AB1266「公校男女同厕同浴」进展
anonymous-114 04/14 5236
4.5/113
AB1266「公校男女同厕同浴」进展 -- 来自PrivacyForAllStudents.com:
Court Report
Sitting in court on Friday, I was struck by the casual way that the Secretary of State's attorney argued to disenfranchise thousands of people. He seemed to be unmoved by the reality of what would happen if the court accepted his arguments.
As the attorney for Privacy For All Students described improperly rejected signatures and the need for access to the documents to show that the referendum actually qualified, the State lawyer (paid by the tax payers) almost seemed bored.
And apparently this attorney is not alone in his contempt for the rights of the voters. Other government attorneys are echoing his arguments even while they are compensated by the voters they wish to disenfranchise. A number of counties have filed legal objections to producing documents that would shine a light on the signatures improperly rejected. Because so many of you have asked about your county, below I will note the counties that are helping hide the process that eliminated more than one out of every five signatures.
Recently I shared the candid statement of a county registrar who said that in his eighteen years in that position, this was the first time that a proponent of a referendum had ever asked to inspect the results. The law is clear. It is the right of the referendum proponent to examine the rejected signatures. Why? In order to challenge improper results.
I have also shared some of the things we have found already. With persistence we have pushed through the many obstacles to actually see rejected signatures and other documents in some counties.
We have witnessed signatures that were thrown out because the county claims that the signer was not registered even though a registration is in the county data base.
We have uncovered signatures that were rejected because a county employee decided that the signature is slightly different than the signature on the voter registration card or the signature provided on an electronic pad at the DMV. (Remember the Pacific Justice Institute attorney, Matt McReynolds, that had his signature rejected because it was not a perfect match with his voter registration card. In the years after Matt filled out that registration card, he went blind and can no longer see his signature.)
Signatures have been rejected because the print in the address section looked different than other print by this signer or it looked too much like the print of a husband or wife.
All of these wrong or questionable decisions (and the resulting tens of thousands of rejected signatures) have apparently been accepted in the past without protest. But with our challenge, new and even more creative tactics have to be employed to hide the evidence of mistake or abuse.
The Secretary of State's attorney made it clear to the judge that he felt that the attorneys for the 58 counties should be involved in this process, and that we should delay until they could take part.
Several county attorneys anticipated the call to circle the wagons and have started to focus on one very creative argument first advanced by the attorney for the Secretary of State. They concede that the State may be required to provide certain information about the signers that have been rejected. But before they provide this information, we must mail to each of the 131,000 voters a "notice to consumer". Of course, we cannot provide such a notice even if the law did require this because they will not provide the contact information for the "consumer".
These county attorneys understand the impossibility of their request. Here is how one addressed the issue in a response to a PFAS attorney:
I recognize, however, that this is academic since compliance with those procedures would require access to the very names and contact information that the County is not able to disclose at this time.
First they produce an inaccurate count. Then they frustrate our apparently unprecedented effort to examine the evidence. Then they claim that privacy will not allow them to provide the documents we need to take to court to challenge this. And throughout all of this they are encouraging more taxpayer paid attorneys to join the fight and see if they can overwhelm us with costs and stall tactics.
Please don't let them win.
This battle will be costly and time consuming.
At one level, it is a battle for the privacy and safety of our children that will be stripped away if AB 1266 is the law. At a whole different level it is about an out of control bureaucracy that believes that their efforts to disenfranchise thousands of voters should be immune from challenge.
If you live in one of the counties listed below that has already joined the Secretary of State in her fight to hide the documents that will prove that the referendum qualified, please donate to offset the costs of this battle. Even if your elections official has not yet joined the fight to keep this referendum off of the ballot, please make a donation.
Elections officials in these counties and their lawyers have already objected to providing the necessary documents:
Butte
Calaveras
Fresno
Kings
Madera
Plumas
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Solano
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tulare
Yolo
Yuba
Make a Donation Today! http://privacyforallstudents.com/donations/
