Prop 8 campaign seeks to shield internal memos

[WillParkinson]

Source: The Associated Press

Prop 8 campaign seeks to shield internal memos
By The Associated Press
09.28.2009 11:00am EDT

(San Francisco) A federal judge is considering whether to order the sponsors of California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban to produce their internal campaign records to lawyers now suing to overturn the law.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco heard arguments Friday from lawyers seeking the information, including strategy memos and e-mails between top campaign officials.

The attorneys are challenging Proposition 8, saying it denies equality to gay couples in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Arguing for the Proposition 8 campaign, lawyer Charles Cooper says the discussions were meant to be private. He says making them public would violate free speech rights and possibly subject Proposition 8’s supporters to harassment.

The judge is expected to rule on the issue this week.


Read more: http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-campaign-seeks-to-shield-internal-memos/

[Turbineguy]

1. "...subject Proposition 8’s supporters to harassment..."

Please do not harass these assholes. That would not be nice.

[mbperrin]

2. So right. The best thing to do would be to email them and let them know

you're reading theirs with a friendly eye and unfeigned interest.

Email them every few minutes as you finish each of theirs. Keep a friendly tone.

DO NOT harass these folks, because that would be wrong, wrong, wrong!

Yours in multiplicity.

[onehandle]

38. The Obama Administration wants the names to add to the list.

The list of those who will be rounded up when the time comes.

[ooglymoogly]

3. Just rec'd this and the recs came to 0

Sneaky lurking freepers

[EFerrari]

4. There's a rec for the thread. n/t

[kenfrequed]

39. all too common

fortunately whatever skulking freepers lurk they appear to have been completely cancelled out this time.

[Mari333]

5. knr release the memos!

if they arent proud of what they have done why would they be afraid to stand up and show the world? cowards.

[Hepburn]

6. "It was meant to be private...."

And THAT is a legal argument against discovery? And it violates FREE SPEECH????? Hello? Where the hell did this asshole get his law degree??? Free speech is about SAYING THINGS ~~ not about the right to NOT say things!

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

9. It's the Dick Cheney argument

Advisers may not give unfettered advice if they think their words will be public. Bunch crap.

[Hepburn]

12. Exactly....

....they could not counsel public officials to break the law if ~~ gawd forbid ~~ what they did might become public. That sure is Darth Cheney logic!

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

21. A "private" attack on a a vulnerable population of Americans -- !!!

[fascisthunter]

7. makes me want to see the memos more

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Releasing those memos would undermine their replication efforts in other states like Maine.

I hope the justice agrees with the arguments by the lawyers challenging Prop 8. It'd be great to have them public in the next few weeks.

[Tempest]

10. Can someone answer me a question?

On what grounds are the lawyers suing to overturn the law? What's in the lawsuit?

Knowing that would help me understand why they want the campaign records.

Thanks.

[MiniMe]

23. My guess is that is religious 501c3's who are behind it

Like churches. Churches aren't allowed to lobby for things like this, it would threaten their tax exempt status. Oh noes.

[Tempest]

30. That wouldn't nulify the law

Which is what the lawsuit is attempting to do.

[MiniMe]

36. No, it wouldn't. But it would point out that these groups broke the law.

Since it would be illegal for them to promote a political position like that, and to lobby for it. I want to know who was behind it, don't you? And if it is somebody out of state.

[aranthus]

42. I believe that the main challenge is that it violates the Equal Protection Clause

of the 14th Amendment. It states that no state may, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There may be other arguments that are raised in the suit.

[ck4829]

11. "the discussions were meant to be private" means they called people against it "sodomites" and more

Bet on it.

[k agathon]

13. Playing with fire.

The people trying to overturn Proposition 8 are playing with fire where the internal documents are concerned. It would set a bad legal precedence to allow parties challenging a state law to obtain the internal documents of a political organization or activist outside of a civil or criminal complaint being filed against them.

If this goes forward, it lays the ground work for every political organization in the country to fish for records of political adversaries when challenging laws, regulations, or ballot measures.

There is no legal case either civil or criminal being pursued against the groups that support Prop. 8 and there are no allegations of illegal or criminal activity. This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

[boppers]

14. Here's the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger

...and it does look a tad like fishing, but I'm thinking the argument is that the proponents of Prop 8 suspect the documents might have mentioned an intent to deprive someone of their civil rights, or might have discussed the Constitutionality of Prop 8.

[liberation]

15. LOL, your name phonetically in Spanish means "he who sh*ts a lot"

Didn't you guys were all about "if you libs don't have anything to hide..." until a few months ago? You became mighty "concerned" all of the sudden, eh?

[ck4829]

19. You could have just said that "No! They didn't call gay people names!"

Do you think they did?

And by the way, there is something that might indeed be a civil case, and that was the allegation that the Mormon Church was campaigning for Prop 8, an organized religious body can only go so far when it comes to pushing a candidate or an issue. We do have separation of Church and State after all.

[hypocrisyandlies]

20. That was exactly my first thought, too.

Seeing those emails would prove to everyone that the REAL reason for Prop 8 was that people are hateful.

[k agathon]

27. which would mean nothing to the courts

Even if that were true it wouldn't effect the constitutionality or legality of the proposition. It would only reveal some staffers to be assholes BFD.

[ck4829]

28. Have you filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the Prop 8 folks yet?

Why are you on DU telling us about this? This is actually happening in a court room somewhere in California, we don't get to make the decision as to whether they release their records or not, the court does.

[LadyHawkAZ]

34. It might

If those memos said, for example, "You guys do realize they're going to win on constitutionality, since it IS unconstitutional, so your only hope is mass emotional appeal? We can't stop the -insert slur here- from marrying, but if you can build the hysteria and keep it there, we have a better chance of delaying it."

