Source: https://www.pinecam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=1824590
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 04:18:09
Document Index: 532921372

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 7', '§ 18370', '§ 319', '§ 1']

It is currently Oct 18, 2019 10:18 pm
Yes 39% [ 26 ]
No 55% [ 36 ]
Undecided 6% [ 4 ]
Joined: Oct 8, 2009 11:53 am
diomar wrote:
Stop littering our roadways with electioneering signs, they're known as "yard signs", not public roadway signs. Collect them and turn them into your local Sheriff Office offices. As they are litter, Alex Schwartz or one of the FoED would be liable for the littering fines. I saw several dozen in the dumpster behind the dumpster at Tasmans.
Also, public electioneering falls on the illegal side of things as well.I'm considering this as a violation "
Updated August 2016 State Laws Prohibiting Electioneering Activities Within a Certain Distance of the Polling Place State
Except as electors are admitted to vote and persons to assist them as herein provided, and except for the judge of probate, the sheriff, or his or her deputy, the precinct election officials, and watchers, no person shall be permitted within 30 feet of the door of the building of the polling place. Electioneering or campaigning is permitted outside the polling place. However, this activity must not be closer than 30 feet to the entrance of the polling place (Alabama Code § 17-9-50; Alabama Secretary of State FAQs) Alaska During the hours the polls are open, a person who is in the polling place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place may not attempt to persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate, proposition, or question. (Alaska Stat. §§ 15-15-170) A person commits the offense of campaign misconduct in the third degree if...the person is within 200 feet of an entrance to a polling place, and violates AS 15.15.170; or circulates cards, handbills, or marked ballots, or posts political signs or posters relating to a candidate at an election or election proposition or question. (Alaska Statutes § 15-56-016).
A person who knowingly electioneers on election day within a polling place or in a public manner within seventy-five feet of the main outside entrance of a polling place or on-site early voting location is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-1018(1)) A person shall not be allowed to remain inside the seventy-five foot limit while the polls are open, except for the purpose of voting…and no electioneering may occur within the seventy-five foot limit. For the purposes of this section, electioneering occurs when an individual knowingly, intentionally, by verbal expression and in order to induce or compel another person to vote in a particular manner or to refrain from voting expresses support for or opposition to a candidate who appears on the ballot in that election, a ballot question that appears on the ballot in that election or a political party with one or more candidates who appear on the ballot in that election. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-515(A); (H))
No person shall hand out or distribute or offer to hand out or distribute any campaign literature or any literature regarding any candidate or issue on the ballot, solicit signatures on any petition, solicit contributions for any charitable or other purpose, or do any electioneering of any kind whatsoever in the building or within one hundred feet (100') of the primary exterior entrance used by voters to the building containing the polling place on election day (Ark. Code Ann. § 7-1-103(9)(A))
No person, on election day, or at any time that a voter may be casting a ballot, shall, within 100 feet of a polling place…a) circulate an initiative, referendum, recall, or nomination petition or any other petition; (b) solicit a vote or speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot; c) place a sign relating to voters' qualifications or speak to a voter on the subject of his or her qualifications…(d) do any electioneering as defined by Section 319.5. As used in this section, "100 feet of a polling place…” means a distance 100 feet from the room or rooms in which voters are signing the roster and casting ballots. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (California Elections Code Ann. § 18370) "Electioneering" means the visible display or audible dissemination of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure on the ballot within 100 feet of a polling place... Prohibited electioneering information includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (a) a display of a candidate's name, likeness, or logo; (b) a display of a ballot measure's number, title, subject, or logo; (c) buttons, hats, pencils, pens, shirts, signs, or stickers containing electioneering information; (d) dissemination of audible electioneering information. (California Elections Code Ann. § 319.5)
No person shall do any electioneering on the day of any election within any polling place or in any public street or room or in any public manner within one hundred feet of any building in which a polling place is located. As used in this section, the term "electioneering" includes campaigning for or against any candidate who is on the ballot or any ballot issue or ballot question that is on the ballot. "Electioneering" also includes soliciting signatures for a candidate petition, a recall petition, or a petition to place a ballot issue or ballot question on a subsequent ballot." Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1- 13-714)"
Especially when you're mailing electioneering material to my place of residence. Stop and look to see what facilities can be considered places of voting...your private residence is one of them.
Poo Poo as you want, I've been searching for lawyers to bring this to a different level.
If FoEC have money to print-up glossies with blatant lies, you'll be capable to compensating the attorneys and taxpayers for monies unwell spent. If laws have been broken, I'm sure at least or two are willing to handle the punishment.
Simply said. Register to vote. Vote NO on 7Y...at least until you've taken the time to read and validate where the monies are going.
It's ironic you write all this and there are a bunch of vote no signs going up in these supposed areas that are illegal. At least we know where the signs were put that were wrongfully taken down - as you stated- the dumpster behind Taspens. The supposed blatant lies on those glossies are from verified news stories and articles that you can verify. Please do. Friends of Elk Creek are exactly that- they are not part of the department nor the district. It is not taxpayer money funded.
wennboyz wrote:
It's ironic you write all this and there are a bunch of vote no signs going up in these supposed areas that are illegal. At least we know where the signs were put that were wrongfully taken down - as you stated- the dumpster behind Taspens.
Where were the signs posted that are "wrongfully" taken down? This has nothing to do with electioneering but rather litter. Any sign can be removed legally that is not on private property and which is legal under the Jeffco or Parkco sign code. Road medians, poles, etc. is NOT private property.
