Comments on: Mission Viejo petition gathering residency requirement Unconstitutional

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:06:09 +0000

Where is Connie???
I didn’t realize that it was my assignment to monitor her daily routine.

While not related to this post I just returned from covering an event on behalf of Art with gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner.

My point in mentioning this is that there are other stories to cover that do require my leaving this keyboard, especially as Jon Fleischman was also there and I would not want anyone to claim that I was plagiarizing material from his web site.

By: Trailing-the-enemy

Trailing-the-enemy — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:47:08 +0000

To address the issues–the court has decided the issue. It is now a NON issue.

Well–well–well Dan is BLOCKED. It is too bad since I wanted to know about his SDS days.

By: Where is Connie

Where is Connie — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:37:18 +0000

Larry, if Connie Lee is so legally perfect, then where is she to defend herself? She has disappeared. The DA is investigating because she paid people illegally to get signatures. She admitted that she paid people cash under the table to avoid employment laws. What say you Larry?

By: Art Pedroza

Art Pedroza — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:48:07 +0000

Victoria,

I must call B.S. on that. I blocked two people. Your husband Dan and someone calling herself Miss Havisham. I blocked them both for the same reason. They insist on coming here and threatening us. Dan also emailed several threats to me.

If you want to come on here and post civilly, as you just did, that is fine. But come on here and make threats and you are out of here!

By: Victoria Avery

Victoria Avery — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:32:40 +0000

Larry, I personally know that at least 2 different people have tried to respond to this. It would seem that you are blocking them all. Is that in keeping with the Rotary 4 way test? (which you claimed elsewhere on this blog that you adhered to) Let’s see what they have to say.

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:18:00 +0000

Legal Hawk.
I did address the late filing for which the FPPC may impose a fine. Have you heard back from them? I haven’t!

By: Rogue Elephant

Rogue Elephant — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:17:50 +0000

I am an attorney and this is a straight forward question.

The legal standard announced in Shorecliff turns on the burden to free speech, not on whether the issue was initiative, referendum, or recall. The court relied on more than cases than Buckley, including:

Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (7th Cir.2000) (residency requirement in candidate nominating papers was unconstitutional)
Lerman v. Board of Elections in the City of New York, 232 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.2000) (residency requirement for witness to candidate nominating papers was unconstitutional)
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 199 Ariz. 30, 13 P.3d 772 (Ct.App.Ariz.2000) (political subdivision restrictions on circulators was unconstitutional)

Residency requirements involve limitations on political expression. Such limitations are subject to exacting scrutiny. (Meyer v. Grant, 485 U.S. 414 (1988)). Residency requirements like those in question can’t be justified where less restrictive means are available. State residency requirements are sufficient to safeguard the state’s interest.

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:02:05 +0000

Legal Hawk.
In my humble opinion of the law the First Amendment cannot be trumped solely because its a different form of election

By: Larry Gilbert

Larry Gilbert — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:58:28 +0000

Legal Hawk.
A late filing or failure to include addresses, while a requirement of the official document package, is not the federal crime that you are trying to create.
How long has it been since you contacted the FPPC?
What’s taking so long? Do you have any breaking news from the FPPC that needs coverage?
You are blowing smoke.
In my view a worst case scenario will be a fine of $100 if in fact it even happens. I filed against Susan and Sherri several years ago and all they had to do regarding an in-kind donation was to amend their returns. As such I have had personal dealings with the FPPC on a campaign document issue.

By: Rogue Elephant

Rogue Elephant — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:23:03 +0000

Legal Hawk argues a difference without a distinction.

By: Rogue Elephant

Rogue Elephant — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:20:24 +0000

Larry is exactly right.

Municipal atatutes creating city residency requirement for circulators of municipal referendum petitions and initiative petitions are unconstitutional. (Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente, 158 Cal.App.4th 1427 (2008)).

The court held that statutes creating city residency requirement for circulators of municipal referendum petitions and initiative petitions unconstitutionally decrease the potential pool of circulators, in violation of the First Amendment free speech guarantees.

The court reasoned that the state’s “dominant” interest (making sure the circulators complied with the law) could readily be served by a lesser restriction of having state residency, so that circulators would be within the state’s “subpoena service” powers.

By: Legal Hawk

Legal Hawk — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:41:54 +0000

Larry you are legally wrong and ducking other important points,

The case law you cite does not reference recalls. Recall election statutes are specific and have not been legally challenged.

And you ignore:
Connie lee admitting she paid gatherers under the table to avoid election laws

That recall treasurer Dale Tyler submitted campaign reports 6 weeks late, triggering an FPPC investigation. That he conveniently left out ALL out of city signature gatherers initially. Why?

There is more here than just the signatures and you know it.