Schadenfreudalicious

Republicans in 2008: "Obama's ideas for health care reform are not good. We don't like this."

Democrats in 2008: "No, this will be awesome. Just wait."

Sarah vs. ObamaCare

I've never been a "blog-every-story-every-day" blogger. It's easier to tweet the stories of the day (follow me @rumpfshaker if you aren't already) and occasionally write some longer commentary when I have time and schedule the post to go live the next day. 

I don't often get to break stories. 

But apparently I do today....or, at least, I get to break the story of my little role in a much bigger story.

Brutal new Scott Brown ad asks whose side Elizabeth Warren is really on [VIDEO]

Whoa. Scott Brown's campaign has come out with a new web ad that just eviscerates Elizabeth Warren's claims of fighting for the little guy. The ad focuses on Warren's legal representation of LTV Steel in a bankruptcy case in which coal workers lost their pensions and benefits, and some of the most damning clips are those that feature Warren herself:

Was Elizabeth Warren practicing law without a license?

Wow. Professor William Jacobson has a knock-your-socks off exposé of what appears to be repeated instances of unlicensed practice of law by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren at his blog, Legal Insurrection, this morning:

Representative Plakon and Precourt's Role in Inspiring Florida's Lawsuit Against ObamaCare

Thousands protest in front of the Supreme
Court to support overturning ObamaCare

This week, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Florida vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services (for an excellent recap, please see this write-up by the Texas Public Policy Foundation), the lawsuit filed by the State of Florida against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka "ObamaCare."

Florida's previous Attorney General, Bill McCollum, filed the complaint on March 23, 2010. The litigation was joined by attorneys general in numerous other states, and some states filed separate lawsuits, but Florida's case has been the linchpin in moving this challenge forward all the way to the Supreme Court.

ObamaCare and its unconstitutional power grab have galvanized conservatives across the country and united them in their opposition to the Obama administration. What many people don't know is the back story behind how Florida's lawsuit came to be. I recently came across some interesting information when I was doing some research for one of my last Florida clients before I leave for Massachusetts.

Meatloaf and Mulligans

Yesterday, the Leon County Circuit Court issued a ruling that removed Amendment 7, also known as the "Religious Freedom Act," from the 2012 ballot:

Unbelievable

So, I've been working on a long list of really great posts, and you'll see them over the next few days, but I got tied up with an unbelievably weird problem today...

Someone stole my name. Seriously. 

An out-of-state campaign consultant who worked briefly with me on a campaign last year put up a website for his alleged consulting company (I say "alleged company" because I cannot find record of it actually being incorporated) and listed my name as being an election law attorney with his company. He also stole the name of another consultant friend of mine, and the vast majority of his "past client" list belonged to us, not him.

Lawyered! Palin-defamer Joe McGinniss and Random House are in hot water

ICYMI, Joe McGinniss, the alleged journalist who moved in next door to Sarah Palin and then wrote an extremely negative book about her and her family is in a world of trouble. Last week, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site broke the news that McGinnis had admitted in an email that his book was full of "tawdry gossip" and rumors without any "factual evidence."

Well, now Random House, the publisher of McGinniss' book, is joining McGinniss in the hot water. After it became clear that Random House was aware of the lack of factual support for the accusations in McGinniss' book, the Palins' attorneys sent a letter warning them to preserve evidence in preparation of a potential lawsuit:

Morning Coffee Reading for September 9, 2011

Here's your morning coffee reading for today:

• Yesterday was a sad day for Florida Republicans, as RPOF Chairman David Bitner died after a valiant battle with ALS. Saint Petersblog has done an excellent job collecting messages from leaders around the state in reaction to Bitner's passing:

Saint Petersblog | Rest in peace, Mr. Chairman: RPOF's Dave Bitner has died after battle with ALS

• Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz released his twelve step "Jobs and Growth Agenda" earlier this week, and posted some of the reactions to it on his campaign website's blog. I'm thrilled that my blog post was quoted right after conservative stalwart Senator Jim DeMint:

Ted Cruz | Blog | Sen. DeMint, Others Weigh in on Jobs and Growth Agenda

• The myth that moderates are more "electable" is debunked in this American Thinker article, with a discussion of the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson race, the 1980 Reagan-Carter race, and several recent Senate races:

The Road to Hell is Paved with 'Electable' Candidates

Schadenfreude

"Schadenfreude" is a German word that has been adopted into English, and is defined as "taking pleasure or satisfaction at someone else's misfortune." ("Schaden" means injury or disadvantage, "Freude" means joy or delight.)

