Avoiding impertinent, abusive and irrelevant questions about ballot issues was the right thing to do.
By Seth Richardson
Douglas Bruce, the implacable and much-hated foe of liberal Progressive tax-and-spend big government ideologues everywhere tried hard to avoid being dragged into court to answer impertinent and irrelevant questions about who was behind the now-defeated Amendments 60, 61 and 101. It was a valiant effort that ultimately failed just weeks before the election, when his attackers, Coloradans for Responsible Reform, in the corpus of their attorney Mark Grueskin, succeeded in linking him to the ballot issues in the press.
Bruce insisted that his involvement in the ballot issues was a matter of First Amendment free speech not subject to Colorado’s campaign finance laws, and that his opponents were attempting to drag the issue into court on a fishing expedition deliberately intended to manipulate the vote by impugning the ballot issues by linking them to Mr. Bruce in a blatant personal attack. Bruce was precisely correct in this characterization of the successful witch-hunt by Grueskin & Company.
Now, Democrat Rep. Beth McCann of Denver is proposing amendments to the campaign finance laws to make it more difficult to avoid such fishing expeditions. Quoted in the Denver Post on Friday, December 10, McCann said, “It’s from the charade that went on last year with Doug Bruce avoiding service and making it very difficult for the case that was brought to determine who was financing those three initiatives. It seemed like Doug Bruce was just thumbing his nose at the court system.”
Well, yes, he was, and rightfully so, because the court system was being abused to the benefit his political opponents. Bruce made it “very difficult” for Grueskin to serve him with a subpoena to appear for a deposition, but he did so within the law, as demonstrated by the fact that a contempt citation against him was dismissed.
Nothing in the law requires a defendant to cooperate with the efforts of opposing counsel to serve legal process, and if the papers aren’t properly served, the defendant is under no legal obligation to appear. It’s the plaintiff’s problem to get the defendant properly served, and if he can’t do it, too bad. That’s how it’s always been, and how it should remain.
And, it turns out that Bruce was correct in insisting that who funds or supports a ballot issue is none of the public’s business. So says the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in a decision handed down just days after the November 2nd vote.
In a Colorado case that addressed whether a small group of homeowners who spent less than $800 campaigning against an annexation ballot issue in Parker, Colo, (Sampson v. Buescher), violated Colorado’s campaign finance laws, the Court held that as applied to ballot issues, Colorado’s law is unconstitutional.
The three-judge panel said, “Without question, Colorado election laws place burdens on the right to associate to support or oppose ballot issues.” Then the Court went on to explain why disclosures of campaign funding for candidates and for ballot issues have different constitutional justifications.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the panel came to the obvious conclusion that unlike potentially corrupt politicians who may abuse the public trust by acting in favor of campaign donors, ballot issues cannot be the subject of such quid-pro-quo corruption because they cannot exert any influence other than what is stated in the law itself.
“…when a ballot issue is before the voter, the choice is whether to approve or disapprove of discrete governmental action, such as annexing territory, floating a bond, or amending a statute. No human being is being evaluated. When many complain about the deterioration of public discourse—in particular, the inability or unwillingness of citizens to listen to proposals made by particular people or by members of particular groups—one could wonder about the utility of ad hominem arguments in evaluating ballot issues. Nondisclosure could require the debate to actually be about the merits of the proposition on the ballot. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that “[a]nonymity . . . provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.”"
Citing a Supreme Court case, the panel took notice of the historical presumption that the voters are capable of examining and analyzing the merits or deficiencies of a ballot issue itself, without reference to the character or political popularity of the proponents.
“But the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Don’t underestimate the common man. People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They can see it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is responsible, what is valuable, and what is truth.”
This is exactly correct. Indeed, it’s good public policy because in the case of ballot issues, it is the focus on the character of the proponents rather than the issue itself that is abusive of the system. Good government depends upon careful scrutiny of the actions of government that are authorized by ballot issues, not upon the public perception of the quality or character of the proponents or opponents. Effective civil discourse on the subject of laws or government actions must focus on the act itself, otherwise the true effects and extent of government authority is masked in the fog of ad hominem attacks.
And that is precisely what Grueskin and Coloradans for Responsible Reform achieved with their abuse of the legal process, in cahoots with the Bruce-hating liberal Press, who focused on the whack-a-mole antics of the process servers trying to find Mr. Bruce while studiously avoiding any substantive discussion of the ballot issues themselves.
