLES R. SMITH,e
OPINION BY: David A. Faber
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "WVFL") filed
this civil action on January 30, 1996, seeking declaratory
[**2] and injunctive relief arising under the Constitution
of the United States of America….
Plaintiff next contends that the prohibition of
anonymous issue advocacy in West Virginia Code §
… § 3-8-12 [is] unconstitutional. Section 3-8-12 prohibits the
publication, issuance or circulation of any anonymous
letter, circular, or other publication tending to influence
voting at any election.
In this court's Memorandum Opinion entered on
March 11, 1996, the court emphasized the historical
importance of anonymous publication, [**15] and the
broad protection the First Amendment gives to the right
to publish anonymously. In granting the preliminary
injunction against the application of sections 3-8-5(f) and
3-8-12, the court relied on the United States Supreme
Court's holding in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n,
514 U.S. 334, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995)
McIntyre presented the question of whether an Ohio
statute which prohibited the distribution of anonymous
campaign literature was "a 'law . . . abridging the freedom
of speech' within the meaning of the First Amendment."
Id. at 1514. The McIntyre Court concluded that because
the Ohio statute restricted "core political speech," it was
subject to "exacting scrutiny" and must be narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Id. at 1519.
In McIntyre, the Court held that the Ohio statute,
which required that any writing tending to "influence" the
voters in any election contain the name of the writer,
violated the First Amendment. The Court concluded that
the State of Ohio's interest in preventing fraud or libel or
in providing voters with relevant information was not
sufficiently compelling so as to justify the broad
prohibition on anonymous handbills. [**16] Id. at 1520.
In the present case, defendants have not met their
burden of proving that the anonymity provisions of the
Campaign Finance Laws of West Virginia are narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Defendants
allege that West Virginia has a compelling interest in "the
avoidance of corruption in candidate elections." (Def.'s
Mem. in Response to Plf's Mot. for S. J. at 11.) However,
there has been no showing by defendants that the
avoidance of corruption is a compelling need, or that the
statute which the state enacted is narrowly tailored to
meet that need. Shrink Missouri Government PAC v.
Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246, 1255 (E.D. Mo. 1995). The
state has provided no evidence of such corruption, and
"while the court may agree that [corruption in candidate
Page 5
960 F. Supp. 1036, *1040; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21126, **12
elections] is distasteful, that is not a sufficient basis for
interfering with core first amendment rights." Id.
In addition, the West Virginia anonymity provisions,
like the Ohio statute invalidated in McIntyre, do not apply
only to fraudulent, false, or libelous statements. Id.
(quoting McIntyre, 115 S. Ct. at 1517.) Thus, the statute
is not narrowly tailored to apply only to misleading
[**17] or deceptive publications.
Nor are the statutory provisions narrowly tailored so
as to regulate only the anonymous publication of express
advocacy. As stated by this court in its earlier opinion,
the prohibition on anonymous voter guides does not
narrowly apply to candidates and their supporters, but
sweeps in the activities of independent groups and
individuals engaging in issue advocacy. In fact, defendant
Hechler admitted that sections 3-8-12 (a) and (b), as
written, do not apply only to express advocacy situations.
(Mem. in Resp. to Plf's Mot. for S. J. at 10). Moreover,
the provision in section 3-8-5(f) that any scorecard or
voter guide published within sixty days of an election
must include the name of the responsible party, is
essentially a presumption that any such voter guide or
scorecard is express advocacy and can be regulated. The
court explained earlier in its opinion why such a
provision is unconstitutionally overbroad.
[*1042] Finally, defendants argue that McIntyre
does not support a finding that the anonymity provisions
are unconstitutional, because the holding in McIntyre was
limited to an individual who wished to distribute
handbills relating to an issue referendum. [**18] The
court disagrees with defendants' narrow view of the
holding in McIntyre. The Supreme Court based its
holding on the First Amendment's protection of the right
to publish anonymous issue advocacy, stating that
"discussion of public issues and debate on the
qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation
of the system of government established by our
Constitution." Id. at 1518 (citing Buckley, 424 U.S. 1, 14
(1976)). The Court emphasized that it has always held
that "the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most
urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns
for political office." Id. at 1519 (citing Monitor Patriot
Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 28 L. Ed. 2d 35, 91 S. Ct.
