Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska homer

Homer city council goes into full ‘resist Trump’ mode with resolution

Some Homer residents want to make Homer, Alaska the most intolerant city in the 49th state. A city intolerant of any opposing ideas about what makes a country great. Intolerant of the legally elected president. Intolerant of the free expression and exchange of ideas. Intolerant of enforcing the laws on immigration unless the federal government can document it has the authority to do so.
They want Homer to be an official “resistance” city, and they’ve got a resolution to prove it.
Read on, it gets better.
On Feb. 27, the City Council of Homer will entertain a resolution that smacks President Donald Trump upside his head for, among other things, being elected without “a popular mandate” Someone will need to inform the president of this development because he thinks he won 306 eletoral votes to 232 for Clinton.
If the resolution passes, Homer will join Dearborn, Michigan’s city council, which this month passed its own resolution rebuking Trump’s travel “pause button” for immigrants from seven countries that have a high degree of terrorism associated with them.
Mild-mannered Bothell, Washington passed a tame, somewhat simpering inclusivity resolution, which was also aimed at admonishing Trump and his base of voters. Other city councils have entertained becoming “sanctuary cities,” but Homer’s resolution would create a sanctuary city without saying so directly.
Sanctuary cities are places where local police won’t detain illegal noncitizens on the federal government’s behalf.
Homer’s resolution says it more coyly: “That the City of Homer will resist any and all efforts to profile undocumented immigrants or any other vulnerable population… the City of Homer will cooperate with federal agencies in detaining undocumented immigrants when court-issued federal warrants are delivered.” (italics ours). That is a sanctuary city by definition.
We’ll summarize it the rest of it for you: Homer, Alaska thinks the president is an awful, dreadful little man who is inciting hatred from sea to shining sea, is undoing the Paris Climate Treaty, Obamacare, gender-confused bathroom policies, and myriad other Obama stuff. The Homer City Council will, through this resolution, be joining the nascent “resistance movement,” and will not tolerate either the president or the point of view he represents, which, by the way is nearly 50 percent of the voters in America and a good deal more than that in Homer.
Here’s how Homer voted in November: Homer 1, (District 31-350) voted 433 for Trump to 329 for Clinton. Homer 2, (District 31-360) voted 346 for Trump to 284 for Clinton.
Readers with anything to say about Homer’s proposed resolution, pasted below, may contact clerkcityofhomer-ak.gov, or Mayor Brian Zak at mayorci.homer.ak.us with their civil opinions.
The resolution in full:
CITY OF HOMER, ALASKA

RESOLUTION 17-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOMER, ALASKA, STATING THAT THE CITY OF HOMER ADHERES TO THE PRINCIPLE OF INCLUSION AND HEREIN COMMITTING THIS CITY TO RESISTING EFFORTS TO DIVIDE THIS COMMUNITY WITH REGARD TO RACE, RELIGION, ETHNICITY, GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN, PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGARDLESS OF THE ORIGIN OF THOSE EFFORTS, INCLUDING FROM LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

WHEREAS, A new administration is in power in Washington, D.C. without a popular mandate;

WHEREAS, During his campaign, President Donald Trump made statements offensive and harmful to the rights of women; immigrants; religious, racial, and ethnic minorities; veterans; the disabled; LGBTQ citizens; and the general public; and that such statements have continued since his election; and

WHEREAS, The President on numerous occasions has stated clearly his disregard for freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly; and freedom of religion, particularly with regard to Muslim Americans; and

WHEREAS, The President has not disavowed his intention to create a registry of Muslim Americans and now intends to ban Muslims from entering the United States; and

WHEREAS, The President now is following through on his promises to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, including millions brought here as children who have grown up to know no other life than that of an American; and

WHEREAS, The President now is following through on plans to build a wall on the border separating the United States from Mexico without apparent regard to its cost, its effects upon our nation’s economy, or its sociological ramifications, and to impose an ideological test for entry into our country; and

