[transgendernews] [Blog/Commentary] [USA] Gazette Reports on the Appeals Court Opinion
Stephanie Stevens
Vigilance, MD, USA
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Gazette Reports on the Appeals Court Opinion
Because the appeal court's opinion just came out
<http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/12/court-opinion-issued.html> , The
Gazette had a longish article yesterday, reviewing the gender-identity
nondiscrimination case and what the court's decision implies. It
starts like this:
A decision by the state's highest court last month on the county's
transgender case upheld rules that make it more difficult for groups
to put referendum issues on the ballot.
The Court of Appeals issued the 63-page opinion after ruling in
September that a referendum proposed by a conservative group seeking
to overturn the county's new law that bans discrimination against
transgendered people could not go on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Montgomery County Board of
Elections erred in saying the group needed signatures from 5 percent
of active registered voters. Instead, the elections law requires
signatures from 5 percent of all voters, whether active or inactive,
thus requiring a greater number of signatures. Inactive voters hadn't
voted in more than three election cycles.
In addition, the court ruled, the elections board should not have
simply checked the signatures of those who signed the petition to see
if they were registered voters, but also should have checked to see if
the signatures were valid. A valid signature has a person's full name
and complete address. Transgender decision tightens referendum rules
<http://www.gazette.net/stories/01052009/polinew171906_32471.shtml>
Skipping down, I liked the way The Gazette described the controversy:
A group called Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government
claimed the law would allow men to enter women's restrooms and
changing areas and sought to overturn it.
I notice that this has not happened.
"The referendum process is drastic, and the Court of Appeals has
said repeatedly the rules must be strictly complied with," said
Natalie Chin, an attorney for gay activist group Lambda Legal who
worked on the case.
"What the Court of Appeals did is say the referendum process
cannot be taken lightly, and if you're going to change a duly-enacted
law you have to strictly comply with the law."
"We think it''s a big loss for democracy, for Montgomery County
and for privacy and safety for women," Ruth M. Jacobs, president of
Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, said in September.
You would think it would be embarrassing, wouldn't you? This law has
been in effect now for nearly three months, and there is no loss of
privacy, nothing dangerous for women. Before the law passed they could
scream and whine that such-and-such was going to happen, but it didn't
happen. The only man-in-the-ladies-room we have seen here is the one
the Citizens for Responsible Whatever sent into the ladies showers at
Rio as a publicity stunt before the law was in effect. Oh, and a
foreign guy <http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/11/wctu-leader-outraged-by-foreigner-at.html>
who helped his wife with the baby while she tried on clothes at Kohls.
But Chin said the appellate decision strengthens democracy.
"It doesn't break new ground. But it is nice to have a newer case
on the books to strengthen the idea you have to follow election law
very strictly," she said.
Jonathan S. Shurberg, an attorney for Equality Maryland, said the
county's charter, state election law and the Court of Appeals'
previous rulings made it clear that Citizens for Responsible
Government needed more signatures and had not gathered them properly.
Shurberg had argued that the county's charter, state law and a
previous Court of Appeals ruling require that petitioners meet the
higher number.
"You should err on the side of allowing people to vote, but this
wasn't about voting," he said. "This was about a referendum and the
signatures."
This can be a good exercise in democracy. Maybe it's unfair to make
referendum petition signers use the exact name that they used when
they registered to vote. Maybe the law is too strict. In that case,
our elected representatives are fully empowered to change the law. If
it's unfair, throw it out, re-write it, make it legal for Roberts to
sign as Bobs and husbands to sign for their wives. The law needs to be
enforced as it's written, and this one is written to be strict.
I don't see any stampede at the state or county level to re-write it.
This was a complicated case that was finally came down to the
ineptitude of the county Board of Elections. They told the shower-nuts
they had enough signatures, and one, they counted all kinds of invalid
signatures as valid, and two, they told them they needed the wrong
number of signatures in the first place.
To my mind the real issue was misrepresentation of the law to
potential petition-signers. I myself heard them say "Would you like to
sign a petition to keep men out of the ladies room?" The law itself is
pages long, the county's version online has all kinds of
strikethroughs and brackets and special marks to show what was added
and what was changed, and when. The ordinary citizen can't wade
through that to determine what an "accommodation" is, or a "facility."
It is not right to ask people to sign a legal petition and lie to them
about that it is. But there is apparently nothing in the law that says
you have to be truthful with people in getting them to sign.
posted by JimK at 9:50 PM
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/01/gazette-reports-on-appeals-court.html
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___