621 (1971)) Thus, the McIntyre Court concluded that not
only does the First Amendment protect political speech
that "center[s] on a candidate for office," it also protects
speech directed at issue-based elections such as the tax
referendum that Ms. McIntyre wished to influence with
her handbills. Id. at 19. Finally, the Court emphasized
that Ms. McIntyre's speech - "handing out leaflets in the
advocacy of a politically controversial viewpoint - is the
essence of First Amendment expression." [**19] Id.
Thus, although Ms. McIntyre's factual situation involved
only a referendum vote, the Court certainly recognized
that issue advocacy relating to candidate elections is also
protected by the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the court finds that West Virginia has
not shown a compelling state interest to justify its
prohibitions on anonymous issue advocacy. West
Virginia Code §§ 3-8-5(f) and 3-8-12 are
unconstitutionally overbroad, and plaintiffs are entitled to
a permanent injunction.
IV. CONCLUSION
The burdens imposed on political speech by …
3-8-12 of the Campaign
Finances Act of West Virginia cannot withstand strict
scrutiny. Pursuant to the teachings of the United States
Supreme Court, these statutes violate the First
Amendment right to free speech.
Here are some additional cases supporting the right to anonymous free speech.
Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 4
ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), 2,4
ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), 4
ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) 4
ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) 4
American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182
(1999), 2,3,5,6
Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other
grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998),
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf.
Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999)
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975),
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
Griset v CalFPPC (1999), reversed on other grounds,
Gulf Coast Printers v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), dismissed
as moot.
Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind.
2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004),
McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),
Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993)
Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001)
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998)
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d
1422 (8th Cir. 1995),
Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960),
Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003)
Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000),
Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987),
Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
Yes to Life PAC v. Gardner,
# posted by gt @ 11:48 AM
This article is an ongoing story I am doing about the false arrest of a west virginia city councilman for anonymous political literature, which is free speech protected by the constitution.
Friday update: Was just interviewed by the Clarksburg Telegram-Exponent.
I went back to Clarksburg yesterday. I filed an amicus letter with the court.
The case has been reassigned to a new magistrate after Davis recused because he and Shaffer are friends. The prosecutor recused because he is Shaffer's nephew.
I gave the city's attorney a cease and desist letter.
I met with Shaffer. Great guy, useful meeting. He was just off the phone with one of IJ's lawyers. There's an increasing possibility IJ may end up as counsel, nothing definite on that. I'm touch with one of the other two defendants.
I went to a city council meeting; many of the major players in the case all in one room. I found a sign for one of the other councilmen which did not have a disclaimer; Shaffer will go get a picture of it.
I saw the plaque and statute for stonewall jackson's birthplace, got a $7 haircut at a barber shop that's been there since 1903, bought stuff at a white elephant sale for the fire department,and ate at Junebug's, my favorite Clarkburg hole-in-the-wall cafe.
Shaffer is jovial, gets around on a walker due to a broken leg, had a picture of him and Bill Clinton on his wall, had war stories involving Senator Byrd. He's no stranger to suing the government - he recovered half of 2 million his business lost, in a case that lasted 7 years, so he understands these things take time and commitment. I think he's the right plaintiff, and IJ would be the right counsel.
I think there's a good shot at striking down the West Virginia statute.
Still to do: I need to out my amicus letter and cease and desist letter online. -done see above.
Monday update:
Updated Monday, June 8, 2009 ; 06:48 PM
Story by Dani Brake
CLARKSBURG -- The Clarksbug police have issued more warrants in the city council newsletter investigation.
The police have already arrested councilman Martin Shaffer.
Now they've issued warrants for his sister Michelle Waugaman and her boyfriend, John Peterson.
The couple face charges of circulation of written matter and conspiracy, both misdemeanors.
The police say the couple lives in Cottonwood, Arizona and they will try to contact them about the investigation.
http://www.boomboxradio.net/boombox/PlayerSetup/Players/WBOYPlayer.aspx?FileId=185668_wboy
John Peterson
6/12/09 at 8:17 PM Report Abuse
I wish that you would stop referring to us as a COUPLE, I live in Arizona, and Michelle lives in West Virginia, beyond the logistics of it all, Michelle is just recently widowed and I have been happily married for 35 years. The newsletter was not written to change or effect the election, which it didn't, it was written to inform people of some of the facts that they should be aware of. There need to be more published.