So, here's your Schadenfreude moment of the day:

Orlando Sentinel | Jury in defamation case finds against Doug Guetzloe for a total of $1.61 million

Wow. $1.61 million dollars is a LOT of money. As expected, Guetzloe is showing no remorse and vowing to appeal, but still, this verdict shows that not only did the jury think he was liable, but the large punitive damages component shows they found his conduct especially malicious and reprehensible.



"One meeeee-lion dollars...plus another six hundred and ten thousand!"

Howard Marks, the attorney for the successful plaintiffs said, "This was never, to begin with, a case about money. It was a case to stand up against a bully, to stand up against someone who has intimidated people for years with lawsuits."

Job well done, Mr. Marks. Free speech does not include the right to falsely call someone a pedophile...oh, excuse me, insinuate that someone "might" be a pedophile, or whatever Guetzloe was trying to argue he meant by saying that Richard Mask was "trolling for young boys," etc.

As someone who has also been a target of Guetzloe's fantastical lies and malicious attacks, I am greatly cheered by today's verdict and commend Richard Mask for his bravery and commitment to see this case through to the end.

Guetzloe has never called me a pedophile (golly gee whiz, thanks for that, Dougie), but he's used every word in the thesaurus to call me corrupt and unethical, attempts to attack my reputation every chance he gets, and keeps calling me a Democrat.  (If I'm a Democrat, I'm doing a reeeeeeeally bad job at it.) Entertainingly, during last year's  election he even tried to claim I was a double agent for the Alex Sink campaign. Thanks Dougie, we all got a good laugh over that.

Guetzloe also hasn't sued me in court yet, although he's certainly made the threat several times, but he has filed several complaints against me with the Florida Elections Commission. I just got word from them earlier this month that they had dismissed the latest case against me entirely. Ol' Dougie is now 0-for-3 against me with the FEC: he filed a complaint against me in 2008 which was immediately dismissed, I filed one against him in 2008 which settled with a consent order and a fine earlier this month, and then he filed this one against me in 2010, which was dismissed entirely.

I'm just waiting to get my copy of the written order (I called and checked and the orders were mailed yesterday) and then I'll share the fun little story with all of you. Doug Guetzloe is a bully and a jerk (that's my opinion, Dougie, go ahead and try to sue me for that), but the Florida Statutes and the administrative procedures of the FEC have some major areas that are ripe for improvement.

Stay tuned...

Pam Bondi discusses new states joining the lawsuit against Obamacare

Pam Bondi was on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record show last night, to discuss the addition of six new states to the lawsuit against Obamacare:


FoxNews Video | The More Not Merrier for 'Obamacare'? 

...don't miss the nice "Please call me Pam!" moment at the end of the video between Bondi and Van Susteren. :)

Currently, over half of the 50 states are engaged in active litigation against Obamacare, and others may join in the next few weeks.  When you add in the fact that the legislation has always had negative polling results and voters in the 2010 midterm elections overwhelmingly stated that they were voting for Republicans because they wanted them to repeal the health care bill, it boggles my mind how Obama and the Democrats in Congress can get on TV and say with a straight face that the health care bill is "popular" or that they are representing the "will of the people."

As I type this, the House bill to repeal Obamacare has passed, 245-189.  I am very proud of the Republican Congressional leadership who put together a short and simple bill, and also of all the Republicans and the three Democrats who voted in favor of repeal.

Regarding the Senate, I highly recommend you read this excellent commentary on RedState:

RedState | Brian Darling | Repeal of ObamaCare in the Senate - How To Do It

Contrary to what the Democrats are claiming, today's vote was not merely "symbolic."  The Republicans ran on a pledge to repeal ObamaCare; failing to take action on this issue would have made them hypocrites.  Also, the Democrats are now forced to go on the record and decide whether or not to vote for this bill.  Newly-elected Democratic members of Congress who had escaped the political fallout that rained down on their colleagues last year will now have a public vote supporting ObamaCare permanently attached to their names. 

