Which Henry Wilson You Gunna Believe?
by
James Scott Trimm
by
James Scott Trimm
| The Henry Wilson who sued the State of Texas to have TOMA thrown out. | The Henry Wilson who would never want to have TOMA repealed. |
| In his actual lawsuit Wilson argued:“TOMA is facially overbroad—unconstitutional on its face. … TOMA is unconstitutional as applied. TOMA, … prohibits a quorum of a city council from communicating, receiving, or sending communications, except at a public meeting. This violates the First Amendment rights of each plaintiff to be able to express him or herself regarding political speech, and violates his or her First Amendment rights…. The Plaintiffs request declaratory relief in the form of an injunction against enforcement of the criminal penalties of the act at least until such time as a new drafting of the act can be made by the Texas legislature …” | But on his 2015 campaign website Wilson wrote:“The Texas Open Meetings Law Suit was not about the repealing of the law. I would never want to repeal the law. …The law suit was strictly about removing the provision in the law that provided punishment of jail time for its violation… I promoted making any action done in an illegal closed meeting be made null and void and any person taking part in the closed meeting be removed from office and barred from holding either an elected or appointed office in the State of Texas for life.” |
In his 2009 lawsuit Henry Wilson argues that TOMA is unconstitutional on its face and sought to have enforcement of the law prohibited until such time as the legislature could rewrite it. But in his recent campaign statement Wilson claims he would never want TOMA repealed!
In his lawsuit Wilson argued that TOMA is unconstitutional because it “prohibits a quorum of a city council from communicating, receiving, or sending communications, except at a public meeting.” Yet in his recent campaign statement he now claims that “any action done in an illegal closed meeting be made null and void and any person taking part in the closed meeting be removed from office and barred from holding either an elected or appointed office in the State of Texas for life.”
How can this be? Why could Wilson have been promoting that officials should be removed from office simply for engaging in activities he claimed in his lawsuit were constitutionally protected? How could he have promoted that any action done in a closed meeting should be “null and void” when his lawsuit was arguing that such meetings were constitutionally protected?
Which Henry Wilson do we believe? the one who sued to have TOMA thrown out, or the one who would never want TOMA repealed?
External Links:
Texas Meetings Rule Does Not Restrict Free Speech (Courthouse News Service)
No comments:
Post a Comment