Rhode Island-based U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose presided Friday over the first hearing in Rep. Laurel Libby’s (R-Auburn) federal lawsuit against House Speaker Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) over his decision to block the representative from voting and speaking on the floor of the Maine Legislature.
Libby was censured by a party-line vote in February for posting an image on social media that identified a biologically male athlete who took first place in a girls’ track and field contest, and which gained significant traction as it reached up to the highest levels of government and spurred a show-down between Maine Governor Janet Mills and U.S. President Donald Trump (R).
After Rep. Libby refused House leadership’s demand to apologize for the post — a condition of her censure — Speaker Fecteau stripped her of her right to vote and and participate in floor debates.
Libby still retains her right to sponsor legislation, present motions, engage in committee work, and testify at public hearings.
Concerns over the lack of representation for Libby’s 9,000 constituents have featured prominently in her case, as she is currently be prevented from partaking in two fundamental components of serving in the Legislature. A half dozen of her constituents join her as plaintiffs in her complaint against Fecteau.
Much of the debate during Friday’s hearing focused on the issue of legislative immunity — which guarantees that lawmakers have no liability for legislative acts under most circumstances — and its applicability in this case.
While Libby’s legal team argued that “it’s plainly not” constitutional to take away her right to speak and vote on the chamber floor, those representing Fecteau contended that members of House have a right to enforce the rules agreed upon by members of the body.
Arguing on behalf of Libby, attorney Patrick Strawbridge explained that while there is no First Amendment issue with her censure itself, one arose when her right to speak and vote were stripped of her after she refused to apologize for her post.
Although Libby agreed to the House rules, Strawbridge suggested that she didn’t agree to have them applied in a way that “punish[es] her constitutionally protected speech.”
Kimberly Patwardhan, Maine’s Assistant Attorney General, argued that Libby’s challenge only concerns protected legislative conduct that may not be challenged in court, suggesting that “even conduct that has a retaliatory motive is protected by legislative immunity.”
According to her analysis, refusing to recognize Libby during floor debates and not counting her votes on legislation are protected legislative acts.
She also argued that Libby does not have a First Amendment right to vote on any particular piece of legislation, citing a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Patwardhan further suggested during questioning that “better conduct” is expected from elected officials than is expected from members of the general public.
Adding to this, she pointed out that Libby was officially censured for “endangering a child” — which is against the House rules — not for her viewpoint on the issue of biological males participating in female sports.
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Bolton argued during Friday’s hearing that Libby’s legal team is “conflating” the right of a citizen to participate in popular elections and the right of a legislator to participate in a floor vote.
Bolton suggested that while a floor vote is one of many ways that elected officials may further their constituents’ interests, voting in an election is the only mode of participation available to voters.
Consequently, he argued that a “reduction in privileges” does not equal “disenfranchisement.” Therefore, in his view, stripping Libby of her right to debate and vote does not amount of disenfranchisement as she has maintained her right to continue participating in other legislative activities.
On rebuttal, Strawbridge provided “context” for the social media post that led to Libby’s censure in the first place, explaining that she was only reposting images and “factual information” about a public event, doing nothing to threaten or encourage threats against the minor in the photo, he said.
Strawbridge also noted that he was “stunned at the minimization” of Libby’s right to participate in the key legislative activities of voting and debating on the chamber floor.
He further pointed out that Libby’s constituents have no way of regaining their representation in Augusta, as she is still their elected official but has has been rendered unable to participate fully in the legislative process.
In conclusion, he suggested that the House’s decision to strip Libby of these abilities following her refusal to apologize represents a “massive extension of any prior attempt to censure somebody.”
Friday’s hearing marks the beginning of what is likely to be a long legal battle over the fallout from Libby’s February censure.
0 Comments