Pam Bondi: Swinging for the Fences on Day One

Our new Attorney General is wasting no time getting to work.  Here is an excellent op-ed  by Pam Bondi, published in the Wall Street Journal today:

Wall Street Journal | Pam Bondi | The States Versus ObamaCare

This week begins the inauguration and swearing-in ceremonies for newly elected officials all over the country. One thing many of us have in common is that the voters rewarded us for our outspoken opposition to ObamaCare.

The electorate's decisive rejection of the Obama administration's policies reveals a pervasive concern over the federal government's disregard of fundamental aspects of our nation's Constitution. No legislation in our history alters the balance of power between Washington and the states so much as ObamaCare does...

On Monday, Bondi appeared on On the Record for a great interview with Greta Van Susteren.  I am thrilled to see her enthusiasm for her job and aggressive approach to the health care litigation.


YouTube | FoxNewsChannel | Uncut: Pam Bondi 'On the Record'

Looks like hiring a prosecutor to be our Attorney General was a good move.  Bondi's been locking up serial killers and child molesters for years.  Obama and Congress don't scare her one bit.  And if this is what she has done with less than 24 hours officially on the job, I cannot wait to see what comes next. 

High five to Pam Bondi.

McCollum: Obamacare is "the wrong way to reform health care"

Here's a great op-ed in today's Washington Post, written by Attorney General Bill McCollum:

Bill McCollum - The wrong way to reform health care

...Health-care reform is critical - but it should not come at the expense of our citizens' individual rights nor by jeopardizing the role of the states in our system of federalism. 

Congress has limited, enumerated powers under the Constitution and cannot make law beyond those specific powers. All powers not specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution are left for the states, which have equal sovereignty to make their own laws. 

When Congress has invoked the commerce clause in the past, it has regulated only those individuals who voluntarily engaged in commercial activities. This law would compel the purchase of insurance and fine those who do not comply. If Congress has the power to force Americans to buy goods and services, where is the limit?

...The stakes could not be higher: ObamaCare is public policy at its worst, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. We can and should support a health-care overhaul; it is up to our leaders in Congress to both do those reforms and protect the Constitution. 

Here's McCollum discussing the health care litigation and Thursday's oral arguments with Greta Van Susteren last night:

YouTube | Fox News Channel | 20-State Health Care Challenge in Judge's Hands

I don't know about you, but I watch McCollum taking names and kicking you-know-what with this health care litigation, and I can't help but feel a bit sad, and wonder "what might have been."  If Charlie Crist hadn't made his ego-driven leap at the U.S. Senate, and had instead run for a second term as Governor, then McCollum would have most likely also run for re-election as Attorney General.  Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Pam Bondi, but in a few weeks, we are going to lose an excellent AG and champion for the people of Florida.

Unconstitutional + Useless = TSA

Here's an interesting op-ed at the Washington Post by Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, about the legal issues behind a recent lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center challenging the constitutionality of the controversial body scanners being used by the TSA at our airports:

Washington Post | Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional

Courts evaluating airport-screening technology tend to give great deference to the government's national security interest in preventing terrorist attacks. But in this case, there's a strong argument that the TSA's measures violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Although the Supreme Court hasn't evaluated airport screening technology, lower courts have emphasized, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."

 As currently used in U.S. airports, the new full-body scanners fail all of Alito's tests...

...Broadly, U.S. courts have held that "routine" searches of all travelers can be conducted at airports as long as they don't threaten serious invasions of privacy. By contrast, "non-routine" searches, such as strip-searches or body-cavity searches, require some individualized suspicion - that is, some cause to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing. Neither virtual strip-searches nor intrusive pat-downs should be considered "routine," and therefore courts should rule that neither can be used for primary screening.  

I strongly encourage you to read the rest of the article.  It makes it clear that the TSA is not only not using the best available technology, but is engaging in violations of our privacy far beyond what is necessary, and without any additional security benefits.  For example, scanner machines are available which do not create a complete detailed image of the person's naked body, but instead, "[i]f the software detects contraband or suspicious material under a passenger's clothing, it projects an outline of that area of the body onto a gender-neutral, blob-like human image," and that image can then be analyzed to determine if secondary screening of that passenger is necessary.  The fact that the TSA machines are capable of recording, storing, and transmitting images is also problematic.

I am supposed to fly next month and I am sincerely hoping that before I head to the airport, the TSA engages in some serious evaluations of its policies, either voluntarily or because one of these lawsuits forces them to do so.  I shouldn't have to chose between being groped by a stranger or giving the government a naked photo of my body in order to board a plane, especially when neither of these things actually helps keep us any safer.