WHEREAS, The President has promised to repeal federal regulations protecting LGBTQ citizens; and

WHEREAS, The President already has issued executive orders to effect the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which provides tens of millions of Americans with health care insurance coverage; and

WHEREAS, The President has issued executive orders to rescind certain women’s reproductive rights; and

WHEREAS, The President has promised to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and to remove other environmental protections instituted under the previous administration, and has begun a process to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency; and

WHEREAS, Before and especially since the election, some citizens have been emboldened to express overtly an intolerance of diversity that is opposed to the views of most Homer residents and most Americans; and

WHEREAS, The President’s cabinet nominees have expressed views similar to those laid out in the whereas clauses above and thus are largely out of step with the attitudes of most Homer residents; and

WHEREAS, The presidential election has exposed deep social and political divisions among Americans and these divisions threaten the general peace as expressions of intolerance rise; and

WHEREAS, The City of Homer recognizes that while the minority community here may be relatively small, it may be vulnerable, and that if those residents feel in any way threatened simply because they are minorities, the City should be on record as opposing all such intolerance; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Homer unequivocally rejects expressions of fear and hate wherever they may exist, and specifically rejects harassment of women, immigrants, religious minorities, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ individuals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer embraces all people regardless of skin color, country of birth, faith, sex, gender, marital status, or abilities; and that the City of Homer will not waver in its commitment to inclusion and to continuing to create a village safe for a diverse population.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer will resist any and all efforts to profile undocumented immigrants or any other vulnerable population.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer will cooperate with federal agencies in detaining undocumented immigrants when court-issued federal warrants are delivered.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer shall steadfastly defend the United States and Alaska constitutions, especially with regard to the former’s precedent-backed right of privacy and the latter’s specified right of privacy (Article 1, Section 22), and safeguard the rights declared in the Bill of Rights.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer will continue its staunch support of our local police in their ongoing efforts to enforce law and protect our community and its visitors in a just, unbiased and transparent manner.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer will declare itself a safety net for the most vulnerable members of and visitors to our community.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Homer calls on all its citizens to stand against intolerance and resist expressions of hate toward any members of the community, and thus to set an example for the rest of the nation, demonstrating that Homer residents and Alaskans adhere to the principle of live-and-let-live.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Homer City Council this 27th day of February, 2017. CITY OF HOMER

________________________ BRYAN ZAK, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________ JO JOHNSON, MMC, CITY CLERK



http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-city-council-goes-full-resist-trump-mode-resolution/

This is not a passed resolution. This is a resolution submitted by a couple whack jobs. It has absolutely no chance of passing.

Looking into having LE attend and discussing current Federal statute.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

They know they do not intend to actually do anything so they will probably be all self-righteous and stuff!

What kind of idiots even bring up crap like that.

If they can, we should have for the last 8....

We had "gender swap day" today at our local high school. Needless to say, my three teens did not participate. Makes me proud to be a "homeroid"

Clinton received 43% of the vote his first election......

Probably sounded better at 1am in the Salty Dawg. 😁

Wow, knew Homer was special, but the gender swap thing is a bit much...

Hell we have Austin here.... mecca for weirdo folks.

Are you serious?

It's true. You can't make this stuff up.

The actual proposal is completely devoid of any substance/change of policy.
People weren't paying attention to the WhackJobs holding protest signs downtown, so they came up with this S***.

Drunk moonbats trying to keep the tourists away!

The Homer City Council will tonight consider Resolution 17-09, but not the original draft of 17-09.

Tonight, rather than take on President Donald Trump directly, the council will vote on a sanitized version, one that is more careful in its wording but may not satisfy its critics.

The council is split on the resolution offered by three of its members — David Lewis, Catriona Reynolds and Donna Aderhold.

But the loud left-wing of Homer is gearing up for a fight at City Hall to call on all the citizens of Homer to “stand against intolerance and resist expressions of hate toward any members of the community.”