- I found out Martin Shaffer has sued the city before, in an open records dispute last year. Also he's a property owner/business owner. So he'll probably have no trouble finding counsel to bring a case against the city for his false arrest, if he chooses to.
- Shaffer is a former member of the Democratic National Committee, says Political Graveyard.
Sunday update: Rick Hasen has linked to yesterday's Billy Wolfe article.
"Law targeting Shaffer may no longer be enforceable"
Following up on this post, Robbin Stewart sends along a link to this article, which begins: "The state law authorities cited in the June 1 arrest of Clarksburg City Councilman Martin Shaffer may not be enforceable, or even constitutional, the legal director of a national nonprofit organization said Thursday."
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:11 PM
Saturday update:
Bingo! Everything's changed now, with this story.
Law targeting Shaffer may no longer be enforceable
by Billy Wolfe STAFF WRITER
Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:21 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — The state law authorities cited in the June 1 arrest of Clarksburg City Councilman Martin Shaffer may not be enforceable, or even constitutional, the legal director of a national nonprofit organization said Thursday.
Edit Friday: Another Daily Kos story I missed on June 4. Watch for possible upcoming coverage by Eugene Volohk.
Edit thursday: Martin tells me there's an article in today's paper based on Reid's column, which I'll google for tomorrow. These are the cops who arrested Martin. Lt. Matheny, left. Right is Chief Goff. Goff is an important local name; there was a Goff who helped found West Virginia during the civil war.
Martin speaks in this newsclip.
>Here's an earlier article I missed: City Police launch probe into mailer.
Harrison County Prosecutor Joe Shaffer said he will need to research case law before he can determine if those who participated in mailing the document committed an offense.
“There is always a balance between the First Amendment and election laws,” he said.
Reid's article has been crossposted to Daily Kos. WVa newspapers online.
Edit Wednesday
Nice article at
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/prosecuting-anonymous-political-speech-thats-whats-criminal
Edit Tuesday:
The statute under which Shaffer was charged was found to be unconstitutional in West Virginians for Life v Smith, 919 F Supp 954 (SDWV 1996) and 960 F.Supp 1036 (SDWV 1996)! The statute is 3-8-12(a), not 3-12-12(a), newspaper had it wrong. I'm at the WV law school running off copies, already bought stamps. I have these cases in my files at home, but it's been awhile since I've looked through them - they are directly on point.
No, that's a slight overstatement:
In WV4Life v Smith, the only relief plaintiffs sought was a declaration that the statute be limited to express advocacy, so that's all the relief that was granted, although the opinion explains why the statute is unconstitutional under McIntyre.
The statute appears to have been amended in light of the Right to Life case.
Probably also violates state constitution, Woodruff v Board of Trustees 319 SE2d 372 (1984)(distributing literature protected under W Va constitution, does not address anonymity.)
A Clarksburg West Virgina city councilman Martin Shaffer has been jailed arrested for being involved in an anonymous flyer. He was defeated for re-election several days later, yesterday.
I'm finding a few stories on it now.
Thursday update: I'm in Clarksburg now, I'll see if I can get in any interviews before they roll up the sidewalks. I found the text of the flier online, thanks to T. David Franklin. http://picasaweb.google.com/MyCityServices/ClarksburgWVNewsletter#
Found Youtube video of the press conferencee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckk1gDFoUbk
http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60163
http://www.wdtv.com/news/local/46775732.html
No, I'm mistaken, he apparently wasn't up for re-election.
The four people elected into City Council Tuesday night include incumbents Patsy S. Trecost II with 863 votes, Jim Hunt with 843 votes, Sam "Zeke" Lopez with 758 votes, and newcomer Mary Mayer with 773 votes.
