— by Lin McNulty —
A written decision from Federal District Court Judge Marsha J. Pechman on July 6 denies a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case of Nicholas Power v. San Juan County and Milene Henley.
On Friday June 22, 2018 Power, current candidate for the office of San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney, filed for a Temporary Restraining Order against San Juan County and its Auditor Milene Henley in federal district court in Seattle.
Mr. Power asked that the Court require the immediate removal from the official homepage of San Juan County an “op-ed” piece written by the County Auditor.
The mere suggestion, the Court finds, that residents “limit the amount of time political signs are displayed” before an election and “politely remove them as soon as possible after an election is over” would not “chill a person of ordinary firmness” from posting political signs or engaging in political speech.
Because Power demonstrated neither that Auditor Henley’s editorial suppresses protected speech nor that it was motivated by any protected speech in which he engaged, the Court denied the Motion for a TRO.
The five page decision is short and to the point. The reasons for the court’s decision are found beginning on page 4, line 17.
No wonder Powers didn’t want this to he taken to a higher court, he knew he was wasting all of our time.
I guess Henry Stamper thinks it’s ok to limit free speech. Any other civil rights you advocate taking away?
The question still remains:
Why does the county still have an ordinance on the books which has already been deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional?
This all would be moot if the county would just remove the ordinance and bring the code into compliance with the law.
Hmmm… I don’t think I’d want this person as my P.A.
I read the editorial. Where in it does it deny our right to free speech by suggesting (not ordering)?
I believe the issue of political signs WAS discussed, and that the majority of us thought that a time limit for these signs is a good idea, and in good taste – especially considering the heated divisiveness and polarization going on around “politics” as we understand, or misunderstand them.
There is a tendency to “politicize” every issue; things were not always thus. Although social “politics” unfortunately dictate our lives, societies, customs, and mores (mainly to keep us “in line,” IMO) – I for one am sick of seeing political signs littering up this place for any longer than is necessary to give adequate ‘advertisement’ or endorsement at election times.
There’s more to life than party politics and election times. IMO, going for this restraining order was a waste of time and money.
Sadie–
The problem as I see it is that the “suggestion” is still in the Code. And that the courts have ruled that limitations on political signs have been deemed unconstitutional. Of course, a rule limiting political signs works very much in favor of incumbents, whose names are well known.
I’m not a fan of political signs. We manage without real estate FOR SALE signs because there is an understanding that using them is not an island thing. We do the same for political signs. It’s when the limit is imposed in code and “suggested” in official space by an official that the problem arises.
Sadie, I agree with Peg, and I definitely DO want this person as my PA. It is way past time to send Randy Gaylord on his way. We need a grown-up in that office! Justin (above) said it best…