[CRNMC] CELDF response to Legal opinion of Initiative

Lanny Cotler lcotler at gmail.com
Thu Aug 14 13:49:11 PDT 2014 

Single subject?! Yes, that seems to be a solid "rule" of the legislative game in California, and perhaps a few other states. But why is there so much discussion about exactly what the single subject of our ordinance is?

Shannon says it is "the bill of rights". 
Karina says it is "banning fracking".
And I've heard other interpretations.

Lawyer Losak spells out more than one subject in our ordinance, and therefore he predicts it will be found unconstitutional.

Perhaps that is true, and therefore a tactical defeat. But what about the long-run? Is our ordinance strategically a good thing to put before the People? If it is found to be "illegal", will that be a total loss? There are boxes within boxes, lessons within lessons, games within games.

What I'd like to know is whether CELDF has the same agenda as we do? I appreciate their work, am grateful for their help, but are they playing a slightly different game than we? I have spoken to a few of us who have earnestly asked this question.

I've heard Shannon to say that the single subject is "community rights". That's quite close to "the bill of rights". But can an ordinance, a local law, be successfully passed that invokes, protects, or establishes either of those subjects? While I like the idea of it, is it legally defensible?

Others have said the subject of the Ordinance is protecting our water. Banning fracking does exactly that. Indeed, were we to pass a law that simply "protects our water" it might be interpreted as multiple-subjects, since it implies a broad scope to the law—much harder to adjudicate and thus enforce.

Thus, it seems to me we ought to talk about our Ordinance as laser-focused on banning fracking, and that's all.

Lanny Cotler
Willits


"Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass, and the little ones get caught." ~ Honoré de Balzac


On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Shannon Biggs <shannon at globalexchange.org> wrote:

> The single subject is the bill of rights. That's all the rights inc. but I can schedule a call with me and Ben if folks would like for next week. ? 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:14 PM, "Tim Rice" <tim at multitalents.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Sounds like we should schedule a conference call around
>> consistent messaging.
>> 
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:
>> 
>>> Of course Losak can argue is not a single subject, but we can also argue
>>> that it is. I¹m not sure what it matters if Oregon has a single subject
>>> rule, but its common.
>>> 
>>> In terms of argument ­ this is and has always been about  our right to
>>> decide, our right to protect local water, and to do that we must ban
>>> fracking - that¹s the frame we¹ve always had.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/13/14 4:52 PM, "karinajoy" <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Regarding the issue of single vs. multiple subjects:  Losak claims the
>>>> ordinance has more than one subject. CELDF says, no the single subject is
>>>> Community Rights.
>>>> 
>>>> I concur with Kelly and Tim that we have been telling everyone (because that
>>>> is what we voted on) that the ordinance protects our water by banning
>>>> fracking.
>>>> 
>>>> I wrote this yesterday, as my first reaction to CELDF's response:
>>>> "This ordinance protects our water by banning fracking - that is how we've
>>>> presented it to the public. We are basing our right to ban fracking on our
>>>> unalienable rights, which we are defining with a Community Bill of Rights. And
>>>> this Bill of Rights supports our right to ban fracking. Everything in the
>>>> Ordinance points back to banning fracking - even the "rights of Nature"
>>>> section states that nature/water has a right to be free from contamination by
>>>> fracking."  
>>>> 
>>>> If  a "Community Bill of Rights" is the single subject, why did we add in a
>>>> fracking ban? Why not just submit a Bill of Rights to the voters?"  I hope
>>>> CELDF can explain this for our education, as well as why a fracking ban
>>>> enforces the bill of rights, so we can all explain it clearly to others.
>>>> 
>>>> Not at all sure that CELDF's explanation will quell the fears of our opponents
>>>> or make things worse... However, since CELDF is defending this ordinance, the
>>>> argument must be one they feel is defensible by them in court.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I am wondering if Oregon really has a single subject rule like
>>>> California - Ben, can you verify that for us, please?
>>>> 
>>>> It is important that we are all on the same page - if some of us say the
>>>> subject is protecting our water, and others say "community rights" and others
>>>> anti-fracking - we will be proving our opponent's point about multiple
>>>> subjects. 
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately, one day with CELDF was not enough for them to educate and align
>>>> us with their purpose - hence our confusion.  And now I feel we have no choice
>>>> but to try to align ourselves with CELDF, if we want to keep them on board as
>>>> our legal team. Paul Cienfuegos agrees with their response, by the way. He
>>>> says, "i stand 1000% behind celdf on this piece of the work - their very
>>>> carefully designed legal strategy. this is the part celdf does best, imo."
>>>> 
>>>> Our confusion must be addressed soon! We need clarity and cohesion in
>>>> everything we communicate to our fellow Citizens.  Please add this topic to
>>>> the agenda for sunday.
>>>> 
>>>> I won't be able to make it to the meeting sunday till 12:30 or 1. If the
>>>> actual meeting will be over by then, I won't come at all. If we can have this
>>>> discussion at 1pm, I will come for that. Otherwise, I may call a meeting next
>>>> week just to discuss and try to understand CELDF's point of view on this
>>>> subject with whoever is interested.
>>>> 
>>>> We are certainly learning a lot from this process!
>>>> 
>>>> Karina
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Kelly Larson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That is true of me too, Tim.  I thought that was the tack.  The lawyer stuff
>>>>> is confusing, but we have to get it straight.  I prefer this anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Measure S contains one subject ­ a Bill of Rights. The prohibitions on
>>>>> fracking activities enforce those rights; and the limitations on corporations
>>>>> and state government protect the enforcement of the Measure."
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Tim Rice <tim at multitalents.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> In regards to the single subject rule, Measure S contains one subject ­
>>>>>>>> a Bill of Rights. The prohibitions on fracking activities enforce those
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We had better get consistant on our messaging. Some of us were under the
>>>>>> impression that the single issue was protecting our water by banning
>>>>>> fracking and the Bill of Rights was how we accomplished that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> rights; and the limitations on corporations and state government protect
>>>>>>>> the enforcement of the Measure. The law only requires that the different
>>>>>>>> parts of the Measure be germane, or reasonably connected, to each other.
>>>>>>>> As an example, groups in two Oregon Counties have put forward Community
>>>>>>>> Bills of Rights dealing with GMO¹s which contain almost identical
>>>>>>>> provisions to Measure S. Courts there have found that the bill of rights
>>>>>>>> ordinances pass single subject review. As to the inclusion and legality
>>>>>>>> of felony charges, that section was added because of local legal advice
>>>>>>>> obtained by the CRN, and since it deals with enforcement, passes single
>>>>>>>> subject review.
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tim Rice                                Multitalents    (707) 456-1146
>>>>>> <tel:%28707%29%20456-1146>
>>>>>> tim at multitalents.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> crn mailing list
>>>>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> crn mailing list
>>>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tim Rice                Multitalents    (707) 456-1146
>> tim at multitalents.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140814/21526962/attachment.html

More information about the crn mailing list