I don't think I can come up with an intro that could live up to this, so I'm just going to come right out and tell you that the Harris County GOP is pushing an online petition to "send a message directly" to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the DeLay ballot replacement lawsuit. Because, of course, federal appeals court judges are notoriously swayable by such efforts. The only possible way this could be any funnier would be if they were also asking for volunteers to hang around Whole Foods supermarkets with clipboards to solicit signatures.
(Okay, I can think of one way this could be even funnier - if Orlando Sanchez were to take a role in leading the signature gathering effort.)
Look, petitions have their place in the ecology. Like, for example, when elected officials need to know that not everyone feels the same way about an issue that's getting attention. But this is just silly. What are they gonna do, attach this to one of the briefs James Bopp filed? Oh, and never mind the implication that the judges should take anything into account other than the strict literal meaning of the law. We always knew that was a trope, right?
The text of Harris County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill's letter is presented below. Go read Juanita when you're done.
Another week, and still the Democrats are trying to run out the clock on Congressional District 22. Their strategy is clear...if they can't keep our candidate completely off the ballot, at least take as much time as possible.Posted by Charles Kuffner on July 19, 2006 to Election 2006 | TrackBackCurrently the case is on appeal at the Federal 5th Circuit, with the Democrats maintaining their baseless claim that we can't replace Tom DeLay on the November ballot. The legal maneuvering could still take days or even weeks to resolve.
We simply cannot wait that long! That is why I need you to stand with us today and send a message directly to the 5th Circuit!
Click here to sign our CD22 petition and make your voice heard!
What does this frivolous lawsuit mean to Republicans? Tragically, it means one more day that we don't have a candidate in the race, one more day that this qualified candidate can't meet with voters, and one more day that they can't raise funds.
Recent news reports indicate that 5th Circuit could still take another few weeks to make their decision. We are confident that once we receive a fair hearing of the facts, we will prevail and we will be able to choose our Republican candidate.
In the meantime, Nick Lampson and Nancy Pelosi are hoping for as much time as possible! The Democrat head start in this campaign is the only thing that gives them a chance. In other words, they are still hoping to steal this Republican seat.
Democrats in control of Congress would certainly cut-and-run in Iraq, raise your taxes to pay for their social-engineering programs, and even try to impeach President Bush.
The Democrats have their plans in place and the key is stealing this CD 22 from loyal Republicans like you!
Click here to keep the Democrats from stealing this Republican seat!
The good news is that your Harris County GOP will not sit idly by and let the liberals steal this race. We are doing everything in our power to inform and activate voters in CD 22, but we need your help TODAY!
The grassroots voices of Harris county have won many recent victories. Will you stand with us today and sign our CD22 Petition to "Let the People Vote?"
We can still help our future nominee to victory, but we must hear from you today.
Sincerely,Jared Woodfill
HCRP Chairman
Like all petitions, it's a dumb feel-good thing. I seem to recall seeing a few linked here from time to time.
It serves another purpose for the Harris County GOP in that it riles up the base, and keeps the HC GOP name out there (for donations and such). Online petitions aren't my cup of tea, but I'm really surprised to see the reaction here.
Posted by: Kevin Whited on July 19, 2006 7:44 AMI noticed that the Harris County GOP web site no longer contains an email contact for Chairman Jared Woodfill. Darn. I wanted to tell him that Juanita says he is "a two-faced, lying, goofy-lookin' son of the motherless goat".
Strong letter to follow.
Posted by: Dennis on July 19, 2006 8:21 AMWhat a stupid stunt.
I know the 5th court is going to rollover when these petitions hit their door.
Roll over on the floor laughing their asses off
Posted by: johncoby on July 19, 2006 8:30 AMOnline petitions aren't my cup of tea, but I'm really surprised to see the reaction here.
What, I can't make fun of a "dumb feel-good thing"? What's the point of blogging if that's off the table?
Yeah, I've linked to some petitions here. I'm not the chairman of a supposedly powerful county party. And "sending a message" to a federal appeals court is just dumb on any level. Hence my reaction.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on July 19, 2006 10:03 AMOf all of the entities who might care about general public opinion, a federal appellate court is probably the one entity that cares the least.
Sure, petitions are generally worthless unless they are being used to trigger some statutory event (such as a city proposition). This, however, has to be the most futile effort short of petitioning God to overturn the district court ruling.
Actually, I take that back. The GOP would have much better luck praying to God than petitioning the Fifth Circuit.
Posted by: Bobby L. Warren on July 19, 2006 11:23 AMLike most online petitions, it's not just a dumb feel-good thing. It's also a way to collect names and email addresses to identify potential supporters and contributors.
And as pointed out, the Fifth Circuit will circular-file this one unread.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair on July 19, 2006 3:22 PMHmm. Does this petition violate Texas Penal Code section 36.04?
Section 36.04. IMPROPER INFLUENCE.(a) A person commits an offense if he privately addresses a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication to any public servant who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law.
(b) For purposes of this section, "adjudicatory proceeding" means any proceeding before a court or any other agency of government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
I don't know, but it seems like it could. Woodfill probably should be careful here.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair on July 19, 2006 3:30 PMHmm. Does this petition violate Texas Penal Code section 36.04?
Section 36.04. IMPROPER INFLUENCE.(a) A person commits an offense if he privately addresses a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication to any public servant who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law.
(b) For purposes of this section, "adjudicatory proceeding" means any proceeding before a court or any other agency of government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
I don't know, but it seems like it could. Woodfill probably should be careful here.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair on July 19, 2006 3:31 PMHere is Jareds email address:
Posted by: John cobarruvias on July 19, 2006 3:41 PMHmm. Does this petition violate Texas Penal Code section 36.04?
Hmm. No.
Is it privately addressed? No, it's not.
Are there "considerations other than those approved by law?" I haven't seen any, but feel free to supply them.
Yeah, the petition is dumb, but it's not nearly as dumb as revoking the last ten words of the First Amendment.
Posted by: Matt Bramanti on July 19, 2006 4:42 PMI don't think it violates the TPC, but as a lawyer, Woodfill is skating very close to the edge of Section 3.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:
A lawyer shall not:
(a) seek to influence a tribunal concerning a pending matter by means prohibited by law or applicable rules of practice or procedure;
(b) except as otherwise permitted by law and not prohibited by applicable rules of practice or procedure, communicate or cause another to communicate ex parte with a tribunal for the purpose of influencing that entity or person concerning a pending matter other than:
(1) in the course of official proceedings in the cause;
(2) in writing if he promptly delivers a copy of the writing to opposing counsel or the adverse party if he is not represented by a lawyer;
(3) orally upon adequate notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if he is not represented by a lawyer.
http://www.txethics.org/reference_rules.asp?view=conduct&num=3.05
I doubt Chad Dunn and company were informed in advance of Mr. Woodfill's petition. Nor do I imagine a certified copy was delivered to their office.
But aside from the icky ethical details, the petition is just plain ironic.
Posted by: Mark on July 20, 2006 3:13 PMActually, Matt, if it isn't the subject of a proper motion with the court, it could be perceived as falling under this statute.
At the very least, all parties to the litigation would need to be served with a copy of the petition.
In the end, if this petition doesn't follow the proper procedural rules for an Amicus brief, the petition will probably be thrown out without any consideration, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Posted by: Bobby L. Warren on July 20, 2006 3:20 PM