North Carolina lawmakers try to quash subpoenas that seek details about voter ID law
Source: Charlotte Observer
North Carolina legislative leaders who led the crafting of the states new voter ID law have been very open about their support of the measure and other elections changes.
But voters and organizations challenging the wide-ranging amendments contend that those same lawmakers are being far too private about email and other correspondence they exchanged while transforming the states voting process.
.......
In federal court filings this month, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Justice Department and others who are suing the governor, state legislators and North Carolina election board members sought a court order for email and other correspondence.
.......
In court documents filed this week, the Republican officials argue that they are protected by legislative immunity and should be free from arrest or civil process for what they do in legislative proceedings. The leaders also argue that legislative immunity frees legislators not only from the consequences of litigation, it also frees them from the burden of defending themselves.
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/25/4638426/nc-lawmakers-try-to-quash-subpoenas.html#.UuQFZhq-lI8
leftieNanner
(15,087 posts)Well then, I think I should have Mom Immunity if I am driving my kids to soccer practice and I get a ticket... or Gluten Free Baker's Immunity if I am making rocky road brownies and drop an egg on the kitchen floor.... or...
Let's hope there's a federal judge in North Carolina that will correct their thinking.
Thanks for the info.
shraby
(21,946 posts)paid out of public funds, and what and how they do something is subject to public scrutiny.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)will have a real fight on our hands in November.
TeamPooka
(24,225 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Another one that will go to the Supremes ...and take time and money getting there. Meanwhile the 2014 Election Mid-Terms loom.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)I'd like to see TV ads, radio spots, and newspaper commercials asking the state GOPers to explain what they're afraid of. And then come right out and explain to the voters why these officials don't want those emails made public. Sure, the right wing voters won't be swayed, but they don't matter. But start explaining to middle of the road voters how the GOPers are rigging elections and I think a good many of them will be smart enough to see through the BS.
Triana
(22,666 posts)tom_kelly
(959 posts)WRH2
(87 posts)WE need to get representation by civilians with lawmakers. An extension of the equal time principle. I think everything ALEC, should be struck down as criminal conspiracy.
1% stealing the middle class.
TORA,TORA, Tora
meow2u3
(24,761 posts)Gothmog
(145,198 posts)This privilege is weak or qualified. Greg Abbott raised this issue in both the voter id and redistricting cases. The courts have ruled that this is a weak privilege
drm604
(16,230 posts)struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)weissmam
(905 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The RethugliCon ALEC fueled way.
Shameful obstructionism. They are so arrogant they think it's a logical argument.
Gothmog
(145,198 posts)The concept of legislative privilege or immunity is being litigated in the Texas redistricting case. The court has ruled that this privilege is a limited privilege http://txredistricting.org/post/72807460720/court-in-texas-redistricting-case-denies-state-of
The privilege must be strictly construed and accepted only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth.
Here is a link to the actual opinion https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gYVNzQzVZclJYS3M/edit?pli=1 The law in this area seems to be clear that there is no absolute privilege or immunity.
Gothmog
(145,198 posts)Today the DOJ filed a motion seeking the production of the communications between members of the Texas legislature as to the real reasons for the adoption of SB 14. http://txredistricting.org/post/76368794502/doj-asks-court-in-voter-id-case-to-compel-texas-to
Lawyers for the Justice Department filed a motion with Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos this afternoon asking her to compel the State of Texas to turnover documents in the Texas voter ID case that DOJ said the state was improperly withholding.
The filing said that the documents being withheld by the state on grounds of privilege were necessary to ascertain the Texas legislatures motivation for enacting SB 14 and included communications concerning SB 14 and prior photographic voter identification proposals amongst Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, Senator Troy Fraser (Senate sponsor of SB 14), Representative Patricia Harless (House sponsor of SB 14), and their top aides.
DOJ said it had been told by lawyers for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott that the state was not willing to conduct a search for documents unless each legislator expressly declined to assert a state legislative privilege.
However, DOJ took issue with the states assertion of a broad legislative privilege, telling the court that:Defendants assertion of a state legislative privilege is inappropriate because the important federal interest in prohibiting intentional discrimination in voting and the uniquely probative nature of the withheld documents must overcome a privilege claim based merely on theoretical interference in state lawmaking.
The motion said that even if the court were to find that a state legislative privilege existed under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the balancing test used by the courts - including the three-judge panel in the Texas redistricting case in San Antonio - warranted turnover of the documents:When debating SB 14, key proponents did not speak to specific provisions included in or excluded from the bill or the unusual procedures used to enact the legislation and instead limited their public testimony to coordinated talking points. The documents and ESI [electronically stored information] being sought in discovery here would allow the Court to determine the credibility of legislative sponsors who refused to respond in public to questions posed by minority legislators. When Senator Royce West, a black state senator, asked Senator Troy Fraser whether SB 14 would disproportionately affect African Americans and Hispanics, Senator Fraser merely replied, Im not advised. When Representative Rafael Anchía, an Hispanic state representative, asked Representative Patricia Harless whether she was aware of any studies conducted by a state agency to project the number of voters that lack the required identification and what percentage of those voters are African American or Hispanic, she similarly responded, No. Not advised.
There is [ ] no alternative source for evidence of the contemporaneous and candid discussions of key legislative actors and their staff [T]he public statements of legislative sponsors reflect repetitive, almost verbatim adherence to talking points and a refusal to engage publicly with the concerns of minority legislators.
The State of Texas, and specifically the Texas Legislature, plays a central role in this litigation. As a result, [State] Defendants have named legislators and their staff as prospective witnesses. When combined with the assertion of a state legislative privilege, this creates the potential for the improper use of a privilege as both a sword and a shield.
The motion also said the state was confusing legislative privilege with legislative immunity:The States position glosses over the critical distinction between legislative immunity and recognition of a state legislative privilege. Legislative immunity protects legislators against personal liability for their legitimate legislative activity. By contrast, this is a case brought by the United States in which no personal liability is at stake, and individuals who are immune from suit may nonetheless be compelled to testify in a related case.
DOJ also challenged the states assertion of an attorney-client privilege:Defendants have withheld communications between multiple offices without establishing that an attorney employed by one legislator or official maintains an attorney-client privilege with a legislator who is not his or her employer.
Defendants have also invoked the attorney-client privilege to withhold hundreds of pages of communications between individual legislators or legislative aides and attorneys for the Texas Legislative Council (TLC). Attorneys for the TLC, however, cannot maintain an attorney-client relationship with every one of the individual members of the Texas legislature. The TLC is a state legislative agency, and its statutory mandate does not authorize the provision of legal advice or the formation of an individual attorney-client relationship.
DOJ also said that a large number of the withheld documents seemed to concern policy or political rather than legal advice.
Here is a link to the actual brief filed by the DOJ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gNlJmdjkzS1NRdEE/edit?pli=1 This is a well written brief and this will be key issue. The DOJ will no doubt make a similar filing in the North Carolina litigation.
Red Mountain
(1,733 posts).....you shouldn't fear their oversight.