Not being elected in Council were "Charlie Thayer" with 722 votes, Tim Gentilozzi with 673 votes, incumbent B. K. Vanhorn with 655 votes, F. Lee West with 434 votes, Paul J. DuPont with 400 votes, Ugo Annibale with 345 votes, and Jim Price with 318 votes.
http://www.wdtv.com/news/46679872.html
The Clarksburg Police and the General Council of the Secretary of State's Office decided to make the arrest late Monday afternoon. Shaffer was arraigned and released on a personal recognizance bond.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=59772
CLARKSBURG -- Clarksburg City Manager Martin Howe held a news conference, Tuesday, to announce that the city has launched an investigation into who distributed a controversial newsletter, over the weekend.Howe has asked the police department, the FBI, U.S. Postal inspectors, the Harrison County Prosecutor's Office, and the Secretary of State's Office, to look into the matter.
The city plans to prosecute whoever is responsible for newsletter, Howe says.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60163
The significance of the story is not that the arrest came the day before the election, but that it was a false arrest under an unconstitutional statute.
Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio hold that anonymous flyers are constitutionally protected free speech.
story developing. welcome electionlawblog.org readers.
story swiped from local paper behind registration wall:
(reprint request pending)
Councilman Martin Shaffer charged with two misdemeanors
by Billy Wolfe and Matt Harvey
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 6:34 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — Clarksburg City Councilman Martin Shaffer was charged with two misdemeanors — circulation of anonymous written matter and conspiracy — Monday night.
The complaint, filed by Clarksburg Police Lt. Robert Matheny, alleges Shaffer “did knowingly cause to be published and circulated an anonymous ‘newsletter’ that was for the purpose to aid the defeat of clearly identified candidates in the June 2nd, 2009, Clarksburg Municipal Election.” (the rest of the article redacted at request of copyright holder)
==
My letter to the editor of the local paper:
Full Name:Robbin Stewart
Comments: Councilman Shaffer is innocent of the charges against him, and those who charged him may be guilty of violating his federal civil rights,and should be investigated. The landmark civil rights case Talley v California !960) held that anonymous fliers are protected by the First Amendment's right to privacy.
The West Virginia constitution also protects political speech of this type. The statute under which he was charged is unconstitutional and void. His right to help with a flier is the same right that protects this newspaper - freedom of the press. As Americans,and as journalists, we should stand up for Mr. Shaffer.
==
I'm in the neighborhood with time to kill, so I might run down there tomorrow and see what I can dig up.
==
odd coincidence
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306
==
Thursday PM notes. I met with the city manager, Martin Howe, his secretary, the City Clerk, and the police lieutenant in charge of the investigation.
Officially, they have no comment because there is an ongoing investigation.
Unofficially, we talked, and I put them on notice they can't be doing what they are doing.
The magistrate's clerk was closing when I found it, so I haven't seen the file, and the police report isn't in yet because they are focused on a mass murder that happened recently, so I'll be requesting it next week. They said this is the first time anyone from the press has ever asked for a police report, so they will review their procedures. The court's janitor gave me a donut,and I had dinner in a fun hole-in-the-wall on Main Street. I've eaten a lot today because I keep ducking into cafes to jump on wifi - I'm writing this from the Blue Moose in Morgantown.
I didn't find the defendant yet. I have enough new information to have stuff to do next week writing it up, if I end up getting more involved in this.
I have drafted, not yet mailed, a cease and desist notice and an amicus curiae letter to the court.
Robbin Stewart gtbear at gmail com.
note naacp Clarksburg Branch
Phone: (304)363-6353
Address: 916 West Pike Street # 910, Clarksburg, WV 26301
magistrate warren gizzy davis 306 Washington Ave
Clarksburg, WV 26301
(304) 624-8544
Chapter 3 Article 12 subsection 12a of the West Virginia code states "No person may publish, issue or circulate, or cause to be published, issued or circulated, any anonymous letter, circular, placard, radio or television advertisement or other publication supporting or aiding the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate."
===
[it] is doubtful that the provisions of the
challenged statute prohibiting anonymous advocacy can
survive constitutional muster. In the recent case of
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, U.S. , 115 S. Ct.
1511 (1995), the Supreme Court retraced the history of
anonymous publications and fo[und that such publications
have played an important role in the progress of mankind.
The decision to publish anonymously, the Court
concluded, like other decisions concerning omissions
[**16] or additions to content of a publication, is an
aspect of freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment. Id. at 1516.
