Richardson arrested after handing out campaign literature at school (GOP NC-6)

Washington Daily News ^ | October 31, 2006 | Nike Mayo

[RoadTest]

"As I read the article, it's not about WHETHER he's allowed to distribute campaign lit, it's about WHERE he's allowed to distribute campaign lit. He was apparently breaking an established state statute doing it where he was."

Yeh, but if he was a Democrat or a Muslim he could take it to the courts and declare those rules and statutes discriminatory and "unconstitutional".

[dayglored]

> Yeh, but if he was a Democrat or a Muslim he could take it to the courts and declare those rules and statutes discriminatory and "unconstitutional".

Ummm, that's exactly what he IS doing. Why would being a Dem or Muslim make any difference? Let's not get into whining about how the OTHER side takes unfair advantage, when this guy is clearly doing EXACTLY what you say the other side would do:

Richardson sent two press releases before the Southside-Manteo game indicating that he would not abide by Hardison’s letter. “This is an exercise in civics,” the release stated. “All the young people there, as well as their parents, should be aware that no one should allow their First Amendment rights to be trampled on.”

[MamaTexan]

You guys are looking at this as a point of principle and law.

Well....yeah!

-----

The guy was wrong. It was not the time or the place.

Your opinion that the venue was inappropriate for political commentary doesn't negate his right to speak when and where he chooses.

-----

A high school football game is a place for school colors, silly chants, marching bands, awful concession food, and leaving the world's troubles at the gate.

If that's how you like to pursue your happiness...hooray!

(IMHO, football could disappear from the face of the earth and I wouldn't miss it a bit.)

-----

sort of like Ford crashing the Corker press conference in TN.

Huge difference. The press conference was held for a specific political party and the football game was a public event.

-----

There is a time and a place for everything.

True, but it is not within my authority to dictate that time or place to anyone else, just as it is not within anyone else's authority to dictate such things to me.

I'm not saying he couldn't have picked a more appropriate time or place, but I doubt seriously he was forcing the fliers on anyone. It was their choice to take or refuse it.

[RoadTest]

" Let's not get into whining about how the OTHER side takes unfair advantage"

Why pick on me when countless numbers on this site comment on how the courts and the press favor the Muslims and Liberals.

That's not whining, unless you're in a bad mood this morning. Or a Liberal.

[Constitution Day]

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day, TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[Hatteras]

The point of the law in my humble opinion is so that citizens can have a place to go out in public at this time of year without having to run a gauntlet of creepy politicians getting in your face. Why would they think that anybody wants to put up with them on a Friday night at a high school football game? It's bad enough that they feel compelled to exercise their right to litter the landscape with "free speech" campaign signage, for some reason we still put up with that but God forbid you put a yard sale sign out at the end of the street...

[F.J. Mitchell]

LOL! I went from elation to deflation in seconds. I thought this was about ol' Bill Richardson, Gov of New Mexico and wannabe candidate for President.

[woodb01]

If he wants to fight the school-board policy and/or the state statue, getting arrested might not be the best way to start the ball rolling. Then again it might, if he doesn't mind the arrest record.

In fact he HAS to get arrested to have the clearest shot at winning in Federal Court on First Amendment grounds. Even though the courts generally allow such challenges without an arrest because of the "chilling" affect, to show an arrest fits ALL of the traditional "justiciability" issues needed for Federal Court standing.

In English, that's just a fancy way of saying he now meets **every** requirement, for even a biased judge to allow him to bring his case into Federal court. And likely to win as well.

[Bob Buchholz]

Hood Richardson is currently on our board of county commissioners and is easily the most devisive politician in the area. He has 33% of the county that absolutely hates him, 33% that will vote for him no matter what, and another 33% that vote for him for entertainment value because you never know what he will say or do, but you know it will be contriversal.

My wife (a flaming lib) is in the 33% that hates him, but she may vote for him for state rep since she thinks he can do less harm in Raleigh than he does (her thoughts only) as a county commissioner.

[MamaTexan]

The point of the law in my humble opinion is so that citizens can have a place to go out in public at this time of year without having to run a gauntlet of creepy politicians getting in your face.

While you may be correct, I'm beginning to believe the point of the law was to ensure only messages approved by the school can be found on school property.