Look what the body scanners miss...this is a video of Adam Savage, from Discovery Channel's Mythbusters show, sharing an experience he had with the TSA recently (warning, NSFW language):

YouTube | What the F***, TSA?

Did you see that?   He had two 12" razor blades with him.  Twelve inch razor blades!  Remember, the 9/11 hijackers committed their horrific acts with box cutters, which have a similar blade, but smaller!

The scanner machines missed these razor blades.  Completely missed them.  "WTF" is right!

My thoughts on this year's amendments

As usual, this year's ballot has a long list of proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution, a non-binding special referendum, and in some counties, a proposed school tax.  My thoughts on these end of the ballot items are below.

First of all, some general comments.  My default setting on constitutional amendments is to vote no unless (1) the amendment actually addresses a matter that is appropriate for the Constitution, and (2) there is a compelling and specific problem that necessitates that amendment, and the amendment actually offers an effective solution to that problem.  Too often, it seems to me that many proposed amendments are solutions looking for a problem, instead of the other way around, or even worse, will create new and bigger problems if they are passed.  The campaigning in support and opposition of Constitutional amendments is frequently misleading, if not downright deceitful.

A few years ago an amendment was passed to require a 60% approval vote for new constitutional amendments, and that's helped a lot, but, in my opinion, we still have far too many issues on the ballot every year that would be better addressed by the legislature or another method than being enshrined in the Constitution.  The prohibition of a specific method of housing pregnant pigs on farms is the most egregious example that comes to mind, but it's by far not the only nonsense someone has tried to put into our Constitution.

The next part of my analysis addresses whether there a good reason for that specific amendment.  A lot of the time, the amendment may sound like a great idea, but when you investigate what it will actually do, you realize that it probably won't be able to solve the problem it's supposed to address.  Keep in mind that the language on the ballot is not the exact or complete language of the actual constitutional amendment, and the actual impact of any given amendment can be affected, sometimes greatly, by the statutes, administrative rules, and bureaucratic procedures that are enacted to execute that amendment.  To me, that is the biggest trick and potential danger of these amendments - what happens after your vote is sometimes drastically different than what you expected.

OK, here we go...let me know what you think in the comments! 

Amendment 1 - VOTE YES

Repeal of public campaign financing requirement. Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.

The ideas behind public campaign financing are noble ones: imposing spending caps is supposed to prevent anyone from "buying" an election, and providing funding to statewide candidates allows them to theoretically compete on an even playing field and have the resources to get their message out in Florida's expensive media market without feeling beholden to special interests.  

The problem is that this is not how it works in reality.  No statewide candidate gets elected with public financing dollars alone, and if a candidate has enough money (either from donors or personal resources) to go past the spending caps, the public contribution is not enough to provide a disincentive to that candidate, and  at the same time it's insufficient to allow an opponent to truly "level the playing field."

In essence, public campaign financing takes tens of millions of dollars of our taxpayer money to only partially and ineffectually address a problem that, in my opinion, is far from the biggest challenge facing our elections.  I'm less worried about one candidate having more money in their campaign account than the opponent than I am about many other campaign finance issues.  

Voting Yes on 1 will end public financing of statewide campaigns.  Especially in tough budget times like this, we should have higher priorities for our taxpayer dollars.

I recommend voting YES ON 1.

Amendment 2 - Vote Yes

Homestead ad valorem tax credit for deployed military personnel.  Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011. 

My first instinct is that I want to always support anything and everything that supports the troops.  This amendment is supposed to grant an additional homestead property tax exemption for active duty military who are serving overseas.  However, there  is some confusion about how this amendment would be carried out.  One issue is whether all overseas service should count, or just service in war zones.  There are also potential problems with how a qualifying member of the military will be able to prove eligibility, how susceptible this program will be to fraud, and how complicated and expensive the bureaucracy needed to execute this program will be.  

My main concern is that, again, we are facing serious budget challenges, and the impact this amendment will have on a single family is not that great, while the cumulative cost to the tax base will be millions of dollars.  I have a similar objection to back-to-school sales tax holidays - the savings to any single family are very small, but it costs the state millions of dollars.  This amendment also does nothing to help our military members who are renting their residence. 

Still, I understand the challenges that our active duty military face in trying to support their families back home while they serve overseas, and I can definitely see the motivations behind this amendment.  I only question whether this is the best way to accomplish these goals, or if there is a simpler way to provide financial support to our wonderful service members and their families.

