Liberty Discussions
Avatar Image

Utah Battle over E-signatures Heats Up

9 April, 2010   
Published by Helen Anderson in Blog, Featured Articles

Farley Anderson

Farley Anderson

The following article was written by Farley Anderson, who is fighting a legal battle to get on the ballot to run for governor of Utah. The dispute is over the use of electronic signatures in the petition process.  The I-Sign process is an initiative of a group called  The People’s Right (www.utahlive.us). One of the stated objectives of this group is to “to lead the nation in a movement to raise the political power of people above that of political parties, special interest, media hype or money power through a direct process deliberately left open in the Utah State Constitution.”

For background on this dispute, see the following news articles:

Internet gathered E-signatures petitions may revolutionize politics if allowed to stand. A new frontier of Internet Political activism faces First Amendment challenge.

We need your support to help fight a Supreme Court battle.  We plan to use the power of the internet and innovation to make politics better, more open and user-friendly and more about what is right than what is in it for me.  Not everyone is pleased with us shaking the political applecart.

A grass roots movement in Utah seeks to open a whole new paradigm of citizen-powered political activity to give a new political choice to everyone.  Most people in our country are truly and justifiably disgusted with politics in general.  It has become way too much about who really wants the job and who can sell off enough influence to buy an election.  The Internet, more than any other tool, may have the power to return the power to our people and restore a system of equality and justice as promised in the lead paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.  As newspaperman and first amendment advocate Edward Morrow put it, “A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves”.  Knowledge, with activity, raises a people above the blindness of the herd mentality.  The Independence project is a grass roots movement to utilize the power of free information via the internet to build a sense of political community and offer a change so refreshingly comfortable and new that it will catch the imagination of a sleeping people (see the movement website at utahlive.us).  Imagine a political system that is not run or controlled by money, a system where everyone is an automatic delegate, a system that is more about information  and raising each individual up to accept the responsibilities and rights of a free people  instead of the unabashed sell-off of influence we now see.  The movement’s objectives are the hallmark of the success of the great American experiment.

People have a fundamental, God-given First Amendment right to petition government.  Utah State law requires that the petition process be used to enable unaffiliated candidates the chance to get their name on the ballot.  Many people in this state chose to exercise their basic first amendment right to petition the government on behalf of Farley Anderson for Governor, using electronic signatures. The State of Utah is in full opposition to this process. The people already have a fundamentally guaranteed first amendment right, and Utah law already states that an electronic signature is the equivalent of a paper signature in every legal way.  I guarantee that if we were talking about e-dollars instead of e-signatures on a petition, that every county and the Lt Governor’s office would immediately find a way to verify the signatures.  While the battle has caught the attention of national and world media and “the eyes of the nation are upon Utah”, it feels more like a couple of guys with big ideas taking on the giant of establishment power.  If you can imagine, our state’s executive branch is even suing the county clerks who are friendly to these constitutional rights.  Remove ignorance and greed from politics and we have a fair shot at restoring our Republic (Farley Anderson author of the book the Restoration of our Republic and Utah State Gubernatorial candidate hopeful).

We believe that this is a battle worth fighting.  The petition process gives the people an enormous check on government power.  Anything that makes the political process more participatory to more people is a good thing.  This process enabled the Anderson campaign to be the first ever to receive signature petition support from every county in Utah, as well as from Utah citizens currently overseas.

We actually found that the electronic signatures required, on average, five to ten times the work to gather as their paper counterpart; as the process was new and unfamiliar to most people.  We felt good about the process, however, as we knew that the support was genuine.  People had time to actually consider what they were signing in the privacy of their own home and did so of their own accord.  We believe that this is a people-empowering and building process far superior to the traditional petitions that are often signed without thought or consideration by many people.  The process included going to a secure website, signing the signature electronically, checking a box indicating under penalty of law that the person signing is that person, filling in the required field with information that must exactly match with the voter’s registrar, and then finally use the last four digits of their driver’s license as a pin. The signing is witnessed from a remote location as provided for in Utah State code.

All in all, the system is far more thoughtful and secure than that required with paper signatures.  We provided the county clerks with the petitions in paper form, along with a special access number to go into the site to verify and gather the information in whatever format they desired. This process can save government vast amounts of time and money in what is otherwise the very mundane task of petition verification. The process is especially appealing to the younger generation, who is in general more computer savvy and often feels left out of the current political process.

Some argue that part of the prescribed process is to be able to face the petitioner.  This logic is hollow.  Many petitions are circulated by paid petitioners whose only motivation is to get paid, generally per signature.  If time and circumstance would allow most would agree that if a petition could be dropped off at the home and the signer given the time to consider the petition at leisure that it would be superior to the way most petitions are signed, even if the signer never saw the person who dropped it off and picked it up.  Under this circumstance would the signature not be accepted under the current system?  Should this process be any less valid because we dropped it off top the home  electronically, unless of course the real motivation is to keep this power from the people?

