Warning local Blog is F.O.S. and we don't mean Freedom of Speech!
First...
Freedom of Speech would like to say: Several citizens of Freedom of Speech attended the Council meeting on November 4th and November 22 of 2002. Not one of the Plaintiffs were present at either meeting in regard to "redistricting." It is our opinion if the City of New Albany had a stronger attorney, they could shoot holes in this lawsuit like a piece of cheap "swiss cheese." We also believe some of the Plaintiffs had personal agendas to disrupt the 2007 Primary Election in filing this lawsuit. If the Plaintiffs really gave a DAMN about their so called 14th Amendment Rights & Redistricting, then why did they not file suit in 2002?
Why we ask?
It's very simple, several of the Plaintiffs are using our U.S. Constitution as a personal vendetta against several of our Councilmen. They have border line attacked them orally, and in writing. Plaintiffs have attacked families, ... and have been thrown out of Council meetings.
If the Plaintiffs really gave a DAMN about "We the people..." [meaning all citizens of New Albany] they would have appeared before our Council members and brought this issue up. Instead, they hid behind our Constitution at the expense of us taxpayers. It is Plaintiffs like some of you that abuse our Constitution and give attorney's a bad rap.
Yes, you have a right to sue. Yes, you will have the redistricting done but, Plaintiffs you WILL NOT get it done the way YOU WANT it done to benefit your future political agendas and promote your business interests.
And you sir,...Randy Smith, have had your underwear in a wad since you got beat as precinct committee person. One minute you state you want the council to redistrict, then the next minute you state: "There is no sense in rushing into this, and we are going to trial." What happen to "all parties have an agreement in principle"? Plaintiffs say that if they don't like what the council approves, they would still like to see a Dec. 3 trial commence. Are you really upset over the redistricting map or who you think worked on it?
You quote statutes, but what about Indiana statue that states it is the Council that draws the boundaries not private citizens?
You can't bend the law to promote any one of your Plaintiffs agendas.
The City of New Albany is not an Atheist nor Communist City. (atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of God)
Source: Webster Dictionary~2007
Here are the many facts and questions to all the Plaintiffs:
Statement To Clarify
1. IC 36-4-6-3 (b) (4) states: "contain as nearly as possible, equal population." The term "voter registration" is not used in the IC requirements for City Council Districts.
2. There has been public discussion of the numbers being used for the redistricting plan. Some of the numbers being discussed are not correct. In November of 2002, Councilman Goldberg introduced G-02-14 for Council to adopt a proposed redistricting plan. The numbers listed in G-02-14 are not the same numbers in the redistricting plan now being reviewed and considered by the City Council.
3. In these public discussions, Precinct 18 is said to be moved out of District 2 and placed in District 1. This public discussion does not contain the correct numbers or facts! Precinct 18 remains in District 2 in the current proposed redistricting plan.
Second...
Wasn't the 14th Amendment of the Constitution ratified before November of 2002?
We feel the public is being mislead by some of these Plaintiffs.
So let's look at this lawsuit Complaint!
PETER A. VOGT, DIANE BAYLOR, ROGER A. BAYLOR, JEFF GILLENWATER, RUTHANNE WOLFE, JOHN GONDER, MILDRED GONDER, RICK CARMICKLE, RANDY SMITH, GREG ROBERTS, GREG PHIPPS, MARK SANDERS, TED FULMORE, JIM SPRIGLER, TABITHA SPRIGLER, LLOYD WIMP, NORA EGAN, VALERIA MUNFORD, L.E. WILLIAMS, JR., AND DAN CONNOR JR.
Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT:
Come now the Plaintiffs, named above, by their counsel, and for their complaint against the Defendants, named above, respectfully allege as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs are lawful permanent residents of the City of New Albany, Indiana and are registered voters thereof.
2. The Defendant, CIVIL CITY OF NEW ALBANY, INDIANA, IS A political subdivision of the State of Indiana.
3. The CITY COUNCIL for the CITY OF NEW ALBANY, INDIANA is the designated legislative body of the City and the individual Defendants are the duly elected representative from the First Legislative District; Defendant, BILL SCHMIDT is the duly elected member of the CITY COUNCIL from the Second District; Defendant STEVE PRICE, is the duly elected member from the Third District; that the Defendant, LARRY KOCHERT, is the duly elected member of the Fourth District; that the Defendant, BEVERLY CRUMP, is the duly elected member of the Fifth Legislative District; Defendant, JEFF GAHAN, is the duly elected member of the Sixth Legislative District; and that Defendants, DONNIE BLEVINS, JACK MESSER, and MARK SEABROOK, are the duly elected members of the City Council from the three at-large districts.