Accordingly, I am not going to make a recommendation here.  I believe that you can have legitimate and morally valid reasons for either a Yes or a No vote on this one. 

UPDATED: I have been told that the total cost to the state will be about $13 million, and this is the only remaining tax bill that is still in effect during active overseas duty.  That changes my perspective on this amendment.  However, my concern still exists that this does nothing to assist military families in rental housing, and I still wonder whether there are better ways to financially support our military.  Still, the overall good from passing this amendment outweighs my concerns.

I recommend voting Yes on 2.

Amendment 4 - NO, NO, NO

Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.  Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions. 

This is the so-called "Hometown Democracy" amendment.  Basically, it requires any change to a local government comprehensive land use plan (aka "comp plan") to go on the ballot and be approved by the voters.  The supporters of Amendment 4 claim that it will protect communities from "out of control growth" caused by all those evil nasty developers.  However, Amendment 4 will not solve that problem, and will create lots of new, bigger problems.  

First of all, let's look at what Amendment 4 will mean on a practical level.  Comp plan amendments require highly technical and legally complicated language.  Normally, your city council, county commission, etc. will have all comp plan requests reviewed by trained staff attorneys, engineers, urban planners, etc. who submit their analysis and recommendations to a planning and zoning board, and then later to the entire city council or county commission.  There are multiple stages of review, discussion, and approval before any change can be made.  Amendment 4 asks the voters to make these decisions on their own.  Constitutional amendments are confusing enough, and their meaning can be even more obscured by the way they are summarized or reworded on the ballot.  Including comp plan amendments would either require putting long and extremely complicated language on the ballots, or shortening the language and risking misrepresentations.

Supporters of Amendment 4 claim that it is needed to stop large, sprawling mega-developments.  However, what will end up happening is that the  big developers will simply hire attorneys, lobbyists, and consultants to promote their project.  Any developer with the resources to build the type of project being scapegoated to promote Amendment 4 will probably also be able to pay for a campaign for your votes.  What will end up being adversely affected are local small businesses, someone seeking to expand their restaurant, upgrade a bookstore, add storage buildings on a back lot, etc.  

Amendment 4 does not stop any development, does not place any restrictions on any specific type of development, does not add any new standards for development.  All it does is add significant expense, complication, and time to the development process.  It does not matter how big or small the proposed comp plan change is, Amendment 4 would require all of them to campaign for voter approval, and would delay any development for about a year to wait for the next local election, if not longer.

There are also no exceptions based on merit of the development.  I can definitely understand the reservations people have about new residential subdivisions, especially considering Florida's currently depressed housing market, but what about the bio-tech industry growing around UCF's new medical school or the businesses moving into Innovation Way?  These are not developments that were contemplated a decade or two ago,  so they wouldn't have been included in comp plan decisions, but they will provide thousands of jobs and help diversify our local economy.  Going a little further back, think about the land use changes needed after a guy named Walt visited Orlando in the 1960s and decided it was a great place for his next theme park.  All development is not bad, and unnecessary restrictions will not stop bad developments but could scare off good ones. 

Other arguments used by Amendment 4 promoters are that current comp plans allow "the amount of homes in our county to double," "100 million people to move into Florida," and other scary-sounding statistics that make it sound like the state will be paved over completely.  These numbers are completely unrealistic.  Development never happens uniformly or all at once across an entire area.  No matter what, we are simply not going to build out every lot that is currently authorized under our comp plans.  When Amendment 4 supporters say things like this, they are including the state's vast undeveloped areas that are currently zoned agricultural, and suggesting that someone would come along and buy every single one of those lots and build houses on parcels that are 2.5 acres or larger (Orange County's current minimum lot size for A-R zoning).  There's not a developer out there that would make that investment.

The truth is that Amendment 4 would actually increase sprawl by making development near metropolitan areas more complicated and expensive, and thereby lowering the costs for developing further away from existing infrastructure, and more likely to adversely impact ecologically sensitive areas.  As long as Florida has sunshine and low taxes, we will always be faced with challenges regarding how we handle growth, but Amendment 4 is absolutely, positively not the right way to address those challenges.  

For additional information, please check out the website for Vote No on 4.

I strongly recommend voting No on 4.

