Sixth Circuit Issues Strong Defense of Free Speech Activity on Public Streets and Sidewalks

On October 28, the Sixth Circuit issued an en banc opinion in Bible Believers v Wayne County, Michigan, 13-1635. The majority opinion is 41 pages. The issue was whether Bible Believers had a right to engage in street preaching, and to parade around with banners, signs, and tee-shirts that displayed messages criticizing Islam and Mohammed, while attending the annual Arab International Festival in Dearborn. “En banc”means all full-time judges of the Sixth Circuit participated; there are 15 such judges.

The festival is very large and streets are always closed, because as many as 300,000 people attend over three days. Law enforcement had told Bible Believers to leave, or they would be arrested, because their activity was causing young persons to throw beverage plastic bottles and garbage at the Bible Believers group.

The festival allows groups to register for an assigned table, under the information tent, but Bible Believers did not wish to do that; they wanted to move around where they could be seen. The opinion makes it clear that Bible Believers were what most people would call “an extreme and ill-mannered evangelical group” who even carried a severed pig’s head on a spike and also carried signs that said, “Islam is a Religion of Blood and Murder.” But, they were on public sidewalks and streets, and the First Amendment protected their right to be present and to speak as they wished. There are exceptions to free speech in such contexts; “fighting words” and “incitement to violence” can be banned. But the decision says “fighting words” only means words directed at an individual who is present. As to incitement, the decision says that Bible Believers did not ask anyone listening to do anything violent.

The en banc opinion of October 28 reverses the earlier decisions in this case.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers Compare Presidential Primary Insurgency in U.S. to Multi-Party Systems in Rest of World

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers have this article at Mintpress News, an on-line news source that has existed since 2012 and is based in Minnesota. Zeese and Flowers say the presidential primaries of the two major parties reveal great divisions in each of those parties, and if the United States had different election laws, the existing parties would be more coherent, and of course there would be more parties.

Commission on Presidential Debates Sticks to 15% Poll Rule

On October 29, the Commission on Presidential Debates said it won’t change the 15% poll rule that it has used throughout this century. Here is the announcement. Although the decision was made on October 28, it was not announced until October 29.

Two lawsuits are pending against the 15% rule, both in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. They are Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, and Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates. The first one depends on campaign finance law and the second on antitrust law.

Ohio Libertarian Party Will Petition for Party Status

The Ohio Libertarian Party has been fighting in federal court to be restored to the ballot, but so far the lawsuit hasn’t won, although part of it still isn’t decided. Thus, the party has decided to begin petitioning for party status for 2016. It needs 30,560 valid signatures by July 6.

If the petition succeeds, the party will be the first to use the new ballot access law passed in late 2013. The new law says that newly-qualifying parties nominate by convention, not by primary.

The Green Party is ballot-qualified in Ohio and will nominate by primary. If the party wishes, it may have its own presidential primary. Jill Stein is likely to qualify for the party’s presidential primary ballot, since candidates who qualify for primary season matching funds are put on presidential primary ballots automatically.