The meeting begins at 6 pm and the matter is 16th on the agenda. It’s likely that Mayor Brian Zak will limit public comment to three minutes.

The original resolution began by rebuking President Donald Trump and his entire cabinet for high crimes and misdemeanors of political incorrectness.

The new resolution is about 50 lines shorter, but critics say that the original version tells the full story as to what is behind Resolution 17-09: Creating a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, putting “resistance” language into a city resolution intended as thinly veiled common cause with the “Indivisible” movement of Democrats nationally who oppose Donald Trump.

The original resolution caused a furor in Homer and garnered nationwide attention when it was released on Must Read Alaska last week. Locals are predicting it will be a long meeting and Homer conservatives say the resolution may have done more to split the community than to bring it together.

http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-city-council-consider-softened-resolution-blowback/

Shan-nine approves of this resolution.

Fixed it for you.


resolution rejected 5-1

Funny the image Homer has, yet they vote R at every election... maybe the locals just like the snowflakes for amusement?

The coast is clear: People of all political opinions and social views may enter the town of Homer, where the tradition of “live and let live” is alive and well. The push by a few liberals to quash opposing political viewpoints has been quieted, at least for now.

It was standing room only Monday night as more than 100 people came through the Cowles Council Chambers at Homer City Hall to give the council a piece of their mind on a “resist Trump resolution” sponsored by three of the six council members.

In the end, most members of the Homer City Council said the resolution, which started as a statement of rebuke against the Trump presidency, was too divisive, even in its softened version. The vote was 5-1 against Resolution 17-09.

Testimony, which went about three to one against the resolution, ended at 9:40 pm. That’s when the council members took turns making comments and stating how they would be voting.

Council member Donna Aderhold, one of the sponsors of the resolution, thanked people for testifying and explained that a lot of their testimony was inaccurate. She felt the resolution had been misunderstood and added that it was her job to bring these types of issues to the council. In in the end she said she would be a “no” vote, because there were too much friction over it.

Council member David Lewis, another sponsor of the resolution, backed out from supporting it as well.

Council member Shelly Erickson expressed her sadness that the resolution had divided the community and caused hurt feelings and damage. She, too, would be a no vote.

Another who said he’d vote no was council member Tom Stroozas, who noted that with over 100 people giving testimony, not much was left to be said.

In the end, only council member Catriona Reynolds remained in favor of it, saying that “folks who were for the resolution were probably not able to come.”

Hal Spence, a former news reporter, is a Homer resident who had worked on the draft. It came as a result of unhappiness with the election of Trump, he told an AP reporter, and he intended it to create debate.

Some who testified said that, although the second version was much softer, they were not able to forget the origins of the resolution, which was a harsh rebuke of the Trump presidency. In the 2016 election, Homer had actually swung for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, 779 to 613.


http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-city-council-backs-away-resist-resolution/

I'm thinking that one of the council knows her time is up with constituants and two others are in full kiss ass mode with theirs ...

In the end, only council member Catriona Reynolds remained in favor of it, saying that “folks who were for the resolution were probably not able to come.”


JFC Lady! How lame can you possibly be?

Probably because most people only see Homer in the summer, from Pioneer Ave/Bypass to the Spit. The vast majority of Homer are normal hardworking truck drivers, construction workers, commercial fishermen, etc. The locals mostly avoid the touristy areas.


That could be on the verge of changing however, as in the last 10 years or so, more and more independently wealthy (Californians) are flocking to Homer in retirement.

Let there be a typical summer or two and they will thin out on their own!

Maybe a new group of Barefooters.

She manages Homer's version of Planned Parenthood.

Explains part of it, for sure.

Ask the suckers if they knew we had 40 yrs with no legal immigration from 20s to the 60s.

There is an easy answer/fix for this...just ask Atz or Otto Kilcher...they fix everything in an hour long episode

Lots of satisfaction ripping out their nuts

I just love the comment from snowflake Benson at the very end...