Amendment 5 - VOTE NO

Standards for legislature to follow in legislative redistricting.  Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

Amendment 6 - VOTE NO

Standards for legislature to follow in congressional redistricting.  Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.  

Amendments 5 and 6 address the way that state legislative and congressional districts are drawn.  Having worked on many local campaigns, I understand the confusion and frustration with gerrymandered districts, how difficult it can be to figure out who represents you, and the worries that voters have regarding the effect such districts may have in insulating incumbents from challenges.

The problem is that, once again, these amendments don't actually fix the problems they claim to address.  In fact, it is my opinion that the ballot language is fraudulently misleading on 5 and 6 and leaves out some very crucial information.  The end result will be significantly more litigation, and the decision making power removed from our elected officials and instead transferred to non-elected bureaucrats and judges.

One of the most important missing words in the ballot language (but present in the actual full text of the amendments) is the word "intent."  The full language of 5 and 6 forbids drawing districts with the "intent" to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party, or with the "intent" to adversely affect minority voting rights.  This requires an attempt to read the minds of those drawing the districts and divine some sort of malicious purpose.

The reality is that no matter how we draw our districts, whether we impose a square grid over the entire state or let a blindfolded chimpanzee draw the lines, it will benefit one party or candidate more than another, even in the absence of any "intent" to do so.  Amendments 5 and 6  do nothing to reform our redistricting process and instead just open up additional arenas for litigation, most dangerously through the potential arguments over what "intent" was present during the process.

Districts are already required to be contiguous, and proportional in population.  The U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and many, many federal and state statutes already forbid racial discrimination or interfering with someone's right to vote based on race.  And what precisely constitutes a "language minority"?  Will all dialects of Spanish be treated the same?  Will this amendment be interpreted to require ballots be printed in every language we can identify as currently spoken by a Florida resident?  We have a large Hispanic population in this state, and providing bilingual ballots increases access for a lot of people, but how expensive and cumbersome will it be to also print those ballots in French, German, Polish, Swahili, Greek, Farsi, and (for all the Borat fans) Kazakh?

More troubling, what does it mean to deny minorities the "opportunity" to elect a representatives of their "choice?"  Isn't the act of voting itself how people elect a representative of their choice?  Sounds to me that the proponents of these amendments are suggesting that minority groups vote as a block and can only be represented by members of their same minority group.  It is well documented that gerrymandering has been used for years to create "majority-minority" districts, making it more likely that minority candidates will be elected, if you are following the assumption that minorities are more likely to vote for members of their same group.  Personally, I've always been a big fan of judging people based on the "content of their character, not the color of their skin" as MLK Jr. encouraged.

I strongly recommend voting NO on 5 and 6.

Amendment 8 - VOTE YES

Revision of the class size requirements for public schools.  The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students.  Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. 

This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows:  for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students.  This amendment specifies that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment, and schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.

This amendment adds flexibility to the current class size restrictions which were imposed by another constitutional amendment a few years ago.  It would slightly increase the number of students allowed per classroom and calculate the number based on a school's averages, instead of using a strict cap per classroom, as the current system does.

Three generations of my family, including both my parents, have been public school teachers and administrators in Florida.  While class size is only one factor in providing quality education, I definitely agree that overcrowded classes can be detrimental.  The increased burden on the teacher is clear, not just in terms of extra papers to grade but  also the challenges of properly addressing each student's needs and maintaining discipline.

Amendment 8 will not allow overcrowded classrooms.  It increases the caps only slightly, a needed change considering the budget restrictions every school system is facing right now.  Most importantly, is the change in calculation from a strict "how many children are in each class" to a more flexible "what is the average number of children in each class."  Currently, if a first grade class has 18 students at the beginning of the year, and another child transfers to that class two months later, the school is required to incur the expense of hiring a new teacher, providing for a new classroom, and breaking up the children in that class.  

The damage caused by breaking up a successfully functioning class is a major problem.  It is highly disruptive to the learning environment and can be traumatic for the students, especially the very young or those who have learning disabilities or behavioral issues.  How do you explain to kindergartners who have already bonded with their teacher why they have to get a new teacher?  What effect does that have on students who are in the middle of learning to read?  At the higher level, these class size caps have resulted in high school students being unable to take AP or honors classes, impeding their ability to compete for admission to college.

I recommend voting YES on 8.

