WND: Mayor threatens pastors with felony charges over recall

[Patricia M. McBride]

This is going to be a very interesting case to watch as we have a very similiar happening here in Jacksonville.  We have in the past had our city council override the voice of the people.  We may need to watch this and see what happens as no one should be stopped from attempting to recall someone legally nor should thier freedom of speech be called into question.  It does not matter what church you go to as it does not eliminate your right to freedom of speech as an individual even if you are working in unison with friends from the same church you go to or you are the paster of a church.  And trying to charge someone with a felony for attempting to use your freedom of speech (when it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs) to help remove someone from office that has ignored the will of the people, is dead wrong.

 

City official claims churches that circulate petitions violate election law

November 19, 2011
By Drew Zahn

A group of churches and pastors in El Paso, Texas, are in a legal battle with the city's mayor, who has cited a state election law he says would make their distribution of recall petitions against him a third degree felony.

Now Jesus Chapel and its pastor, H. Warren Hoyt, with the help of attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, are asking a federal court to strike down the election law Mayor John Cook is citing as unconstitutional censorship of free speech.

"Pastors and churches shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster in a statement. "No law or government official can rob a faith group of its constitutionally protected rights just because that official would prefer not to be removed from office."  

The legal filing is actually a step up in an ongoing battle over how churches can or can't legally be involved in politics, a struggle that has involved not only the ADF, but also Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and that could make its way to the Supreme Court.

The controversy stems back to November 2010, when El Paso voters, by popular petition, passed an ordinance prohibiting the city from extending benefits to unmarried domestic partners, which would include homosexual couples.

Yet certain members of the city council voted to rescind the ordinance passed by the voters, and the mayor approved. The move prompted a grassroots campaign – including church members and leaders – to circulate a petition demanding recall of the offending city officials.

Mayor Cook then filed suit alleging the Word of Life Church of El Paso, Pastor Tom Brown, ElPasoans for Traditional Family Values and others violated Texas election law by circulating the petitions, which succeeded at prompting a recall election scheduled for next May.

Specifically, the Texas Election Code states: "A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution in connection with a recall election, including the circulation and submission of a petition to call an election."

And while ADF argues church members distributing a petition is not a "political contribution," Americans United reported the effort to the IRS, claiming "federal law prohibits non-profit groups from intervening in elections."

Americans United also sent a letter to the state attorney general, enclosing a copy of its complaint to the IRS and requesting a state investigation as well.

Furthermore, the El Paso Times reports, several lawyers and "experts" see the case as a potential opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify its controversial 2010 decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate political expenditures but has left several of the attorneys the Times quoted questioning how it should be applied.

"This is a very live question," Richard Briffault, a Columbia University law professor told the Times. "It could go either way."

Attorneys for the churches argue, however, that the mayor is misapplying the law in an attempt to "silence" those who want him recalled.

"The recall petitions were circulated and submitted in full accordance with the law," said Oster, "and [Mayor Cook] cannot stop the election just because he doesn't like the fact that some groups participated in a legitimate effort that he doesn't favor."

The ADF lawsuit insists that Jesus Chapel and Pastor Hoyt merely want to be able to "fully participate as citizens within the community, including circulating petitions to hold recall elections, without fear of punishment arising from the enforcement of an unconstitutional state election law against them."

ADF attorneys are seeking an injunction that bars Cook from using the law to stop the church from circulating recall petitions. The suit also requests a declaration that the law itself is unconstitutional.

 

 

Read more: Mayor threatens pastors with felony charges over recall http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=369245#ixzz1eFmO3y2I

 

 

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

***********I wanted to get this in yesterday to be pertinent for the CC meeting tonite.  We all know HELL is paved with good intentions.  It might still have relevance AFTER the CC meeting.***********

-----From: curtlee59 <[e-mail]>To: Holt <[e-mail]>Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 11:28 amSubject: Re: The Importance of Incentives to the Jacksonville Region

Councilman - You are probably right in what you say.   But, what generally bothers many is this (1) In the case of Morgan Stanley and other big entities with sketchy track records of misconduct, government fines etc, the issue is a moral one.   (2) Plus, in the case of MS, they obviously previously decided to invest and hire, and the incentives are unneeded icing on the cake.

 

Another issue that I have witnessed in other contexts (e.g. the Police & Fire Pension Fund) is that, due to political inertia, fear of political retribution, or whatever, it is extremely hard to enforce anything through political mechanisms.   I.e., I have dug up so much dirt re the PFPF, and yet it has not been penalized in any way.   City Council, per my belief, did not even cut its budget.   This sort of stasis/lack of response leads to the popular suspicion that, if any of the subsidized entitites should fail to live up to their agreements re the subsidies, that no one will take the subsidies back or otherwise penalize them.    

 

Enforcement has always been the stickiest of wickets in governmental contexts, and indeed, all complex agreements usually have detailed language re: enforcement of their terms.    But government is different than private parties in that government is more likely to decide not to enforce agreements/provisions of the law.    Think about all the laws that exist that are either wholly or mostly not enforced.

 

Lastly, it all boils down to trust.   People these days have very distrustful attitudes, especially towards banks.   

 

I will be at City Council tomorrow.    Curt