A Nevada judge has tossed out a proposed so-called personhood initiative saying the language was too vague and violated state law that limits questions to one subject.
Like in Montana, the Nevada ballot initiative petition does not specifically mention abortion, but is a back door attempt to totally ban abortion in the state.
Carson City District Court Judge James Russell said the measure was too broad and general in nature to be put before voters in November.
"The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they're voting on," Russell said in a ruling from the bench after listening to about two hours of arguments.
Besides being vague, Russell said, the initiative violates a law limiting referendum questions to a single subject.
"There's no way for the voter to understand the effects of the initiative," he said.
The case came to court after a Nevada woman, a pharmacist and an OB-GYN together filed a legal challenge against the petition, arguing that the initiative proposes far reaching changes to the Nevada Constitution and laws, is misleading and fails to give voters a clear understanding of the changes it proposes and its purpose and effect.
It was reported today that Annie Bukacek of the Montana Policy Institute's anti-health care "conferences" and demonstrations and the abortion ban ballot initiative backed by Warburton, McGee, and Butcher, among others:
...is under investigation for alleged abuse of patients or fraud with regard to Medicaid billing involving Bukacek's medical practice. Questions about praying with patients also have been raised. Bukacek said she spent an hour and a half Wednesday with an FBI agent, a criminal investigator and two health-care fraud investigators...
National activists are again trying to use Montana as electoral proving grounds to challenge Roe v Wade since federal legislative efforts have been fruitless.
But after a whistle-stop tour from out-of-state activists failed to bring out local support, Wendy Warburton, R-Havre, and the rag-tag group of misfits who refuse to see the writing on the wall are also having trouble putting on a happy face today.
"They have a lot more money than we do," she said of local Montana-based organizations who oppose the constitutional amendment.
The amendment also failed to qualify for the ballot last election cycle.
Local Montana groups don't seem surprised at the lack of support the initiative idea is getting.
"We raise all of our money from the grassroots in Montana," [Allyson Hagen, Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana] said, "If we have more money, it's because we have more support."
Even those who Warburton thought would be on her side aren't supporting the amendment:
"the Montana Catholic Conference, a mainstay in the pro-life movement, is not supporting the proposal. It questions the strategy of an all-out challenge to Roe v. Wade at this time."
This weekend, one of the nations most infamous opponents of birth control will travel to Montana to pitch the so-called "personhood" amendment. The amendment is a total ban on abortion with no exceptions that is written in such a way that it could also ban many forms of birth control, some fertility treatments, and cause a host of legal and budgetary problems.
The Pill Kills project is among the more extreme and dangerous of the American Life League's activities. The campaign spreads lies such as telling women that birth inherently dangerous and may lead to "shrinking of the womb" and even death.
These "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" signs, first seen at the 9/12 march in Washington DC, were the brainchild of Judie Brown, director of the American Life League and denounced by the Catholics she claimed to work to support as
"an outrage and an embarrassment to the Catholic community [that] scor[es] cheap political points at the expense of common good solutions to the current crisis in the health care system."
This campaign marks the fourth attempt in two years (two initiatives, two legislative referenda) in Montana to redefine personhood and interfere in Montana's constitutionally protected right to privacy. Anti-choice groups fell nearly 20,000 signatures short of qualifying for the 2008 ballot. In order to qualify for the 2010 ballot, proponents will have to collect 48,674 signatures, including 10 percent of the voters in each of 40 legislative house districts.
Dennis Unsworth's rejection of a Trevis Butcher complaint (pdf) against Brett Lund didn't garner any media coverage, but it's pretty amusing. And, yes, this is yet another complaint surrounding the 2006 trio of Howie-Rich-funded ballot initiatives - the campaign for which was found to be marred by "pervasive fraud" in its signature-gathering, and for which Trevis Butcher was found to have violated Montana campaign finance laws.
This one, though, was initiated by Butcher against Billings detective Brett Lund for swinging by (on duty) an addresse listed as a residence on one of the signature gatherer's affidavits - it turns out the address belonged to Butcher's sister, Becky. When questioned, Becky Butcher had never heard the signature-gatherer's name.
Get it? Trevis Butcher used his sister's address for a signature gatherer's affidavit, without her knowledge or consent!
Just a little taste of the fun and games that went on in 2006, a footnote from that campaign, and proof, again, of how classy Trevis Butcher is.
Trevis Butcher, Montanans in Action's treasurer and chief spokesperson, called Unsworth's findings "spurious" and "absurd." He said the investigation was part of a political vendetta stemming from Butcher's past support of term limits for Montana politicians.
"The Commissioner's office uses what are supposed to be the people's courts," Butcher said in a statement Monday, "to say, 'We'll ignore you and the signatures of 125,609 registered Montana voters. We'll make you waste hundreds of thousands dollars in legal fees. And we'll continue to do things just the way we want. Welcome to Helena, your state Capitol. Oh, and if you happen to get one by us, like term limits, we will punish you by any other means at our disposal then, now, and in the future.'"
That's Butcher's response to the conclusions of an investigation with which he refused to cooperate. Dennis Unsworth also apparently thinks Mr. Butcher broke the law by lying to or misleading investigators (maybe Jake Eaton can help Trevis duck those charges, though).