I can't image this issue of passing out campaign material at a football game would have even been question if it had been a Democrat.

-----

Why would they think that anybody wants to put up with them on a Friday night at a high school football game?

Then TELL them that. I've had more than one politico try to press their material on me and I've told them off in very short order.

-----

It's bad enough that they feel compelled to exercise their right to litter the landscape with "free speech" campaign signage,

If campaign signs aren't removed after a certain amount of time after the election has passed, turn them into the city and they will get fined.

-----

but God forbid you put a yard sale sign out at the end of the street...

Our neighbors do that all the time, but we live in the country.

[MamaTexan]

Even though the courts generally allow such challenges without an arrest because of the "chilling" affect, to show an arrest fits ALL of the traditional "justiciability" issues needed for Federal Court standing.

Okay, I'm admittedly still feeling my way around the issue of the different venues in law, so please tell me if this is correct.

The arrest over free speech can go to the USSC directly because the first amendment in the federal Constitution gives them original jurisdiction in the matter.
If it should go to the State and the State refuses to acknowledge this right, the USSC then has appellate jurisdiction.

Do I have it right? Am I even close?

(grin)

[woodb01]

Okay, TECHNICALLY the USSC has original jurisdiction, but there is virtually no chance that they will take the case directly. It's an issue called "judicial economy." The Federal courts are very capable of handling this, and likely will handle it.
< br>The other issue is that **any** federal court can take on cases of "original jurisdiction." That's just a fancy way of saying that there is a FEDERAL matter that allows the federal courts to get involved.

There is this thing in the law called "comity" which is another fancy way of saying that the federal courts give deference to the states. They "respect" the state's jurisdiction. However, original jurisdiction means that the Federal courts have the right to hear the issue no matter what the state does.

[JohnnyZ]

The guy was wrong. It was not the time or the place. A high school football game is a place for school colors, silly chants, marching bands, awful concession food, and leaving the world's troubles at the gate. What he did was a political faux pas,

One of Senator Richard Burr's major campaign strategies in 2004 was campaigning at high school football games.

Never heard about any complaints, and obviously it worked.

[ndt]

I was actually looking forward to reading this, but the arguments are really weak.

[ndt]

Sorry, I posted to the wrong thread. Please ignore previous comment.

[AmishDude]

Getting arrested is exactly how the left challenges everything. That's how "speech" is now pronounced "expression".

[AmishDude]

Why would being a Dem or Muslim make any difference?

Then he would win the court case. As a Republican, he'll lose.

[MamaTexan]

That's just a fancy way of saying that there is a FEDERAL matter that allows the federal courts to get involved.
There is this thing in the law called "comity" which is another fancy way of saying that the federal courts give deference to the states.

comity
n. when one court defers to the jurisdiction of another in a case in which both would have the right to handle the case. Usually this is applied to a federal court allowing a state court to try a criminal case (either exclusively or first) in which both a state and federal crime has apparently been committed. Murder which also violates civil rights, kidnapping across state borders, murder of a federal official, fraud involving violations of both federal and state laws are examples of cases to which comity may apply.

So the State statute/school policy in question are actually a form of fraud because they violate the civil right of free speech, and this puts it in the original jurisdiction of the federal court.

Plus all the States have freedom of speech in their Constitutions, so it's kind of a double whammy.

Thanks, BTW!

[CaptRon]

If he wants to fight the school-board policy and/or the state statue, getting arrested might not be the best way to start the ball rolling.

It might be the only way.

You can't bring a suit unless you have some cause of action. If he wants a hearing on the constutionality this is the way to do it. You can't just bring suit because you thinkg it's unconstitutional.

[woodb01]

So the State statute/school policy in question are actually a form of fraud because they violate the civil right of free speech, and this puts it in the original jurisdiction of the federal court.

Yes, kind of on the fraud part. On your definition of comity, it is incomplete because there are certain types of civil cases, and civil rights cases where comity also applies (which First Amendment rights are sorta, kinda, considered "civil rights").

One way that the courts preserve "judicial economy" is by requiring legal actions to be brought only when there is some kind of "actual not conjectural injury." Even a liberal federal judge won't ignore that one when there is an actual injury. And that despire the fact that with speech, you don't normally need that actual injury.