The ongoing controversy about Bruce’s involvement in Amendments 60, 61 and 101 prove the utility and necessity of the 10th Circuit’s ruling. Bruce is still facing a trial in Denver District Court over the mess. Hopefully he’ll persuade the District Court of the wisdom of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and the case will be dismissed. It certainly should be.
Grueskin and the Coloradans for Responsible Reform’s witch-hunt for Douglas Bruce should further serve to expand the 10th Circuit Court’s ruling to exempt all proponents or supporters of ballot issues from disclosure rules.
Why? Well, in part because requiring disclosure on the part of supporters of a particular ballot issue violates their fundamental right to a secret ballot, and in some cases places them in physical danger from opponents.
Precisely this sort of threat was recently observed in California, where the names and addresses of people who signed petitions in favor of Proposition 8, which reserved the term “marriage” for use by heterosexual couples, were subjected to harassment and physical and economic attack after their names were posted on the Internet by radical gay activists.
Just as one’s vote is to be kept secret, one must be allowed to anonymously support ballot issues. This anonymity is essential to our fundamental liberty to be free of coercion and harassment for our political opinions and votes.
While requiring disclosure in the case of candidates has at least some (but not much) legitimate governmental objective of reducing the potential for quid-pro-quo corruption, that rationale simply does not apply to ballot issues.
Who supports a ballot issue is, and should be, no one’s business, and certainly not the business of the public. Only the merits of the issue are important, and they are supremely important, so any law that serves to shift the focus of the public debate away from the language of the ballot issue itself must be repealed in the interests of good government.
The abuse of Douglas Bruce, and the abuse of the political process perpetrated by Grueskin’s clients is ample demonstration of why Rep. McCann’s proposal must not only be defeated, but why the General Assembly should take action to explicitly exempt campaign contributions or actions in support of ballot issues from the campaign finance laws.
© 2010 Altnews
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
As always, opponents of petitioning, tax relief, Douglas Bruce, etc., use a continuing series of specious arguments and red herrings to try to deflect attention from the real issues.
It is obvious that “not so fast” has no understanding of the actual title-setting, signature-gathering, ballot-certification or election process and is in the typical no-nothing camp of those opposed to actual responsible, constitutionally-defined limited government.
I’ve learned in the last couple decades those types will stop at nothing and use no logic or have any reasonable argument to make, except for hysterical assertion and lies or misdirection.
Bruce emails to Dan Kennedy (SOS exhibit 17), July 14 and July 30, 2009: “… If they ask your name, say ‘ call me Fred’ or ‘call me Mary’ regardless of your real first name. Don’t give a last name. If they try … to find the petition number … simply say, ‘None of your business’ They can’t accuse you of forging signatures … if they don’t know your name and can’t see the petition number”
” Tell everyone to use MEDIUM Point black ballpoint pens. Fine point are too hard to read and look faded.”
Office Scanners, like the ones Bruce’s campaign manager/office supply business owner/campaign poster printer (slogan “step away from the filing cabinet”) provide, also will not reprint fine-ink signatures well on multiple petitions.
“Race for signatures Ends” Lincoln, NE Journal Star, July 6: “Nebraskans … will closely monitor the verification process, as we believe that many of the SOS (Stop Overspending) circulators engaged in illegal and fraudulent activity to get their signatures.”
No coincidence here: Journal Star named Richard Roscol, an Arizona anti-tax advocate, as the main petition carrier – the same Roscol was housed in a Bruce rental property and “collected” 927 signatures for Bruce’s issue 300. SOS evidence exhibit 16 (email from Bruce to Dan Kennedy, July 14, 2009: Give the attached advisory to [Colorado issue 60, 61, 101] petitioners in your next contact. Share with your team leaders to do the same.” “I will meet with Richard Riscol tomorrow”
So what? Petition gatherers are not required to give their name, and their identity is, once again, of no import to the validity of the signatures. There’s nothing you say that indicates any fraud at all took place, and the County Clerk certified that there were sufficient valid signatures to place the measures on the ballot. End of story.
IF “…signatures are properly vetted”
IF “… valid signatures are obtained”
THEN you “…support ANY system…” that counts “only valid electors”
ProVote America’s operatives themselves could not be vetted – nobody can find them. ANY system? So it’s OK with you that mercenaries did the vetting via cell phones and internet lists? In lieu of official election commission offices and witnessed by multipartisan monitors?