Nonbinding Statewide Referendum - Vote YES

Balancing the Federal Budget. A Nonbinding Referendum Calling for an Amendment to the United States Constitution. In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the Federal Government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?

This is a "nonbinding referendum," which suggests that it doesn't mean anything.  There is some hope that passing this referendum with a significant majority would send a message to Washington D.C. that the people of Florida are highly concerned about deficit spending and our national debt.  This type of referendum is also a first step in calling for a Constitutional Convention to actually draft and pass such an amendment.

Honestly, I believe that the wisdom of actually passing such an amendment should be sincerely and thoroughly debated.  The budgets and concerns of state legislatures are very different and distinct from those of Congress.  In times of war or national emergency, deficit spending may be necessary or helpful.  However, those concerns can be addressed if and when a Constitutional Convention is actually convened, and the spending in Washington has gotten so insanely out-of-control that I really would like to send a clear message that we have had enough.

I recommend voting yes on this nonbinding special referendum.

School Tax increases - Vote NO 

Orange County voters will see the following language at the end of their ballot as "Special Referendum:"

Orange County School District Ad Valorem Millage Election. Shall the Orange County School District ad valorem millage be increased by a total of one mill for essential operating expenses in order to preserve academic programs, retain highly qualified teachers, and protect arts, athletics and student activities beginning July 1, 2011, and ending four (4) fiscal years later on June 30, 2015, with annual reporting to ensure proper fiscal stewardship of these funds to the citizens of Orange County?

...and Seminole County voters will see this language as a "County Referendum:"

Shall The School Board of Seminole County, Florida, levy a one-half cent school capital outlay sales tax on sales in Seminole County, Florida, for 10 years, effective January 1, 2012, for the purpose of paying the costs of the projects and other expenditures set forth in the Resolution 2010-02 and adopted on July 27, 2010 consisting of facility construction and maintenance (including safety and security), technology for schools and other authorized capital expenditures?

I recommend voting no on both of these.  For me to even consider supporting a tax increase, three factors must be unequivocally established: (1) a definite end date, or "sunset," to the tax increase, (2) a clear and specific purpose for the tax increase, and (3) a pressing need for the funds that justifies the added burden on the taxpayers.

Here, both the Orange and Seminole proposals include expiration dates, but I am not satisfied that my other two criteria have been met.  The Orange proposal states that the funds are to "preserve academic programs, retain highly qualified teachers, and protect arts, athletics and student activities."  To me, that sounds vague, and easily interpreted to allow the money to be used for almost any of the school system's expenditures.  The reporting requirement to ensure "proper fiscal stewardship" is an empty promise, as school budgets are already a matter of public record.

The Seminole County one bothers me even more.  What the heck are the "projects and other expenditures set forth in the Resolution 2010-02," exactly?  It says that they are "facility construction and maintenance (including safety and security), technology for schools and other authorized capital expenditures," but I am still not entirely clear about where the money would go, especially what exactly those "other authorized capital expenditures" might include.

My biggest concern with both of these proposals is that during this tough economy, we should be extraordinarily cautious about any tax increases and the further depressive effect they would likely have on our economy.  I am proud of the fact that I received my education exclusively from our public school system (kindergarten all the way through college and law school), and as a result I am a strong believer in the merits of our public schools, but I also believe that merely throwing money at schools won't necessarily improve education, and I strongly believe that this is the wrong time for a tax increase.

I recommend voting NO on the Orange County and Seminole County school tax increase proposals.  

What do you think?  Do you agree with me about these amendments?  Why or why not?

Motion to Dismiss filed against Doug Guetzloe

Today, attorneys for South Florida Tea Party Movement activists filed a scathing Motion to Dismiss (coupled with an even-more-scathing press release) in the lawsuit filed against them by Florida Tea Party Fake Tea Party leader Doug Guetzloe:

State Campaign Finance Laws Under Attack - The Republican Lawyer Blog

Here's a short article with a summary of some of the legal challenges to campaign finance laws in courts in Arizona, Connecticut, and Florida, from the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) blog:

State Campaign Finance Laws Under Attack - The Republican Lawyer Blog

If you are an attorney, I highly recommend checking out membership in the RNLA.  I went to one of their election law seminars in 2008 and it was fantastic. 

No, Doug Guetzloe is not "winning" all of his lawsuits

When asked about the multiple lawsuits or criminal investigations that have been following him around for the past few years, Doug Guetzloe always brags that he is "winning" all the lawsuits and gets all the criminal charges "dismissed."  