A group of Homer residents has filed a petition with the city clerk containing more than 460 names of residents who signed a request to recall three Homer City Council members.

The filing is one more step in what may be one of the largest local recall efforts in Alaska state history, asking voters to remove three of six council members.

Larri Fancher, Larry Zuccaro, and Mike Fell handed the petitions to Clerk Jo Johnson at 3 pm on Friday. They then took down their temporary recall headquarters on Ocean Drive and closed up their name-gathering operation. Within two weeks, they had acquired more than enough names to force a recall. They were satisfied with their work.

Clerk Johnson must verify the signatures and decide whether the petitioners have a legitimate case against council members Donna Aderhold, David Lewis and Catriona Reynolds, who angered many in this fishing-and-art community for attempting to enshrine Homer as a “sanctuary city,” where illegal immigrants could find safe haven from federal immigration authorities.

“We think Jo will be able to verify the 373 voter names needed within a couple of days,” said Zuccaro on Sunday. He said the group could have kept gathering signatures, but felt that having more than 25 percent above what was needed would be sufficient and it was time to move on to organize for a vote.

The group says in its petition that “Aderhold, Lewis and Reynolds are each proven unfit for office, as evident by their individual efforts in preparation of Resolution 16-121 and 17-109, the text of which stands in clear and obvious violation of Homer City Code Title 1.”

Those efforts include trying to pass Resolution 16-121, opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the effort to “resist” President Donald Trump and create a sanctuary city through Resolution 17-019.

The final version of the sanctuary resolution was unconvincing to many members of the public.

Several clauses, such as, “the city of Homer will not cooperate with federal agencies in detaining undocumented immigrants unless such actions are supported by court-issued federal warrants” were changed in the final version. But the intent was clear, they said, in the final version: “the city of Homer will cooperate with federal agencies in detaining undocumented immigrants [only] when court-issued federal warrants are delivered.”

With all the anti-Trump language in the original version of the resolution, it could be argued the three were engaged in partisan politics. That may violate the city’s Title 1 code prohibiting certain partisan political activity by city officials while on duty. There is also the matter of whether the three are simply unfit for office.

While the sanctuary city resolution eventually was watered down into an “inclusivity” resolution, it was already toxic because of the trail of emails uncovered by the citizen activists who now seek the removal of Alderhold, Lewis and Reynolds.

http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-petitioners-reach-recall-milestone/

Great to see some citizens that instantly let be known that even local politicians do not speak for the masses.

According to three city council members in Homer, Alaska, it’s not up to voters to decide if they are “unfit for office.” It’s up to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The three, who are facing a recall vote, have enlisted the ACLU of Alaska to help them sue the City of Homer over what they claim is an unconstitutional recall election scheduled for June 13.

Donna Aderhold, David Lewis, and Catriona Reynolds are facing the discontent of hundreds of local residents who signed recall petitions in March. The petitions said they were unfit to represent the city.

The council members had worked as a group to craft a resolution that would have made Homer a “sanctuary city,” where illegal immigrants would find safe haven. The effort was cloaked in secrecy and residents were surprised when they learned of it. The resolution was eventually watered down and it failed passage.

They also worked to establish an official position for the City of Homer opposing the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota and support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in its resistance against the project. Some Homer citizens felt the council members had “gone rogue” in trying to make the entire city weigh in on a project thousands of miles and several states away.

The ACLU, in a press release, said that the three have done “nothing more than exercising their free speech rights.”

But the citizens are also expressing their right — their right to vote people out of office. They gathered 437 signatures — far more than needed — on petitions to recall the three council members. The city clerk, after consulting with the city’s attorney, said the petition was strong enough to allow it to go for a vote. The law provides liberal language that supports the public’s right to remove lawmakers.

But the ACLU disagrees.

“Legislators have a well-established right, under the First Amendment, to discuss their views on local or national policy and it is good that they do. Such a right promotes public discussion and advocacy of issues of concern to our neighbors at all levels of government,” the ACLU wrote in a press release.