Really tolerist of you to say it’s up to the voters to decide. But very naive to suggest that imprinting signature scans on petitions was not a tempting alternative to standing long hours in front of Walmart. Could very well be THAT’s what Bruce and ProVote America wanted so desperately to hide from Grueskin. Is that why Bruce tried to claim the 5th when his top local petition carrier/Judge Martinez nemesis was indicted on unrelated felonies? (Maybe Julian Asange should look into this)
So in your mind, does the concept of ‘secret ballot’ extend to signature scans so secret that even the valid elector may not be aware his signature was fraudulently copied?
The identity of the signature-gatherers is largely irrelevant since the signatures can be checked against voting registration records. The verification of signatures is the duty of the County Clerk, not the petition circulators. And anyone can challenge petition signatures.
If you have reason to believe that there were fraudulent signatures gathered, it’s up to you to make the challenge.
Only once the signatures have been validated by the County Clerk is the measure placed on the ballot.
And then a vote is held.
This is the penultimate act in a multi-part system that ensures that only valid ballot issues are enacted into law.
Petition requirements are merely a “pre-screening” method of trimming down ballots by preventing every Tom, Dick or Harriet with a crackpot scheme from larding up a ballot with issues that only he or she thinks are useful. Petitions merely require that you get a small portion of the electorate to agree that it ought to go to a vote.
But let’s suppose that there is petition fraud and a measure makes it onto the ballot without the proper number of valid signatures.
So what? Big deal. Who cares?
The only problem this causes is that the County Clerk has to spend some extra money to print the issue on the ballot. No significant miscarriage of process occurs merely because a measure with insufficient petition signatures makes it to the ballot. At worst it’s a technical violation.
This is because the ONLY important aspect of the process is the public vote. If the public likes the idea expressed by the ballot issue they are allowed to vote on, it is utterly irrelevant who thought it up, drafted it, petitioned it onto the ballot, got it on the ballot improperly, or supports it.
All that matters is whether a majority of people legally voting on the issue approve of it.
There is no ethical or moral argument to be made against offering ANY suggestion of a change to the law for a public vote. If we wished, we could say that any idea any person has to change government is worthy of consideration by the voters, including the Stalin Gulag and Ethnic Cleansing Amendment.
Hopefully the electorate would reject such a proposal, but there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with putting it to a vote.
We limit ballot issues by requiring a certain number of signatures as a matter of expediency and economy, so that no one ballot becomes unmanageable in size.
But so long as the requisite number of valid signatures are submitted, how those signatures were obtained and by whom is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the public approves of the idea expressed as a part of a democratic vote on the subject.
Let’s that some charity shill forges your signature on a couple of checks.
So what? Big deal. Who cares?
That would be theft, and your analogy is specious and a red herring.
Do you have any credible evidence that any signatures were forged? If so, feel free to make a complaint to the Attorney General.
Again, so long as the actual vote is uncorrupted any deficiencies in the petition process are largely harmless. Worst case scenario is that a measure that shouldn’t have made the ballot because an insufficient number of valid petitioners signed the petitions.
“… to explicitly exempt campaign contributions or actions in support of ballot issues from the campaign finance laws… ” Taken at face value, that only plays into the hands of stealth petitioners. What should be paired with any such policy is a change in the way the petition signatures are verified (not just random samples, but (as in Oregon) verification of EVERY signature and an electronic comparison with the signatures on file.
Out of state soldiers of political fortune were used by Bruce, who has a record of plagiarizing campaign endorsements, false claims for per diem refunds, interfering with the county bid processes, etc. Given that Vote America mercenaries had access to signature files plus profit motive to amass signatures, the SOS needs to discover whether or not any scanned signatures were copied onto petitions instead of inscribed in person by the registered voters.
Consider that DB’s minions dropped the ball on city issue 300, but within 2 weeks of leaving state office – voila! he has double the required signatures.
No dispute on signature verification. Only valid electors should be counted and I support any system that achieves this goal.
As for “out of state” circulators, it’s utterly irrelevant who collects signatures if the signatures are properly vetted.
So long as a sufficient number of qualified voters support putting the measure on the ballot, who obtains those signatures does not affect the validity or propriety of the ballot issue.
As I said, ballot issues are incorruptible. Even if the proponent is Josef Stalin and the ballot proposal is to institute a Gulag system and send political dissidents to them, if the requisite number of valid signatures are obtained, the measure must appear on the ballot for the voters to vote upon.
It’s up to the voters to decide whether the ballot issue is to be part of our laws.