Posted on 09/07/2010 7:22:59 PM PDT by Ken H
Traffic camera firm invokes 1965 civil rights bill to stop votes in Baytown and Houston, Texas that would ban red light cameras.
The citizen-led groups that want the public to decide the future of red light cameras are racist, according to lawsuits filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) in a pair of Texas cities. The Arizona-based photo enforcement firm filed in a state court in Baytown on Thursday and then an ATS-funded front group filed an identical case in a federal court in Houston on Friday. Residents in both cities signed petitions placing a ban on automated ticketing machines onto the November 2 ballot, but ATS cites the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a reason to block these votes.
"Because the camouflaged referendum has been improperly placed on the ballot, a potential for racial discrimination exists," Houston lawyer Andy Taylor wrote on behalf of ATS. "More specifically, minority voters may lose their ability to elect candidates of their choice in local, statewide and federal offices."
The company used the same argument in Baytown.
"The city has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the safety camera program -- a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner -- will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election," Taylor wrote.
The ATS claim may come as a surprise to the diverse groups behind anti-camera petition efforts elsewhere in the country. In East Cleveland, Ohio the group Black on Black Crime led the effort to gather signatures for a referendum. In Cincinnati, the anti-camera coalition included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Green Party. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also battled cameras in Iowa and Rhode Island. Baytown initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck suggested the traffic camera industry was disguising its true aim with the racism charge.
"For ATS to claim that they are only concerned with the rights of minorities when their abusive and dangerous camera systems disproportionately attack a larger portion of the minority community's income smacks of hypocrisy," Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. "They don't care about minorities, or the majority of voters who oppose their systems and tactics. Like any corporation their primary obligation is to profitability. Across the country, wherever we see citizens rising up to say no to the cameras we see the camera companies trying to stop them for the sole reason of protecting their revenue."
ATS is also using the media to tar the initiative sponsors, with success in major outlets like the Houston Chronicle.
"On the other hand, the financial heft and organization behind the camera opponents comes largely from traffic-court attorneys," a September 4 editorial stated. "Since camera-generated citations are based on car ownership and are more difficult to challenge in court than officer-issued traffic tickets, they bite into the lawyers' business."
The Chronicle has no evidence to support this claim first developed by ATS hired gun Jim McGrath. The Baytown referendum is headed by Byron Schirmbeck, who is not a lawyer and depends on donations from residents and visitors to the SaferBaytown.com website. Of the ten successful anti-camera petitions around the country, only the one in Steubenville, Ohio was organized by an attorney -- except that lawyer's practice focused on personal injury. The number of regular traffic citations has not decreased in Houston as a result of automated enforcement.
Fight the good fight! We’ve got these “revenue”-greedy, camera bass turds on the run here in Arizona!
Lubbock and College Station got rid of their cameras once it became obvious that the camera company got the lion’s share of the $75 fine.
Yeah, just another money making scheme that should go down. Really getting tired of all these efforts to raise revenue.
This is argument is not just applied to groups opposed to traffic cams, but it seems that more and more anyone who comes out against any measure of law enforcement or reports/posts/documents crimes committed by our police are now called racist.
The law and order at all costs types are taking a play right out of the DNC play book. Can't defend against the facts so just call them racists.
Not so in Tucson as the council has just put several more into operation. They carry a fine of over 200 dollars as I understand it or a few boring days at a 'traffic safety lecture'. The libs love it. Real people see it for what it is...another Big Brother power play and favoritism to an insider corporation.
It is long overdue that referenda take out these “traffic enforcement cameras”
One way this is done is by eliminating the ability to use them for any form of citation or revenue generating.
no money=no cameras.
This is a really big deal here in Baytown. ATS took out a full page ad on at least one day in the local Baytown Sun newspaper.
Do you oppose any government revenue generating scheme? You might be a racist!
Good news really.
They are over-reaching by a mile.
Flip these money-grubbers the middle finger !
Their stupid “revenue enhancement” cameras are being voted out, and they’re grasping at straws to keep them in, so they can suck the blood out of the citizenry. While pretending to be about safety.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.