“Taking public positions and drafting legislation are activities every lawmaker has the right to do, even if there are people who disagree with them,” the ACLU wrote. “As a result, the certification of their recall petition both violates the constitutional rights of the individual council members and would send a dangerous message to all of Alaska’s elected officials that they dare not express opinions on public policy issues for fear of facing a recall effort from a motivated faction of voters.”

That’s troubling to Larry Zuccaro, who was involved in gathering the signatures needed for a special election.

“That is just how a Marxist would think. They’re telling us we don’t have a right to remove them? It’s basic– that we are only governed through our consent, and we’re simply following the legal process for removing our consent to have them govern,” said Zuccaro.

“This is much more troubling than just this Homer recall,” Zuccaro said. “If the ACLU is able to block the citizens from a recall, where does this end on the national level, that we no longer have the authority to recall our own council members? Who is going to decide these things — will it no longer be the public but the ACLU now determining our local politics? It would set a significant precedent.”

Sarah Vance of Homer was also concerned about the ACLU’s involvement, but even more so by the fact that three city council members are suing to keep their elected positions – and asking that the city pay their legal costs.

“These three council members chose to have the ACLU represent them in suing the city that they swore to defend,” she said. “They’re suing to keep their jobs. It’s an insult to me as a resident that they would not allow every resident an opportunity to state their opinion at the ballot box, but have instead chosen a lawsuit, and they want to use our tax dollars.”

Mike Fell, another supporter of the recall, wondered why the ACLU got involved in the Homer election. “It’s absurd that the ACLU would try to stifle the democratic process. That’s what they are supposed to defend.”

In fact, at the national level the ACLU has made it a top priority to fight against voter supression. “Apparently the Alaska ACLU didn’t get the memo,” Fell said.

The lawsuit states that there are insufficient grounds to claim that the three are unfit for office, as the recall petition alleges. The three subject to the recall are also asking that all their attorney fees be paid by the city of Homer.

The council members lawsuit is found at the ACLU Alaska’s web site here.

Their request for attorney fees is found here: Motion for declaratory and injunctive relief.


http://mustreadalaska.com/aclu-sue-homer-over-recall/

Wow! Just wow!

It is difficult to fathom how even the ACLU could be that far out of touch.

Only supporting those who agree with them.

Comprende... but try to draw the line they will step over...

Double entendre intended.

It's a liberal organization. Whatever harms or is an embarrassment to straight white Christian families is the side a liberal will be on.

The fourth time is a charm.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Erin Marston is the fourth judge appointed to hear a case brought by three Homer City Council members and the American Civil Liberties Union against the City of Homer.

The lawsuit brought by the three and their ACLU lawyers claims the grounds for a recall election that targets them are invalid, and that their free speech rights are being violated.

The recall organizers, Heartbeat of Homer, say that it’s not the speech of the three that is the issue, but their official actions, as documented in a series of emails between them.

The first three judges were challenged by different parties in the case, whose oral arguments will be heard at 10 a.m. Monday, at the Anchorage Courthouse.

Donna Aderhold, David Lewis and Catriona Reynolds are trying to stop the special recall election, which is set for June 13. Much of the past three weeks has been tied up in finding a judge all parties could agree on.

The case was first assigned to Superior Court Judge Pamela Washington, but the City of Homer challenged the assignment.

Judge Frank Pfiffner was assigned next, but his name was challenged by Stacey Stone, the lawyer representing the citizens who filed the recall petition.

The court then appointed Judge Andrew Guidi, but he was challenged by the ACLU.

Now that each party in the case has had a chance to challenge one judge, Marston will keep the case.

The City’s notice for the special election was posted Thursday as required by law. Sample ballots will be printed and available by May 30, unless the judge agrees with the ACLU and its clients.

Heartbeat of Homer has extensive email records that show how three members of the council worked behind the scenes to make Homer a sanctuary city, where illegal immigrants could find safe haven. The resolution they worked on, in its early draft, claimed that President Trump was not legitimately elected, because he does not have “a popular mandate.”

http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-recall-case-gets-new-judge/

Homer is full of flakes.

Since when have these Marxists ever been interested in the Constitution? Oh... when they twist it to benefit themselves. Never mind the fact that their secret preparation of Resolution 16-121 and 17-109, was in direct violation of Homer City Code Title 1. The very fact that "their efforts were cloaked in secrecy" is an extremely strong indicator that they knew very well it was a violation of Federal law, that it was not in the best interest of the city and further, that it was diametrically opposed to the wishes of Homer residents.

Larry Zuccaro was indeed correct when he stated: “That is just how a Marxist would think. They’re telling us we don’t have a right to remove them? It’s basic– that we are only governed through our consent, and we’re simply following the legal process for removing our consent to have them govern,”

... and this is exactly the problem with these ultra-liberal Marxists and their twisted logic: they view themselves as above the law and want nothing more than to drive their agenda down our throats and control every aspect of our lives.

...end rant.

The recall election in Homer, Alaska may proceed, according to an Anchorage Superior Court judge.

The lawsuit by three Homer City Council members, who sought to avoid facing voters in a special recall election, came before the court on Monday.

By Tuesday, Judge Erin Marston had filed his ruling: The three city council members who claimed that a recall election would violate their “free speech rights” were sent back to Homer to face the music with the voters.

Not to go all constitutional on you, but the voter-centric language in this ruling is worth a good look.

“The statute provides the electorate with the ability to recall elected officials for cause, but requiring ‘misconduct in office’ to be criminal conduct overly limits the statute and would deny the voters’ right to effectively seek recall of their elected officials. It would also not be a ‘liberal construction’ of the statute,” Marston wrote. He meant liberal with a small “l”.

“Plaintiffs also argue [that] the petitions reference ‘unfitness’ and unfitness is not grounds to recall a municipal official. However, this interpretation ignores the language of the recall as a whole as well as the intent of the petitions. ‘Unfit’ versus ‘committed misconduct in office’ is not decisive here. Misconduct is referenced in the recall petitions. To reject the petitions for this small distinction would be to ignore the Supreme Court’s direction to liberally construe the statute and not to create ‘artificial pleading barriers.’

“Plaintiffs claim the certification of these recall petitions is an impermissible restriction on their Constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. Defendant and Intervenor argue that certification of the petitions does not constitute state action for First Amendment purposes. Alternatively, they argue that these protections do not protect Plaintiffs from the regular functioning political process,” the judge continued.

Judge Marston was not buying it. “Here the City of Homer Clerk is administratively doing what she was legally required to do by the recall statutes,” he wrote.

“These are not recall petitions drafted by the City of Homer; they were prepared and filed by private citizens exercising their rights under AS 29.26.250. First Amendment protections against abridgement of speech by the federal or state government do not apply to actions by private citizens. The City of Homer did nothing to suppress speech.

“It is not what the Alaska Constitution and statutes contemplated and it is an unreasonable interpretation of the law”. – Judge Erin Marston

“To conclude that anytime a recall petition is based in part or in whole on what a politician said is protected by the First Amendment would be to eviscerate the recall statute to such an extent that the populace would almost never be able to seek recall of any of their elected officials. It is not what the Alaska Constitution and statutes contemplated and it is an unreasonable interpretation of the law. The recall statutes contemplate a political process initiated by the voters. Elected officials cannot exempt themselves from the process by claiming First Amendment protections.”

The American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Eric Glass, represented the three council members.

“It’s important to remember that, in Alaska, elected officials cannot be subjected to recall simply for a political disagreement but instead can only be subjected for recall for cause,” he argued during Monday’s trial. He did not, evidently, convince the judge that the ACLU should be the determiner of what “cause” is.

That right there was the crux of the matter. Do voters determine misconduct and unfitness for office, or do ACLU and their attorneys make those distinctions?

