Image not recoveredknightaclu.jpg
For Steve Knight, it turns out that a surprise assist from the nation’s foremost civil liberties organization was too good to be true.
My post last weekend took big exception with Knight’s vote against a bill (AB 2444) that would prohibit the State of California from displaying or selling the Confederate Battle flag. Knight stood with just two other members of the legislature in opposing the bill, and I discussed my distaste for the vote and my disbelief at the political blunder.
The next day, the Orange County Register ran an article that made it sound like the ACLU found the bill, as passed, to be unconstitutional:
“Whatever the sentiments may be behind the motivation, I think it’s pretty clear that it’s unconstitutional,” said Peter Eliasberg, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. “I don’t know why they’re trying to do it.”
Eliasberg said that the state was within its right to ban its own sale of the item, “but to say any person who comes on state property can’t – I just don’t think it’ll survive judicial scrutiny.”
On the basis of this article, Knight wore the ACLU’s ostensible objection like a suit of armor when talking to the AV Press and KHTS: “the American Civil Liberties Union said this bill definitely had constitutional issues. I understand that because (the bill) has to do with a Confederate flag image that people were very upset, but I felt that the bill had constitutional problems and voted that way.”
On Wednesday, the LA Times reported that Knight would be meeting with displeased Democratic leaders next week to discuss his vote. And yesterday, Timm Herdt of the Ventura County Star quotes Tony Strickland pouncing on his suddenly rightward opponent: “This [vote] is a no-brainer. We’re not living in Birmingham, Alabama.”
Steve Knight standing with the ACLU, Tony Strickland saying this isn’t Birmingham…don’t let anyone tell you that top-two isn’t interesting.
Meanwhile, something didn’t add up about OC Register article. The reporter quotes Eliasberg talking about a restriction (banning sales by anyone on state property) that existed only in the bill’s original draft. The bill that was passed only restricted sales by the state itself, and there’s no constitutional issue there, right?
Strangely, the article has Eliasberg saying as much (emphasis mine): “Eliasberg said that the state was within its right to ban its own sale of the item.”
Sensing a big misunderstanding, I reached out to Mr. Eliasberg and sent him text of the original and final bills. We spoke earlier today, and he clarified that his discussion with the reporter covered two types of restrictions: sales by individuals on state property (in the original bill, and unconstitutional) and sales by the state itself (in the final bill, and OK under the Constitution).
He made it clear that he doesn’t see a constitutional problem with the bill that passed because, “the state is allowed to sell what it wants.” Had the original bill passed, it would be a very different matter, of course.
Comments (2)