What the Utah Lt Governor’s office refers to as merely typed names on a paper are in reality real legal signatures submitted by real American citizens exercising real first amendment guaranteed rights to petition government.  Any argument to the contrary belies the fact that these citizens engaged in a process that is far more thoughtful, more secure, more representative and more open and user friendly to our people than what has been traditionally used.  The entire focus is being steered away from this basic premise and the government’s responsibility to verify and not to usurp this process.  We will gladly entertain any argument as to the validity of these premises and of the process itself, but believe that it is entirely inappropriate to disenfranchise these citizens based upon the whims of the executive branch.  If the executive branch is concerned that these signatures were somehow produced by “magic” and are not representative of the people listed, they have many tools available to assist in the verification, not the least of which is to ask the citizen.  Interestingly, this does not seem to even be a question.  This guaranteed first Amendment right is unalienable and denies no one of their life, liberty, or property to exercise.  After an initial process creating a policy and instruction to subordinates this process will save precious time and resources of government to accept.  Every single county in Utah participated in the process of petitioning on behalf of Mr. Farley Anderson for governor, something that has never happened before in any political campaign, thus demonstrating the increased openness of the system.  The county clerks who received instruction from our Lt Governor’s office were actually being told to violate their oath of office to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens they represent.  When the Lt Governor’s office proclaimed that the law requires only paper signatures be verified when no such law exists, a usurpation by the executive branch of government occurred, thus making new law. Further, by refusing to accept the petitions verified by the counties, we see a further usurpation of the state government over the rightful responsibility and rights of the counties.  All of this is underscored by open and unabashed, politically-motivated unfairness to keep an unaffiliated candidate for governor from receiving a constitutionally guaranteed right to be placed on the ballot and thus possibly jeopardizing the employment of the Lt Governor.  We recognize a legitimate governmental role to create standards, but if no standard has been established then each county clerk is responsible to take reasonable measures to accommodate their citizens. Otherwise we are back to the patently un-American assumption that people only have rights after they have been given them by a legislative body.

The Story.  A grassroots movement in Utah dedicated to the cause of proving that it is possible to run an effective information-based campaign without a sell-out to special interests or the support of major political parities, decided to use the power of the internet and an e-signature petition to put their candidate on the ballot. The first snag we ran up against was a letter from the State’s Lt Governor’s office to county clerks informing them that the law requires only a paper-based system, when no such law exists.  Some county clerks may need to be reminded that their oath of office is to protect basic constitutional rights of people in their county and not to the Lt Governor and to the political party for which he stands.    Four brave county clerks independently chose to certify the signatures.  Next, the petitions with the required number of county clerk certified signatures (both electronic gathered and paper gathered) were turned into the Lt Governor’s office at the prescribed time and in the prescribed format.  Again, to our astonishment, we were denied access, as they would not even accept the petition. Our only option at this point was to sue for redress. Since this is a statewide issue, the only court of jurisdiction is the Utah State Supreme Court. We immediately obtained a writ to serve papers and force the Lt Governor’s office to accept the petitions and give us a hearing to determine if the executive branch has the authority to make law and usurp county authority to certify petitions.  We felt that if we could narrow the scope to these two issues that we could mostly represent ourselves and, with limited legal help, mount an effective response.  The State has responded by claiming that the entire block of Salt Lake County signatures (which has the largest block of certified e-signatures) are invalid.  They argue that because of this, the required number of signatures was not turned in.

Why is this important? This case will set a precedent for the entire nation to follow.  As some are also aware, the legislature has significantly raised the number of signatures required and shortened the time to gather the signatures, making it impractical in Utah to use the citizens’ referendum and initiative as the peoples check and balance of government.  The use of electronic signatures can restore balance back to the people.  With voters involved any bad law could be brought before the people on the next ballot in a referendum.  In addition, every bad law ever written could face this citizen’s review.  This battle has caught the attention of national media and the imagination of people from many states.  This is a powerful tool to bring a restoration of our Republic.  Now I need to ask again for your support to bring this to completion.    Note–while as a candidate I have covenanted not to take special interest or corporate money.   I feel that this first amendment legal battle is beyond my campaign and the People’s right will accept any legal/financial help offered.  Legal support should be directed to:

The People’s Right

P.O. Box 179

Kanosh UT 84637

  • Share/Bookmark
tags: , , 1 Comment »
Avatar Image

Great article from the Center for Social Leadership: i Government

9 April, 2010   
Published by David Richins in Blog

“Where, oh where, has my liberty gone?” we cry.

Too often the answer is, “The ‘government’ stole it!”

Liberty-loving Americans must bring politics and economics back into the first person.

We speak of the “the government” and the “the economy” as if they were independent, conscious entities.
But the “government” is people, interacting with each other and operating according to forms and policies established by we the people and our duly elected representatives.