4. That this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States, made applicable to the States and their political subdivisions by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging a denial of equal representation and the fundamental right of every citizen to have his or her vote weighted equally with those of all other citizens.
5. That at all times pertinent to this complaint, the State of Indiana maintained a law set out at Indiana Code 36-4-6-3(b) which provides in part as follows:
The legislative body shall adopt an ordinance to divide the City into six (6) districts that:
1. Are composed of continuous territory, except for territory that is not continuous to any other part of the City.
2. Are reasonably compact;
3. Do not cross precinct boundary lines, except as provided in Subsection (c) or (d); and
4. Contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population.
Further that statute provides as follows:
I.C. 36-4-6-3(g) the division under Subsection (b) shall be made in 2002, every ten years after that, and when required to assign annexed territory to a district.
6. That according to the United States Census, conducted during the year 2000, the City Council Districts are now grossly malapportioned. According to the data maintained at the Office of the Floyd County Clerk, the Districts had the following number of registered voters in the year 2002:
First District - 3,993
Second District - 7,481
Third District - 4,572
Fourth District - 4,293
Fifth District - 4,230
Sixth District - 5,030
Total Registered Voters - 29,599
7. That if the precincts of the City of New Albany were equally divided into six districts, each district would have Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-three (4,933) registered voters.
8. Despite the mandate of Indiana Law set out in I.C. 36-4-6-3(g) the City Council of the City has failed, through inertia, lack of will, or the distraction of political infighting, to redraw and divide the City precincts into council manic districts that "contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population".
9. As a result of the City Council's failure to make the division required by the Indiana Law, the rights of the Plaintiffs and all citizens of New Albany under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have their votes weighted equally with those of other citizens in the election of members of the Council have been and will continue to be abridged unless this Court grants them a revenue.
10. That the City of New Albany, Indiana proposes to conduct an election for the City Council was the primary to be held in May 2007 and the general election in November 2007; further candidates for the City Council must file their declarations of candidacy no later than Seventy-four (74) days before the primary election and not sooner than One Hundred and Four (104) days before the primary election.
11. That the Plaintiffs and all other citizens and registered voters of the City of New Albany will suffer irreparable and UN-Constitutional delusion of their votes in the 2007 election unless this Court compels the division of the city precincts into six (6) more or less equal council manic districts.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff's pray as follows:
1. To enter a judgement declaring the current council manic districts to be malapportioned and thus a denial of the equal protections of the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights.
2. To appoint a Special Commission consisting of Five (5) apolitical citizens of New Albany to study a division of the City into more or less equal council manic districts in keeping with the requirements of Indiana Code 36-4-6-3(b) and to make proposals to the Court for such a division.
3. For the Court to receive and examine the proposals of the Special Commission and conduct a hearing on the same with notice to all parties and ultimately to enter an Order dividing the City's precincts as required by State Law.
4. To award Plaintiff's their reasonable attorneys fees and costs herein pursuant to 42U.S.C. 1988.
5. To grant the Plaintiffs any and other further relief as may be called for in the premises.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
___________________________
STEPHEN J. BEARDSLEY
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Source: United States District Court
--------
Freedom of Speech will present the facts:
2002 Council Members:
Councilman Coffey, Goldberg, Kochert, Bliss, Gibbons, Niemier, Pearcy, Garner, and Council President Bill Schmidt. LSO: Mike Summers Council Attorney, and Keith Henderson City Attorney.
CENSUS COUNT BY PRECINCT - JANUARY 30, 2002
PRECINCT # - COUNT
1 ..........................1158
2...........................754
3 ...........................1407
5 ...........................1049
6 .............................924
7 .............................383
8 ............................1114
9 ..............................951
10 ..........................1278
11 ..........................1020
12 ...........................912
13 ...........................982
14 ...........................1175
15 ...........................468
15A ......................1168
16 .........................1184
17 .........................1058
18 .........................1209
19 .........................1406
19A ......................1380
19B ......................1625
20 ........................1137
21 ........................2275
22 ........................1102
23 ........................1498
24 ........................1145
25 ........................1008
26 ........................1326
27 ........................1303
27A.......................743
28 .......................1260
28A ....................1167
29 ......................1458
29A .....................397
Total: 38,421
Source: 2002 Indiana Census Count furnished by Clerks Office
Total Registered Voters: 29,599 VS Total Census: 38,421
--------
Freedom of Speech would like to point out that Indiana Code states POPULATION not REGISTERED Voters.
