Judge Tells North Carolina Republicans To Hand Over Docs And Emails Related To Voting Law

[Playinghardball]

Something stinks in North Carolina. The state’s legislative leaders who crafted the new restrictive voter ID law will have to turn over some of their correspondence and email messages to voters and organizations who are challenging the wide-ranging amendments, according to a federal court ruling. The state tried to block the demand by civil rights groups previously.

An interesting tidbit in this report is that that the attorneys for the lawmakers contended that the lawmakers were protected by legislative immunity and should be free from “arrest or civil process” related to their actions as General Assembly members.

On Thursday U.S. Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake issued a ruling which addresses an attempt by lawmakers to quash subpoenas seeking email, correspondence and other documents exchanged while transforming the state’s voting process. This ruling, however, does not make all the communications available.

The Charlotte Observer reports:

In a court hearing earlier this year, attorneys for 13 Republican legislators tried to turn back efforts to get the correspondence released. The NAACP, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Justice Department and others sued the governor, state legislators and N.C. election board members to obtain the records.

Among the 13 lawmakers were: Sen. Phil Berger, leader of the state Senate; House Speaker Thom Tillis; Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican from Matthews; and Republican Reps. Ruth Samuelson of Charlotte, Larry Pittman of Concord and David Lewis of Dunn.

Their attorneys contended that the lawmakers were protected by legislative immunity and should be free from “arrest or civil process” related to their actions as General Assembly members.

More here: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/judge-tells-north-carolina-republicans

[Frustratedlady]

1. The female judges aren't letting them get by with their

shenanigans. Free from arrest or civil process? They must be worried.

[Gothmog]

2. Here is a copy of the opinion

I scanned this opinion and it appears to be a well written opinion https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/order_2.pdf

There is a status hearing on Tuesday (yes I know that it is April 1) on this and other issues in the Texas voter id case. I just forwarded this opinion to one of the attorneys working on that case. I am pretty sure that he or one of the other attorneys would have seen this opinion but it does not hurt. The DOJ is a party to both cases and I am pretty sure that the DOJ will be aware of this opinion prior to Tuesday's hearing.

[marions ghost]

3. Putting up the "immunity" shields...

These Pukes make me...

[WillyT]

4. HUGE K & R !!!

[Gothmog]

5. On Tuesday, Judge ordered State of Texas to turn over documents

Greg Abbott has been fighting the release of e-mails and documents from GOP members of the legislature on grounds of legislative privilege. The Court has denied such motion and has ordered Greg to produce the e-mails and documents. http://txredistricting.org/post/81529185554/court-rules-on-discovery-issues-in-texas-voter-id-case

After a hearing yesterday in the Texas voter ID case, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos gave Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seven days to turn over, under seal, emails and other legislative documents that the AG’s office had collected from legislators in 2012 in connection with earlier litigation to try to obtain preclearance of the law under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The attorney general’s office had contended in the case before Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi that the documents were exempt from discovery on the basis of legislative privilege or, alternatively, could only be sought by a separate subpoena to each legislator.

[johnnyreb]

6. K&R

[Gothmog]

7. The North Carolina legislators are appealing the ruling in the OP

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.