A federal judge on Tuesday denied a lawsuit’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in order to force more transparency on the White House’s “election integrity” commission.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed the lawsuit on July 10, arguing that the commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and vice chaired by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a transparency statute that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said “is likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.”
The Lawyers’ Committee argued that the election commission was required to open up its first in-person meeting, on July 19, to in-person public attendance, and that the commission needed to make additional documentation prior to that meeting, including records related to a June 28 phone call, available to the public.
In her opinion Tuesday, Kollar-Kotelly pointed to a notice printed in the Federal Register on July 5 and said it outlined sufficient public accountability measures, at least for now.
The Federal Register notice said that, while the commission’s July 19 meeting will not be open for oral comments from the public, it will be available to view via live stream. Additionally, “[t]he Commission will provide individuals interested in providing oral comments the opportunity to do so at subsequent meetings,” it said.
And the commission already released reams of emails from members of the public responding to the commission (though it’s not clear whether, before the Federal Registry announcement, anyone knew their feedback would be made public alongside sensitive contact information).
“Defendants, in a declaration submitted to the Court under penalty of perjury, have represented that prior to the July 19 meeting, they will make publicly available: (i) the agenda for the meeting; (ii) public comments received by the Commission via its email account within a reasonable time in advance of the meeting; and (iii) “other documents that are prepared for or by the Commission,’” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Documents ‘prepared for or by the Commission’ invariably must include documents that will be ‘used and discussed’ at the July 19 meeting.”
She added later: “ Moreover, the public will be permitted to view the meeting, to submit written comments, and to provide oral comments at subsequent meetings. There may be other documents that could, in theory, further facilitate this public debate, but based on the information presently available, it appears that the principal documents have or will be disclosed, and that the public and Plaintiff will have a substantial opportunity to debate and provide input with respect to the work of the Commission.”
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said FACA “is likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.”
WTF? Ask ANY fed who has ever had to convene a meeting of a federal advisory committee, and all the interest groups that expect certain protocol to be followed and they will ALL say they know about FACA and how much trouble they can be in if they don’t adhere. Once again, ignorance is the excuse that gets these fuckers off the hook when it’s not ignorance at all but rather deliberation obfuscation.
Why would the public need to be in the meeting? Just because it’s corrupt?
“is likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.”
As a lawyer myself, I can tell you that would infuriate me. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Period.
As for the rest of her opinion, it actually isn’t that bad and clearly leaves open the possibility of revisiting the issue. Still, I have to wonder WTF she was thinking even making that stupid comment about nobody knowing about that law. That’s some ragtime shit right there.
…a transparency statute that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said “is likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.”
So, let me get this straight. The judge is arguing that if a law is little known, it basically doesn’t exist?
I sure hope that the party bringing suit has a legal response to this.
So are the agenda and the other documents, including those records related to a June 28 phone call referenced in the article, going to be posted more than 10 minutes before the meeting starts? Since July 19th is TOMORROW, one might think that “within a reasonable time in advance of the meeting” would be more than a few hours.