Likewise, the “economy” is people interacting and acting according to economic forms and norms in the interest of bringing value to themselves and those they love.

Where has our liberty gone? It has gone into the oblivion of the third person — that third person being “i Government.”

Read the rest of the article at the Center for Social Leadership.

  • Share/Bookmark
No Comments »
Avatar Image

Kicking Things Off

6 April, 2010   
Published by David Richins in Blog

We’re starting to make plans for our first group meeting in Cincinnati, which will hopefully take place within the next month or so.  I’ll keep you posted on our progress.

I’m hoping that our work here in Ohio can inspire others throughout America (and beyond) to form their own groups as well.

As a reminder, each group has certain resources on Liberty Discussions for communicating and reporting back.

On the group page you will find the following tools:

  • Group email (try not to abuse this)
  • Group calendar – this can be used to post events.   Group admins can add a sidebar widget to their blog showing upcoming group events.
  • Group forums
  • Share/Bookmark
No Comments »
Avatar Image

Family: The Fundamental Unit in a Republic

5 April, 2010   
Published by David Richins in Blog, Featured Articles

It’s not hard to see that the role of the family in society is being challenged and belittled. But many of us do not realize the seriousness of the situation.  As early as the 19th century, communists were calling for the abolition of the family. The radical ideas of Marx and Engels have persisted to the present. Although few are willing to openly declare these things today, it is apparent that there is still an active campaign to destroy family relations.  And the danger is even greater now, because this cancerous movement marches on largely undetected. Looking at some of the bold statements of the early communist leaders, we can get a sense of their malicious intent.

From the Communist Manifesto, we read:

Karl Marx

“Abolition of the Family! … The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course…”

The socialists observed that in traditional society, there is widespread infidelity in marriage.  They used this as an excuse to promote legalized promiscuity:

“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women.”

According to Marx, parents in a communist society are to be denied the natural right and duty of educating their own children:

“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”

Engels wrote in Principles of Communism:

“Question 21: What influence will the communist order of society have upon the family?

“Answer: It will make the relations between the sexes a purely private affair which concerns only the persons involved, and calls for no interference by society. It is able to do this because it abolishes private property and educates children communally, destroying thereby the two foundation stones of hitherto existing marriage–the dependence of the wife upon her husband and of the children upon the parents conditioned by private property. This is an answer to the outcry raised by moralising philistines against the communistic community of wives. Community of wives is a relationship belonging entirely to bourgeois society and existing today in perfect form as prostitution. Prostitution, however, is rooted in private property and falls with it. Hence, the communistic organisation rather than establishing the community of women, puts an end to it.”

John Goodlad

We find many of these ideas being promoted today, especially the notion that the state has the duty of raising and educating children.   The Onion humorously addressed the topic in an article titled, “Increasing Number Of Parents Opting To Have Children School-Homed.”  But this issue is quite serious, and we can see that many Americans adhere to this philosophy.

In the 2001 book, “Developing Democratic Character in the Young,” edited by the influential education theorist John Goodlad, we read:

“…education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents and children all have interests that must be protected…

“we are looking for balance…that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children.”

And after these deceptive statements, we find this bold pronouncement:

“Parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control their education fully.”

Wow. The author goes on to explain how the public schools are to be used to instill these democratic (i.e. socialist) ideas in children:

“[we can] protect against the loss of democratic values by insisting that all schools – public and private – teach these basic values, but ensuring that this is done requires careful supervision, and we may predict a new round of outraged complaints if government begins to monitor private schools in this way.  Instead of intruding heavily in the conduct of private schools, we might do better to stem their proliferation.”

John Locke

John Locke

I include these quotes as a reminder of what we are up against.  Truly, parents do have a natural duty to teach and raise their children.  John Locke, whose ideas influenced the development of the Constitution, explained:

“The power, then, that parents have over their children arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring during the imperfect state of childhood.  To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to [provide].” (as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, pp. 286-287)

Locke goes on to explain that parents must not abdicate this responsibility to the state:

“The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government which terminates with the minority of the child…The nourishment and education of their children [during their minority] is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children’s good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it.”

  • Share/Bookmark
tags: , , , , , , , 3 Comments »
Avatar Image

Thomas Jefferson on the Commerce Clause, General Welfare

1 April, 2010   
Published by David Richins in Blog

The new health care bill has prompted a number of states to stand up in opposition and assert their rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment.  Proponents of health care reform point to the commerce clause in the Constitution as justification.

As early as 1825, Thomas Jefferson had observed conflict brewing between the commerce clause and states’ rights.  In a letter to William M. Giles, he talks about it:

“I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most nourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.

“And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.

“But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further, and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the Constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress, (log-rolling, etc.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed, shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.” (emphasis added)

  • Share/Bookmark
tags: , , , No Comments »
« Previous Entries