North Carolina

Gothmog

(151,829 posts) Thu Apr 3, 2014, 06:43 PM Apr 2014

Legislative Privilege in voter id case

A federal magistrate ordered members of the North Carolina legislature to produce documents as their intent and plans in adopting the North Carolina voter suppression law http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024750435

The North Carolina legislators in this case are appealing the ruling http://linkis.com/ow.ly/wKfrc

The battle over the disclosure of information relating to the passage of controversial voting law changes last summer continues in federal court, as state lawmakers yesterday filed an objection to a magistrate’s order requiring them to produce at least some documents they’d claimed were absolutely protected under the doctrines of legislative immunity and legislative privilege.

In that order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake adopted a flexible approach, finding that at a minimum, certain documents — communications with constituents or other third-parties, for example – were not protected and should be produced, and that other documents might likewise have to be disclosed if the need for them in the voting rights context outweighed any intrusion on the legislative process.

That’s an approach that courts elsewhere have adopted — in Florida, Texas, and Wisconsin, for example — weighing the need of legislators to be free from harassing questions about their decision-making processes with the needs of citizens suspicious of those lawmakers’ motives – and in the end, ordering the disclosure of at least some information.
- See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/04/03/state-lawmakers-holding-tight-to-their-privilege-in-voting-rights-cases/#sthash.Fu3vI5r6.dpuf

The pleading in this objection is really extraordinary in that these legislators take the position that the legislative immunity or privilege is absolute in all cases except criminal cases http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Lawmaker-objection-to-privilege-argument.pdf I have read all of the rulings in the Texas redistricting and voter id cases and the Florida and Wisconsin opinions on this issue. The prevailing view is that to the extent that there is a privilege, such privilege is qualified and that the Department of Justice has the right to get the documents in question. According to this objection, the Department of Justice is not entitled to take the deposition of any North Carolina legislator and must rely on the legislative history that occurred on the floor of the legislature.

I know that in the Texas redistricting case, the plaintiffs were able to obtain some incriminating e-mails that helped the DC Court find that the Texas redistricting plan was based on an intent to discriminate. As noted on another thread, a Federal judge just ordered the State of Texas to turn over to the Court all e-mails and documents requested by the DOJ in the possession of the State of Texas.

I really think that this objection is bogus and is taking a position that will not stand up in court.

1 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Legislative Privilege in voter id case (Original Post) Gothmog Apr 2014 OP

The judge in Texas voter id case issued opinion Gothmog Apr 2014 #1

Gothmog

(151,829 posts)

1. The judge in Texas voter id case issued opinion

Reply to Gothmog (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 08:03 PM

Apr 2014

The federal judge in the Texas voter id case issues an opinion that shows that the filing by the North Carolina legislators is a joke. The judge in the Texas case cites a 1977 SCOTUS opinion that is ignored by the North Carolina legislators in favor of a 1951 case. Under the ruling in the 1977 case, it is clear that the legislative privilege is a limited privilege http://txredistricting.org/post/81620932688/legislative-privilege-order-entered-in-the-texas-voter

The Court finds that the first, third, and fourth factors weigh strongly in favor of disclosure. The evidence the United States seeks to compel is highly relevant to its claim because it bears directly on whether state legislators, contrary to their public pronouncements, acted with discriminatory intent in enacting SB 14. The federal government’s interest in enforcing voting rights statutes is, without question, highly important, as noted above. Further, the state government’s role is direct. The motive and intent of the state legislature when it enacted SB 14 is the crux of this Voting Rights Act case.

With respect to the second factor, the availability of other evidence, the United States insists that a concerted effort on behalf of SB 14’s key supporters to coordinate talking points and refuse to publicly engage with the concerns of minority legislators about the bill’s impact on minority populations has resulted in a situation where the documents sought are the only existing evidence of candid discussions about SB 14 … [T]he Court holds that the second factor weights slightly in favor of disclosure given the practical reality that officials ‘seldom, if ever, announce on the record that they are pursuing a particular course of action because of their desire to discriminate against a racial minority

When a brief cites an older case instead of a more recent case, you know that the litigator is in trouble

Reply to this discussion