Sorry, Doughboy, but, in the famous words of Congressman Joe Wilson, "You Lie!"

I've covered some of Guetzloe's past troubles here (most notably, that his constant claims that he has "won" the appeal and gotten his criminal conviction "overturned" are not true, merely that the 14 counts to which he pled no contest and for which he was convicted have now been consolidated into one count).

And now, today, something new and fun.  WKMG Local 6 posted today a copy of a October 2007 grand jury report on the "culture of corruption" at the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority, which was released to the public today after Guetzloe's lawsuit to keep the report private was officially rejected by the appellate court, after 18 months of legal acrobatics by Guetzloe's favorite attorney/attack dog, Fred O'Neal.  Read Local 6's article here.

The grand jury report describes how OOCEA paid $107,500 to Doug Guetzloe and his company, Advantage Consultants, for what was claimed to be a consulting fee for a public opinion study about paying tolls.  However, "no scope of work was delineated" for the work, and [n]o expectations or goals were outlined in writing" for Guetzloe's work, and all he apparently did was produce a "two and a quarter page" report.  

The grand jury report also describes how the Advantage Consultants contract was concealed by hiring them as a subcontractor and the normal OOCEA bidding process was circumvented.

Considering the short and flimsy report that was generated, the large fee that was paid, the efforts to conceal the contract, and Guetzloe's activities with "Ax the Tax," a group that had been a loud and vocal opponent to toll increases in the past, the grand jury came to what they termed the "inescapable conclusion" that the payment was "hush money," and notes that "a quieter Ax the Tax did seem to flow from the $107,500 payment to Doug Guetzloe."

The hypocrisy of this just amazes me.  Doug Guetzloe has championed himself as the local champion in all fights against tax increases for years, but here is yet another example of his support or opposition of an issue being for sale.  Toll increases are a form of a tax increase, and for him to do a complete 180 in his position on the issue after getting over a hundred thousand dollars illustrates, in my opinion, exactly how true and honorable (or should I say false and dishonorable) his beliefs really are.

Anyone associated with the Florida Tea Party should really question what's motivating Guetzloe's loyalty now.  If Guetzloe is for sale, who's paying the bill this year?

Best Typo EVER

As most of you know, there are several lawsuits between the Florida Tea Party Fake Tea Party, Doug Guetzloe, and some people involved with the actual tea party movement.  

Last week, the mediator assigned to the South Florida Tea Party litigation issued a Notice of Mediation Hearing, directing the parties and their attorneys to attend a mediation conference on September 20, 2010.  For my non-lawyer readers, this is basically a settlement conference conducted outside the courtroom, with the mediator acting as "referee" and trying to encourage the parties to settle the case.  

Anyway, this is all fairly standard civil litigation procedure (most judges require the parties to attempt mediation at least once before agreeing to set a case for trial), except for an absolutely delicious little typo in the caption:

"Dough" Guetzloe?  Awesome.  I've heard a number of people refer to ol' Dougie as a doughboy, but I guess it's legally official now.  ;)

Is Doughboy a fair nickname for Guetzloe?  Judge for yourself:

That's a pretty old picture.  Doughboy looked a little rounder last time I saw him.  You can see him in some videos from last month here.

How's that Jim Greer appointment working out for you now, Charlie?

As I posted last week, Charlie Crist has been sued over contributions that he accepted for his Senate campaign while he was a Republican, but refused to refund after jumping ship to run as an independent.  I questioned whether inducing someone to donate money to a campaign by saying you were a Republican while you were considering or had already decided to abandon the party could constitute fraud.

I'd encourage you go to back and read my post, and take note of the comment by Wade Vose with further legal discussion of how to prove fraud:

I think it comes down to a very simple question...[a]t the time Crist elicited the contributions in question, did he make a "misrepresentation of material fact"?

...I would argue that the material fact was whether Crist, as a longtime Republican Attorney General and Governor, would run in the Republican Primary through the full primary process, and abide by the result of that primary. If he was contemplating running outside of the Republican Party process as early as March, as the Greer/Johnson Tapes seem to indicate, then it appears that this was a misrepresentation of material fact.

The "Greer/Johnson Tapes" to which Wade refers are a recorded telephone call between ousted RPOF chairman Jim Greer and Delmar Johnson that took place on March 25, 2010.