If the case is being argued on constitutional grounds, an admission like that might actually make a difference.

[dmr]

16. When laws are affected, I'd like to know who (& their money) is behind it

It's not just Prop 8, it's anything in anywhere in this country.

I want to know who, what, why and how much!

Citizens have the right to know - and it should be known before a vote is even cast

.

[Stumbler]

17. Exactly

God-forbid we might 'discover' that millions of dollars of contributions to support Prop 8 might've come from a neighboring state, or even *gasp* a religious organization that's now seeking to keep it's tax-exempt status.

[k agathon]

25. they aren't asking for campaign finance reports

they are attempting to gain access to the campaign internal email, documents, and any correspondence. There is a significant difference, campaign finance rules require regular report be filled with the state. If you want to know who gave and so one go to the http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/ site and look.

[JDPriestly]

31. They may be seeking documents that would show that the campaign

was funded by groups or individuals (perhaps from outside the U.S.) who were not named on the reports -- that the reports were fraudulent. Could that information be used for impeachment purposes?

This is a discrimination lawsuit. But impeachment evidence can be used to undermine witnesses and might be very effective with people who like to present themselves as God's emissaries on earth.

[aranthus]

18. The discovery should be denied because it won't lead to admissible evidence.

The case is against the State of California, not the political campaign behind Prop 8. This isn't a law where the court would look to the legislative intent to determine what it means. What the Prop. 8 Campaign thought it was doing is completely irrelevant to whether the Proposition is Constitutional or not. It's a question of what the law itself says, and how it's interpreted. Umpires don't ask the pitcher if he intended to throw a strike or not. The umpire calls it. The law means what the text says, and what the judge interprets. Discovery should not be allowed unless it can be shown to be likely to lead to evidence that could be admitted in court. Nothing in the memos could ever be admissible.

Arguably, the discovery should actually have to meet the directly relevant standard for privacy protected material. Obviously, the politico's want the memos protected under the heightened standards for things like financial information and trade secret. The court should agree with them, as prying open campaign strategy documents could easily have a chilling effect on political speech. So unless the memos are so material that they have to come in at trial, the plaintiffs shouldn't get to see them.

[boppers]

24. So, if the KKK was working with a front political group, which denied miscegnation...

The front political group should be protected from disclosing the origins of the constitutional measure, because the *group* itself is not being sued?

Can you think of other scenarios where such disclosure might matter?

Zoning laws, where landowners and developers are "hidden", along with their communications?
EPA regulations?
Education provisions?

What stinks to me about this is that a governance change could *bypass* FOIA, and be used by totally corrupt and dangerous elements of society, and claim that "it's private citizens".

Put in other words, this is about (in internet terms) sock-puppeting government.

[k agathon]

26. think about what you posted

Yes, if you don't like it bring a suit that has merit before the court.

Private organizations are not effected by Freedom of Information Act because they are not part of government. So unless you are claiming that the Pro Prop 8 groups are somehow funded or supported financially by some state of federal government or government funded agency, and have proof to back up the claim. Then FOIA doesn't apply.

As for corrupt elements of society, claiming to be private citizens. The courts don't care what you think of your opponents (for the most part)they usually dismiss it as hyperbole. Trust me on the hyperbole point, been that route, and judges don't give shit.

[JDPriestly]

33. Discovery may be used to obtain impeachment evidence. And it is

admissible. That may be what this is about.

There also may be some evidence about the decisions made about how to word the proposition so as to make it as discriminatory as possible.

[aranthus]

41. Impeachment evidence can be obtained in discovery only if

it relates to actual relevant testimony. This isn't a case about whether the election was fraudulent or whether there was corruption in obtaining signatures for the Proposition. It's about what the law as passed means. Does it violate the Equal Protection Clause? That's an issue of what the text of the statute says, and how it is interpreted. The court can't consider the opinion of the Prop. 8 backers for that issue, so their testimony is irrelevant. If they can't testify, then they can't be impeached, and the evidence isn't admissible.

[JDPriestly]

32. Witness impeachment anyone?

Impeachment evidence is discoverable. This is a discrimination case. Prop. 8 discriminates. The people who brought Prop. 8 brought it in order to discriminate. Should their testimony about anything be trusted? Not if they created an elaborate lie about who they really were.

[aranthus]

40. The testimony of the Prop 8 backers should not be admissible.

What would they say? "The law doesn't discriminate." "We never intended to discriminate." None of that matters. It would amount to an opinion on what the law means, and that infringes on the authority of the court. So the evidence requested in discovery shouldn't be available for impeachment.

This is not a discrimination case. It's a case based on unequal teatment by the law. It's the text of the law that's relevant, not the campaign workers' strategy for winning the election.

[JDPriestly]

43. Is this going to be simply a decision by the judge with no testimony from witnesses?

I can't see the point in expert witnesses. Where are they going with this? I thought the other side was going to be the sponsors of Prop. 8 because Schwarzenegger did not want to get involved. If the defendants are the Prop. 8 sponsors, then they can be called as witnesses, can't they?

[earcandle]

22. I'm rooting for the overturn of Prop 8

[beyurslf]

29. If you don't want to be harrassed for your hateful speech

then don't put it in an email idiot.

[beac]

35. "possibly subject Proposition 8’s supporters to harassment"

Well, boo frickin' hoo.

I love how these people think it's their RIGHT to discriminate against others, but don't want to suffer any consequences from their bigotry. Pathetic.

[Kajsa]

37. Release the memos.

K&R

:kick: