Lumpkin County Commissioners (BOC) do not seem to understand or appreciate the Constitutional right being violated by their attempt to control petitions. Any limitation on the right to petition must be justified by a compelling public interest. Only an emergency could justify restriction of that right.
During the July meeting of the BOC, commissioners voted to require their own exclusive design for any petition submitted to them. It would require a notarized affidavit from the collector on the back of each page verifying the identity and address of each signer. As I see it, picture ID would be required to protect collectors from liabilty for false swearing on the affidavit. Then Chairman Raber stated in his The Dahlonega Nugget column on September 2 that the action had been taken to protect those who sign from fines and incarceration.
Petition restrictions and threats can only be interpreted as an attempt to make citizens afraid to sign petitions and collectors afraid to collect. The right to petition has been recognized by courts and historians as the cornerstone of the First Amendment. The original draft of the First Amendment contained only assembly and petition, not speech, press or religion. Petition is the right to ask government at any level to right a wrong or correct a problem.
“Petitioning” has come to signify any nonviolent, legal means of encouraging or disapproving government action, whether directed to the judicial, executive or legislative branch. Lobbying, letter-writing, e-mail campaigns, testifying before tribunals, filing lawsuits, supporting referenda, collecting signatures for ballot initiatives, peaceful protests and picketing: all public articulation of issues, complaints and interests designed to spur government action qualifies under the petition clause, even if the activities partake of other First Amendment freedoms.
Continue reading »
Recent Comments