Jump to content

Editorial: New Michigan Petition Law Violates The First Amendment


t-pain

Recommended Posts

 

http://www.cm-life.com/article/2016/09/editorial-michigan-petition-laws-first-amendment

 

 

The First Amendment is the framework for American liberty.

 

It details five inalienable rights: freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, the right to assemble peacefully, freedom of the press and to petition the government.

 

This last part allows us to air our grievances in a non-violent way, arguably the most important aspect of the First Amendment. It allows us to demand change from those in power.

 

Petitioning, in this manner, creates new ballot proposals that become law if our citizens approve them – proposals like the MI Legalize pot initiative, and a new statewide comprehensive fracking ban.

 

Both of these proposals were slated to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. Both were disqualified by a technicality – one we believe violates the First Amendment.

 

Earlier this year, the state legislature approved an amendment to the state's election laws, changing the scope of the “180-day Rule.” Essentially, the amendment tweaked an existing law that stated any signature collected more than 180 days before filing a petition is invalid. Our legislature calls these 180-day-old signatures “stale and void.”

 

Almost all aspects of that law remain unchanged, including the 180-day Rule. Petitioners must still gather a specific number of signatures from registered voters before the state approves a proposal be added to the state-wide ballot. Once filed, the State Board of Canvassers checks to see if all of the signatures are from valid registered voters.

 

What’s different is the change in process. There once was a way to refute the 180-day Rule. If a voter was registered at the time of signing, their signature was considered valid if it was collected outside of 180 days.

 

These voters were then given an affidavit from the county clerk, validating the signature in the process.

 

The amendment passed in May eliminates that process.

 

A request sent to the canvassing board to update and clarify the existing policy set the change in motion. The requestor, attorney Jeffrey A. Hank, stated the signature verification process is simpler now with computers.

 

His second complaint was more philosophical. Thomas argued that clerks might deny affidavits to people trying to prove registration, or worse yet, deny them because clerks disagree with the measure.

 

Hank's intent was virtuous. The law that passed has yet to fulfill his goal.

 

Almost all Republicans in the State House of Representatives voted in favor of the measure. House Democrats did not. In turn, many liberal watch groups claimed it was meant to stop liberal ballot measures, such as pot and fracking referenda.

 

In the case of MI Legalize, the group followed the rules, presented the state with almost double the required signatures. More than half of the signatures were considered invalid, stale and void without the safety net of a rebuttal process.

 

We believe this rule and its limitations are wrong. By making the petition process more difficult, the legislature erodes the First Amendment and its associated rights.

 

This isn’t about pot for us. Or fracking. It isn’t about Gov. Rick Snyder, his cabinet or his allies in Lansing.

 

It’s about upholding our American values. The Founding Fathers adopted the right to petition from the English Declaration of Rights to ensure we had a voice. It legitimizes the phrase “power to the people” against a seemingly oppressive government. It gives us a constitutionally protected, non-violent mechanism to oppose poorly-made laws.

 

One could reasonably argue that our right to petition is why our representative democracy still works. As student media, we have an obligation to protect the First Amendment rights of our students. That includes the free exercise of speech, religion, and the right to petition on-campus.

 

Any unreasonable limitation on this vital process degrades the legitimacy of our democracy. It places unnecessary roadblocks on a freedom we inherently possess.

 

We believe overturning these limitations is imperative. We support any group taking legal action against the state in regards to this 180-day Rule.

 

In turn, we call on the legislature to rewrite passages related to collection period, extending it to 250 days instead of 180.

 

Canvassing is hard work. It requires a massive petition team, people who may have scant experience in persuading people to vote a certain way. Making that processes easier is in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment.

 

We hope the Michigan Supreme Court rules that such a limitation does not uphold the spirit of the First Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this was passed to just undermine the Cannabis vote business as usual for Republicans.

 

Honestly, it didn't really have that much to do with the pot bill, it was about the oil and gas industry and the fracking ban.  Snyder just appointed an oil and gas lobbyist to the head of DEQ.

 

 The pot bill just ended up in the mix because of the position being taken. Without the gas oil lobby opposing the QVF method, there is a decent chance the BoC may have updated their policy.

 

But lastly, The bill they passed absolutely has zero effect on the Milegalize initiative.  The initiative campaign ended before the law even passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol 250 days?, nice limit, students who haven't done signature gathering don't know any better... constitution, read and under stand. don't set unconditional limits.

 

dang kids these days

 

What I would say is a constitutional right is not absolute and must balance with other constitutional rights.  I think Milegalize has a very myopic view contained in an echo chamber.

 

I'm not saying the undue burden issue is not appreciated but legitimacy to the election process and several other constitutional rights and or duties must be considered as well.

 

When Milegalize only had half the signatures in November,, 150 days in, I knew they were toast.  Suddenly to cover for failure to get enough signatures,  they created a legal theory and milked the community for another half million bucks to test their theory.  One must remember, these are the same attorneys who tried to convince people dispensaries were legal.

 

I mean, yea sure,i hope it works in the USSC, but i wouldn't hold your breath. Its a state issue. No discrimination against protected classes. No actual intrusion of first amendment rights. I dunno man.

 

I mean, who disenfranchised(if that term can even really be used) the two plaintiffs?  Milegalize did for not turning their signatures in within 180 days. When i sign a petition, I am acting on good faith that the group will turn in my signature in the allotted time(180 days). Milegalize failed those people right?  They knew when the campaign started they had 180 days, or else you have to try to rebut.  And are you telling me this specific two plaintiffs couldn't stop at the courthouse while they are filing this suit and get a letter from the clerk stating they were a resident and registered to vote?  It isn't his fault Milegalize didn't turn in his signature in time.

 

I understand the argument,... it isn't easy to get on the ballot in 180 days. Thatis why you plan AHEAD of time and get all your ducks in a row before you start. Otherwise by the time you really get started, your time is half over.  That is a failure of Milegalize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And i am not an apologist, just a realist.

 

As I said, i hope it works.  But.....

 

Whenthis campaign started, there was not a single person inside or outside of the campaign that didn't know we had 180 days to get signatures.  Noone was misled and we knew the rules going in. 

 

 This would be a technicality if it works..

 

I actually think the new 180 day, law which doesn't effect Milegalize, is unconstitutional because of a lack of a rebutting invalidated signatures.  There currently is a way, albeit difficult.  Is it enough to be considered an undue burden? Not according to anyone of importance yet. 

 

We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the supreme court of Michigan didn't even hear the case, so, no. likewise coa.

 

so we're down to a single coc judge who ruled on it. so far.

 

the Michigan supreme court declared 142 unconstitutional in the wolverine lake case, back in the 80s. I think the rebuttable is in 142a? something like that. read the pdf bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...