Posted: Oct 4, 2019 2:50 pm
Great than maybe that no sign by Bradley's should be removed or by Staples. They definitely would fall in that category.
Agreed - Please feel free and go right ahead! 99% of the all these signs fall in this category. I'm still wondering who thought of the idea to put up signs in the first place. I have yet to meet anyone who admit they had any effect. In actuality, the sign is more likely to turn me off voting for the issue/candidate.
Posted: Oct 6, 2019 7:17 pm
Joined: Apr 14, 2010 7:23 pm
My concerns with the Elk Creek Fire tax:
1.	30% Over-budget spending has crowded-out maintenance. The District did not want the Dec 31 2018 audit released before voters received their ballots. Under pressure from concerned taxpayers, the audit was released Sept 29 2019, only 12 days before ballots will be in voters’ hands. The reason for suppressing the audit? 2018 expenditures exceeded the budget by 30%, or $782,000 over-budget. ( p. 32 of the audit). Auditors note (p. 13): “…this may be a violation of state statute.” This is professional auditor-speak for “…is in violation…” The largest expenditures over-budget were ambulance services, training, and out-of-state wildland fire crew expenses; causing maintenance deferral for many years, and supposedly justifying this property tax increase. The Board has excuses for all, but none are acceptable or legal.
2.	The Board has lost taxpayer’s trust. Completely. Who rewards such performance, and subterfuge, with a tax increase? Booster’s glossy literature screams they need higher property taxes for maintenance. Complete with threats. If this Board can overspend by 30% and be rewarded with a property tax increase, it will overspend again. In addition to voting NO, we also need to replace the current board with a transparent and responsible board. The next board election is May, 2020.
3.	This is a $200 property tax increase, for the average-price home. It is retroactive. Taxpayers need to ask: How much is enough? What is the limit? If 30% over-budget doesn’t demand a NO vote, what does?
Posted: Oct 7, 2019 9:06 am
Joined: Sep 19, 2013 3:05 pm
Last edited by ForestFellow on Oct 15, 2019 6:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posted: Oct 7, 2019 5:38 pm
30% Over-budget spending has crowded-out maintenance. The District did not want the Dec 31 2018 audit released before voters received their ballots. Under pressure from concerned taxpayers, the audit was released Sept 29 2019, only 12 days before ballots will be in voters’ hands. The reason for suppressing the audit? 2018 expenditures exceeded the budget by 30%, or $782,000 over-budget. ( p. 32 of the audit). Auditors note (p. 13): “…this may be a violation of state statute.” This is professional auditor-speak for “…is in violation…” The largest expenditures over-budget were ambulance services, training, and out-of-state wildland fire crew expenses; causing maintenance deferral for many years, and supposedly justifying this property tax increase.
And all the while treating volunteers so poorly that they don't want to even come around the fire house.
How about "No!" No you won't get my vote. Prove that you can be trusted with my monies, and and I'll gladly write the department a donation...until there's a clean audit, a rise in volunteer participation, and the elimination of the out-of-state wildland fire crew, you won't see my vote, you won't see my money. I already pay for the services the department provides.
Posted: Oct 8, 2019 9:21 pm
Joined: May 30, 2007 5:10 pm
This has been an interesting debate of community needs and who feels what is best. Conifer is a great community Elk Creek Fire has had numerous leaders and members who have been been fine men and women for years. I do not see the best for the community in this kind of discussion. It’s humorous to assume that reading a sign will immediately change someone’s mind to vote a certain way so removing them was simply immature and a financial hardship to those who supported it.
I trust the tax payers to look at all sides make an intelligent decision based on their own research. If you don’t want the tax increase vote no, if you feel that Elk Creek should have an increase in mil then vote yes.. it’s really just that simple so is being respectful.
Posted: Oct 9, 2019 10:26 pm
“It’s humorous to assume that reading a sign will immediately change someone’s mind to vote a certain way so removing them was simply immature and a financial hardship to those who supported it.“
If it’s humorous to assume reading a sign would change anyone’s mind, why litter the public roadways with “Vote for me, and I’ll set you free” electioneering signage of any type? Pity any candidate whose signage is strewn about the roadways.
Signage placed on tax-funded public property and private property without permission is considered litter. When you stop and pickup a beverage can, do you consider it litter or strategically placed advertising?
What about junk mail? Legitimate advertising or litter?
To date, I’ve received three copies of the same ECFPD “Vote 7B” full color glossy with a circle and paragraphs on the back of each one, explaining the Armageddon that will fall upon the scorched earth if we don’t vote “Yes”
Sadly, I don’t feel obliged to honor the multiple unsolicited junk mail that I’ve received. Maybe the monies from the mailings and signage litter could’ve been donated to the District for better usage.
As a side note, I’ve spoken to several of the ECFPD regarding this current election...not one of them support it, and more than one has taken credit for removal of the signs. Brainwashing and fear are strong forces.
Seems odd that the members don’t support a mill levy that directly supports them? They even removed their own signage? There’s no way you are just making that up, right? What if I told you that I’m good friends with over half the department, and they ALL support it? Do we just cancel each other out?
Not sure if we cancel it out.
I’m talking to longtime volunteers that are tired of being treated as a lower caste.
You may be speaking to the upper caste paid/unionized employees.
There’s a large gap between them, quite the chasm. Push the button, get the peanut, it’s as simple as that. The documentation that I’ve received from the County doesn’t paint the District in a very transparent light.
Nope. That’s very assumptive. I’d say my pool is about 3/4 volunteer to 1/4 paid. My neighbor has been a volunteer for over 10 years and swears that he is going to resign if the department doesn’t get the mill.