Also on today’s menu:
Record Sealed On Rioter Who Cooperated With Authorities
Legislation Proposes Limits On Free RTK Requests
“I do not reach this conclusion lightly. Democracy is sacred,” wrote Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows as she ruled that Donald Trump cannot appear on the state’s primary election ballot. “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws, when presented with a Section 336 challenge, is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek.”
Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court also ruled that the former president is ineligible to appear on that state’s primary ballot. The Colorado Republican Party has appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.
Bellows’ ruling came in response to ballot challenges from former Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling, a Democrat; former Republican state senators Kimberley Rosen and Thomas Saviello; and Mary Ann Royal of Winterport.
Discussion: The US Supreme Court has not agreed to take up the Colorado Republicans’ appeal of their own Supreme Court’s decision to keep Trump off the ballot, but Maine’s decision increases the likelihood that it will do so, in order to set a national standard for disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stacked with “originalists” who interpret the Constitution on the basis of what the framers intended, the justices should conclude that Section 3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, subsequently takes action to invalidate it. However, we can expect them to find a way to allow Trump’s name on the ballot, perhaps by ruling that the January 6 march to the US Capitol which turned into a riot was not a formal attempt to gain control of the U.S. government.
Record Sealed On Rioter Who Cooperated With Authorities
Court documents normally are open and are only withheld from the public in cases where there is a compelling need for secrecy, so the case of the case of Samuel Lazar raises some questions. Lazar, of Ephrata, Pennsylvania, was among more than 1,200 people charged with January 6-related crimes, hundreds of whom have pleaded guilty. Lazar, too, pleaded guilty but, unlike the others, he was sentenced in secret and his case remained under seal until this week.
According to the Associated Press, the newly released documents show that Lazar cooperated with authorities who were investigating the attack on the US Capitol and an unrelated case. He admitted to spraying a chemical irritant at police officers defending the Capitol and to using a bullhorn to encourage other rioters to take officers’ weapons. He pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to 30 months in prison last March, but he was released from custody in September.
Lazar’s attorney, Hope Lefeber, said his behavior on January 6 “was completely out of character for him, as he is an extremely respectful, law-abiding citizen who has deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement.” She said, “He blindly followed President Trump’s cry to ‘fight like hell to take back the country.”
Discussion: Prosecuting attorneys had objected to the release of all of the documents, asking the court to post only blacked-out versions after a coalition of news outlets, including the Associated Press, asked for their public release. It is reasonable to redact the names of those who have not yet been charged if Lazar had identified others involved in the attack, but sealing the entire document or withholding some of it — particularly the fact that he had been found guilty and what his sentence was — is troublesome.
Legislation Proposes Limits On Free RTK Requests
House Bill 1002, sponsored by Windham Republican Katelyn Kuttab for the 2024 legislative session, would set limits on the time public officials spend on free Right-To-Know requests. Supported by members of both the House and the Senate, the bill allows officials to charge as much as $25 per hour if the records searches take more than 10 hours, which includes subsequent requests made within 30 days.
The bill would retain the requirement that they make a governmental record available within five business days or state the reason for denial; or to provide a written statement of the time “reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied and the reason for the delay”, but it adds that they also must provide “an estimate of the cost of making the record available if a charge would be incurred under [new] paragraph VIII.”
It also allows a public body or agency to suggest “a reasonable modification of the scope of the request, if doing so would enable the body or agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably.”
Co-sponsors of the bill are Sharon Carson, David Watters, Debra DeSimone, Michael Cahill, Kevin Avard, Jess Edwards, Chuck Grassie, Bill Gannon, Jim Maggiore, Aidan Ankarberg, Bill Boyd, Jodi Nelson, Timothy Lang, Ron Dunn, and Lorie Ball.
Discussion: The right to know the decisions of government agents and the decision-making process are central entitlements for the citizenry, who pay for those services through their taxes and fees. To the greatest extent possible, that information should be available at no cost, and today’s technology makes it easy to provide most records electronically. However, some documents — particularly older ones — may not be immediately available, so it can take time. Additionally, some people have made broad requests, such as that of Albert Brandano, who sought two years of emails, written communications, and activity between his school district’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice Committee members and certain employees of SAU 16, including meeting minutes, work product, and chat logs; and the curriculum and book titles that were assigned, recommended, or suggested for students. It took five district employees 30 hours to provide Brandano just some of those records. When Democrat Michael Cahill proposed limits and fees last year, the American Civil Liberties Union-New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Press Association, and Americans for Prosperity opposed it, and Cahill withdrew the bill. Setting limits on free requests is reasonable, but whether a 10-day limit — particularly if it includes subsequent requests — and a $25-per-hour fee beyond that require a little more justification.