Here's the good news for Montanans:
"I honestly see this as a witch hunt, and we're going to stand up to it. Our legal team is right now reviewing this, and we'll obviously be prepared for whatever is ahead," Butcher said. "We really believe a citizen's right to free speech is fundamental to our form of government. This form of harassment is a real abuse to our constitutional rights."
Butcher's legal team to date has proved incompetent beyond belief. It must be hard to comply with the law when you don't believe in it -- and I don't mean an individual law, I mean the existence of any laws, period.
The full 105 page PDF is available for review online. If anyone finds time to read it, let us know: unfair harassment or Dennis Unsworth doing his job.
Here's a sneak peak from John Adams about Dennis Unsworth slapping down Trevis Butcher's "Montanans In Action" for violating Montana campaign finance law during the 2006 election while campaigning for Howie Rich's terrible trio of ballot initiatives - CI 98, CI 97, and CI 154.
According to Adams' report, Unsworth found "substantial evidence" that "Montanans in Action" "violated the state's campaign finance reporting and disclosure laws by refusing to disclose the source of the $1.2 million the group spent on three ballot initiatives in 2006." Unsworth found "detailed connections" between Butcher's group and its 2006 campaign and Howie Rich's "Americans for Limited Government."
Not surprising if you followed Montana blogs that summer, when it was exposed that Howie Rich and the ALG were funding similar ballot initiatives across the country. (And, of course, Rich's own website eventually admitted its funding of the effort in Montana.) Montana's effort to put the initiatives on the ballot was marked by pervasive fraud from the paid signature gatherers shipped in from across the country, and the initiatives were thrown out, and an investigation into "Montanans In Action" was kicked off.
The result was this report.
Butcher's reaction? He said it was "nothing more than a political payback vendetta for stepping on the toes of big government by supporting term limits on Montana politicians."
Heh. Not entirely out of character for these *sshats. In short, apparently Mr. Butcher and his ilk believe they are above the law.
Dennis Unsworth:
The 2006 tactics suggest that the proponents of CI-97, CI-98, and I-154 may be more interested in seeking to invalidate campaign reporting laws that require public disclosure of the true source of money used to finance express campaign speech.
Sounds about right. Total contempt for the legal processes that comprise our democracy.
People tied to the nasty three initiatives have now been indicted in Oklahoma for fraud, the same reason their initiatives got booted from the ballot here in Montana.
Trevis Butcher, the right-wing operative who fronted the initiatives here, is claiming to be a legitimate non-profit facing unfair scrutiny. Yeah, right -- more like systemic pattern of fraud and corruption all over the country.
Mike Dennison wrote a story today about how Trevis Butcher wants state Commissioner of Political Practices, Dennis Unsworth, off his back. Unsworth is investigating Butcher because of his involvement with the "terrible trio" of Howie-Rich-funded anti-government initiatives, CIs-154, -97, and -98. Butcher's group, "Montanans in Action," funded the initiatives to the tune of $1.18 million.
Remember, these initiatives and their zombie brethren sprung up all across the country and were funded by a single man - libertarian Howie Rich - through front organizations (like Butcher's), who hired professional signature gatherers to fill petitions. Only the process was marked by "pervasive fraud" -- the gatherers lied about the content in the petitions, and the initiatives were thrown out.
The report explains why Unsworth is investigating Butcher's group:
Montanans in Action was formed in early 2006 as a nonprofit group for "educational" and political purposes, Butcher said. Such groups don't have to reveal their supporters - unless they act as an independent political committee that primarily supplies money to political campaigns.
Unsworth said his investigation seeks to establish whether MIA is an independent political committee, which would make it subject to reporting who gave it the money routed to the campaigns of the three ballot measures.
Butcher and his attorneys have accused Unsworth of conducting a "politically motivated witch hunt," notes that Unsworth is "active in Democratic circles," and claims against the group are "wild accusations."
Only thing is, antipathy for Butcher and his methods are bipartisan. It was the terrible trio of initiatives that inspired Senate Bill 96, a bipartisan effort to curtail the kind of wild, mercenary signature gathering so pervasive under Butcher's organization. (SB 96 passed with overwhelming support, and was signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.) Meanwhile, Daddy Butcher's initiative reform bill - which would have punished the groups who brought action against Baby Butcher's bills and made it harder for initiatives to be thrown out - died in a Republican-majority House committee.
There's no doubt Butcher's activities were suspiciously in alignment with Howie Rich's. More than one investigative journalist tied the money here in Montana to Rich. And Rich himself admitted that he financially supported the efforts here to make the terrible trio of initiatives law.
Butcher has no case here, and should hand over the requested documents. Montana has a right to know who's sponsoring political activity in the state.
Trevis Butcher is now suing the State of Montana in federal court, declaring that efforts by Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth to determine who funded Butcher's group Montanans in Action amounts to a violation of free speech rights. How are the free speech rights violated?
Subpoenas issued by Unsworth's office are violating free-speech and free-association rights because they will force the group to reveal its political associations and strategies, the suit said.
Yeah, and an investigation into my vote-buying schemes at the university violate my right to free speech and free association.
It's hilarious that one of the three initiatives these folks sponsored was going after "activist" judges, because they clearly want an activist judge to rule in this case.