There are at least two sound policy reasons for
protecting the right of anonymous publication. First, the
decision to publish anonymously may be motivated by
fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about
social ostracism, or merely by desire to preserve as much
of one's privacy as possible. Id. Second, anonymity
enables a writer who is personally unpopular to ensure
that readers will not prejudge the writer's message simply
because they do not like its proponent. Id. at 1517.
The historical role played by anonymous publication,
and its importance to the development of free institutions,
was traced by Justice Black in Talley v. California, 362
U.S. 60, 64-65, 4 L. Ed. 2d 559, 80 S. Ct. 536 (1960).
Justice Black concluded: "Anonymous pamphlets,
leaflets, brochures and even books have played an
important role in the progress of mankind. . . . Even the
Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our
Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is
plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the
most constructive [**17] purposes." Id. In McIntyre, the
Supreme Court struck down, as overbroad, an Ohio
statute which required that any writing intending to
"influence" the voters in any election contain the name of
[*960] the writer. The Supreme Court reasoned that the
Ohio statute applied, not only to candidates and their
supporters, but to individuals acting independently.
McIntyre, 115 S. Ct. at 1521. Similarly, the prohibition
on anonymous voter guides at issue in this case does not
narrowly apply to candidates and their supporters, but
Page 5
919 F. Supp. 954, *958; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4763, **13
sweeps in the activities of independent groups and
individuals engaging in issue advocacy. Based, in part, on
the holding in McIntyre, the court concludes that, when it
applies exacting scrutiny to the West Virginia ban on
anonymous voter guides, there is a strong likelihood that
plaintiffs will succeed on the merits.
The importance and value [**18] of freedom of
speech in a democratic society have been amply
discussed above and need not be reiterated here.
Protection of these values is of critical public interest.
919 F. Supp. 954, *960; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4763, **17
LEXSEE 960 F. SUPP. 1036
WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INC., et al, v. CHARLES R. SMITH,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
WEST VIRGINIA, BLUEFIELD DIVISION
960 F. Supp. 1036; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21126
August 29, 1996
COUNSEL: For WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INC.,: William C. Porth,
ROBINSON & MCELWEE, Charleston, WV. James
Bopp, Jr., John K. Abegg,
CHARLES R. SMITH,e
OPINION BY: David A. Faber
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "WVFL") filed
this civil action on January 30, 1996, seeking declaratory
[**2] and injunctive relief arising under the Constitution
of the United States of America….
Plaintiff next contends that the prohibition of
anonymous issue advocacy in West Virginia Code §
… § 3-8-12 [is] unconstitutional. Section 3-8-12 prohibits the
publication, issuance or circulation of any anonymous
letter, circular, or other publication tending to influence
voting at any election.
In this court's Memorandum Opinion entered on
March 11, 1996, the court emphasized the historical
importance of anonymous publication, [**15] and the
broad protection the First Amendment gives to the right
to publish anonymously. In granting the preliminary
injunction against the application of sections 3-8-5(f) and
3-8-12, the court relied on the United States Supreme
Court's holding in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n,
514 U.S. 334, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995)
McIntyre presented the question of whether an Ohio
statute which prohibited the distribution of anonymous
campaign literature was "a 'law . . . abridging the freedom
of speech' within the meaning of the First Amendment."
Id. at 1514. The McIntyre Court concluded that because
the Ohio statute restricted "core political speech," it was
subject to "exacting scrutiny" and must be narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Id. at 1519.
In McIntyre, the Court held that the Ohio statute,
which required that any writing tending to "influence" the
voters in any election contain the name of the writer,
violated the First Amendment. The Court concluded that
the State of Ohio's interest in preventing fraud or libel or
in providing voters with relevant information was not
sufficiently compelling so as to justify the broad
prohibition on anonymous handbills. [**16] Id. at 1520.
In the present case, defendants have not met their
burden of proving that the anonymity provisions of the
Campaign Finance Laws of West Virginia are narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Defendants
allege that West Virginia has a compelling interest in "the
avoidance of corruption in candidate elections." (Def.'s
Mem. in Response to Plf's Mot. for S. J. at 11.) However,
there has been no showing by defendants that the
avoidance of corruption is a compelling need, or that the
statute which the state enacted is narrowly tailored to
meet that need. Shrink Missouri Government PAC v.
Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246, 1255 (E.D. Mo. 1995). The
state has provided no evidence of such corruption, and
"while the court may agree that [corruption in candidate
Page 5
960 F. Supp. 1036, *1040; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21126, **12
elections] is distasteful, that is not a sufficient basis for
interfering with core first amendment rights." Id.
In addition, the West Virginia anonymity provisions,
like the Ohio statute invalidated in McIntyre, do not apply
only to fraudulent, false, or libelous statements. Id.
(quoting McIntyre, 115 S. Ct. at 1517.) Thus, the statute
is not narrowly tailored to apply only to misleading
[**17] or deceptive publications.
Nor are the statutory provisions narrowly tailored so
as to regulate only the anonymous publication of express
advocacy. As stated by this court in its earlier opinion,
the prohibition on anonymous voter guides does not
narrowly apply to candidates and their supporters, but
sweeps in the activities of independent groups and
individuals engaging in issue advocacy. In fact, defendant
Hechler admitted that sections 3-8-12 (a) and (b), as
written, do not apply only to express advocacy situations.
(Mem. in Resp. to Plf's Mot. for S. J. at 10). Moreover,
the provision in section 3-8-5(f) that any scorecard or
voter guide published within sixty days of an election
must include the name of the responsible party, is
essentially a presumption that any such voter guide or
scorecard is express advocacy and can be regulated. The
court explained earlier in its opinion why such a
provision is unconstitutionally overbroad.
[*1042] Finally, defendants argue that McIntyre
does not support a finding that the anonymity provisions
are unconstitutional, because the holding in McIntyre was
limited to an individual who wished to distribute
handbills relating to an issue referendum. [**18] The
court disagrees with defendants' narrow view of the
holding in McIntyre. The Supreme Court based its
holding on the First Amendment's protection of the right
to publish anonymous issue advocacy, stating that
"discussion of public issues and debate on the
qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation
of the system of government established by our
Constitution." Id. at 1518 (citing Buckley, 424 U.S. 1, 14
(1976)). The Court emphasized that it has always held
that "the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most
urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns
for political office." Id. at 1519 (citing Monitor Patriot
Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 28 L. Ed. 2d 35, 91 S. Ct.
621 (1971)) Thus, the McIntyre Court concluded that not
only does the First Amendment protect political speech
that "center[s] on a candidate for office," it also protects
speech directed at issue-based elections such as the tax
referendum that Ms. McIntyre wished to influence with
her handbills. Id. at 19. Finally, the Court emphasized
that Ms. McIntyre's speech - "handing out leaflets in the
advocacy of a politically controversial viewpoint - is the
essence of First Amendment expression." [**19] Id.
Thus, although Ms. McIntyre's factual situation involved
only a referendum vote, the Court certainly recognized
that issue advocacy relating to candidate elections is also
protected by the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the court finds that West Virginia has
not shown a compelling state interest to justify its
prohibitions on anonymous issue advocacy. West
Virginia Code §§ 3-8-5(f) and 3-8-12 are
unconstitutionally overbroad, and plaintiffs are entitled to
a permanent injunction.
IV. CONCLUSION
The burdens imposed on political speech by …
3-8-12 of the Campaign
Finances Act of West Virginia cannot withstand strict
scrutiny. Pursuant to the teachings of the United States
Supreme Court, these statutes violate the First
Amendment right to free speech.
Here are some additional cases supporting the right to anonymous free speech.
Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 4
ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), 2,4
ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), 4
ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) 4
ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) 4
American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182
(1999), 2,3,5,6
Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other
grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998),
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf.
Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999)
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975),
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
Griset v CalFPPC (1999), reversed on other grounds,
Gulf Coast Printers v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), dismissed
as moot.
Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind.
2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004),
McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),
Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993)
Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001)
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998)
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d
1422 (8th Cir. 1995),
Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960),
Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003)
Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000),
Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987),
Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
Yes to Life PAC v. Gardner,
# posted by gt @ 11:48 AM
Hello World
Hello World.
This blog is a spinoff from my election law blog at http://ballots.blogspot.com and this post.
It concerns the case of State of West Virgina versus Martin Shaffer.
More to come soon.
This blog is a spinoff from my election law blog at http://ballots.blogspot.com and this post.
It concerns the case of State of West Virgina versus Martin Shaffer.
More to come soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)