The recall effort started after the three worked privately to craft an official city resolution that was “anti-Trump Administration” in nature, and was attempting to have Homer designated a “sanctuary city” that would shelter illegal immigrants. A later draft of that resolution was voted down by the council, even though it had been watered down to be an affirmation of Homer as a welcoming city to all.

The recall alleges the three council members are unfit for office. It also alleges misconduct, claiming damage was done when the draft of the resolution about “inclusivity” was made public.


http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-recall-election-forward-judge/

Awesome 😎

This was the outcome I was hoping for, the people of Homer are setting a good example for Anchorage to follow, they are paying attention.

It’s all over but the counting. The polls have closed in Homer, Alaska, and it looks like one city council member may not make it through the recall election, but it all depends on the early votes, which won’t be counted until Friday.

Some 1,041 votes were cast today. Today’s results are:

Donna Aderhold – Recall 493, Don’t recall 572, or 46-54 percent

David Lewis – Recall 499, Don’t recall 563, or 47-53 percent

Catriona Reynolds – Recall 514, Don’t recall 547, or 49-51 percent

Supporters of the recall, Heartbeat of Homer, believe there are 820 early votes cast and as many as 200 absentee votes still uncounted.

“If our base went out and voted early, and I believe they did, it won’t take much to flip it the other way,” said Larry Zuccaro, one of the recall organizers.

Voting at City Hall was steady throughout the day.

Sign-wavers from both side stood on corners within sight of each other for 12 hours waving signs and flags. It was the culmination of four months of citizen activism that was ignited when the three city council members colluded via email to establish Homer as a sanctuary city, where illegal immigrants could be shielded from federal authorities.

http://mustreadalaska.com/homer-council-members-hang-onto-seats-now/

A record-breaking voter turnout resulted in three Homer City Council members retaining their seats after this week’s special recall election.

Council member Catriona Reynolds, who became a leader in an effort to make Homer a sanctuary city, was seen by many as the most in peril. But she retained her seat by 223 votes, or 56 percent, once all the absentee ballots and early ballots were counted.

Donna Aderhold and David Lewis retained their seats on the council with a cushion of 274 and 273 votes respectively, or about 57 percent of the vote. Some 1,936 voters participated in the special election, for a 42 percent turnout, which is likely the highest in the city’s history.

Sarah Vance, a spokeswoman for the Heartbeat of Homer, said in a statement released before the votes were counted that the pro-recall group “congratulates everyone for speaking up at the ballot box on this important issue. It is exciting to see such an excellent turnout in this Special Election! We win! Every time we take a stand to hold our leaders accountable, take responsibility for our own actions, and defend truth; we win! Thank you, to everyone who participated in this tumultuous recall; your efforts have not gone unnoticed.

“We want to especially extend our hand to council members Donna Aderhold, David Lewis, and Catriona Reynolds. Your volunteer efforts and commitment to this community are to be commended. This recall has indeed blown a strong wind of change through our sleepy little town, and it is now up to us, as a community, to determine how we proceed. It is our hope that together, we will embrace the change that is now before us, and embark on this journey with great expectation as to whom Homer will become.”

Problems with the vote counting machine dragged the process into the late afternoon on Friday. Some ballots had to be fed through the machine several times before it would count them. Several of absentee ballots were set aside because they were not properly signed, observers said, but there were not enough of those to have changed the outcome.

Aderhold, Lewis, and Reynolds faced a recall after petitioners claimed that they were engaging in political activity that was beyond their scope of office, by trying to make Homer a sanctuary city and by passing a resolution opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The three hired the ACLU to challenge the recall in court, but lost that venture. They have asked the city to pay their legal bills that they owe Heartbeat of Homer for having taken them and the City of Homer to court to stop the election.

Mike Fell, one of the organizers of Heartbeat of Homer, said the group of conservative activists was not discouraged and would continue to work for transparency, honesty and accountability in government: “We’re just getting warmed up,” he said.