--------
Voting Districts
INDIANA CODE 2002
IC 36-4-6-3 (b)
The legislative body shall adopt an ordinance to divide the city into six (6) districts.
IC 36-4-6-3 (g)
The divisions under subsection (b) shall be made in 2002, and every ten years after that.
--------
On November 4, 2002, an Ordinance to redistrict was placed on the City Council agenda for a vote.
November 4, 2002 - Council Minutes
G-02-14 REDISTRICTING OF NEW ALBANY VOTING DISTRICTS
"Councilman Goldberg introduced Bill G-02-14 for the 1st reading and the motions was seconded by Councilman Coffey. A discussion ensured about the changes being requested-and shouldn't there have been a committee formed to discuss these changes?
President Schmidt assigned Councilmen Goldberg, Pearcy and Councilmen Garner to further investigate the redistricting.
The Clerk read Bill G-02-14 in its entirety and read the roll call of membership for the first reading.
The vote for the first reading was Ayes 7 and Nays 2
"Councilman Pearcy and Councilman Garner voted Nay."
Source: Common Council Minutes Nov. 4, 2002
--------
G-02-14 REDISTRICTING OF NEW ALBANY DISTRICTS:
Councilman Goldberg introduced Bill G-02-14 for the 2nd & 3rd readings.
Councilman Pearcy suggested that this item needs further examination. Mr. Pearcy ask City Attorney Keith Henderson for his opinion. Mr. Henderson responded that the statute is clear: The redistricting process should have been completed by November 8. He advises against proceeding. Stan Robinson concurred with Mr. Henderson's opinion and the November 8 date.
Councilman Goldberg withdrew the bill from the table.
Source: Common Council Minutes Nov. 21, 2002
--------
Freedom of Speech would like to ask the following QUESTIONS:
* Why didn't these Plaintiffs of this lawsuit appear at the 2002 Council meeting with those concerns then ~ instead of filing a lawsuit about 4 years later after the fact?
* Why didn't these Plaintiffs file suit against the following 2002 Council, Council Attorney and City Attorney listed below:
City Attorney Keith Henderson
City Council Atty. Stan Robinson - Atty. Mike Summers
Council President Bill Schmidt
Councilman James Garner
Councilman Goldberg
Councilman Pearcy
Councilman Coffey
Councilman Kochert
Councilman Bliss
Councilman Gibbons
Councilman Niemier
* Why didn't these Plaintiffs during January 2004 to April 2006 approach the current Council 1st before filing this lawsuit?
* Why do these so-called committee of 5 think their time is worth $50.00 per person - per day?
* Why didn't these Plaintiffs file suit against Mayor James Garner?
* The ordinance to redistrict was voted on for first reading and was approved on November 4, 2002 which was prior to the November 8th date being discussed. Did City Attorney Henderson and Attorney Stan Robinson produce the documents to verify the necessary November deadline to the City Council?
* Why didn't Councilman Goldberg table the ordinance in order to continue the discussion?
* Why did Councilman Goldberg pull the ordinance to redistrict off the table and, thus kill the ordinance?
* Why did Councilman James Garner vote NO on the first reading on the Ordinance to redistrict council districts?
--------
No. 4 of the Complaint states: To award Plaintiff's their reasonable attorneys fees and cost herein pursuant to 42U.S.C. 1988.
One Plaintiff states on his blog Aug. 1, 2007 and we quote: Stephen Beardsley is not presenting a bill for his services but is accepting donations.
"It should be obvious by now that not all local bloggers have, shall we tactfully say, the same honorable standards for differentiation when it comes to fact and fiction."
Source: Plaintiff
Is this the pot calling the kettle black?
Why didn't these Plaintiffs:
* Bring up the Redistricting issue in October 2002 and attended the November 2002 Council meeting and filed a lawsuit at the time (November 2002) IF their 14th Amendments rights were being violated "then", under the U.S. Constitution.
* Ask City Attorney Henderson in 2002 why he adviced the Council to drop Redistricting?
--------
Your right...Council President Kochert "They're WANNABES,"
Source: The Evening News & The Tribune ~ August 15, 2007
On the count of 3 let's all scream: "You've violated our 14th Amendment Rights!"
call 1-800 A lawyer...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
~Eric Arthur Blair
