ILNews

Patriotic Veterans seeks to lift ban on robo-calls for primary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Illinois-based nonprofit that wants to make political robo-calls in Indiana for the May primary has asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a stay banning the company from doing so.

Patriotic Veterans Inc. asked the 7th Circuit to reconsider its Dec. 21 decision to allow Indiana to enforce a statute restricting out-of-state robo-calls. In its motion filed April 20, the nonprofit argues that Indiana’s May 8 primary election includes several significant contested races and the organization has been asked to “place interstate political phone calls in advance of this important election by using the technology prohibited by Indiana’s Automatic Dialing Machine Statute.”

Patriotic Veterans claims that the stay is detrimental to the organization and Indiana voters because it prevents Patriotic Veterans from “engaging in core political speech during an election cycle.”

The state opposes the motion, arguing that Patriotic Veterans cited no new facts or circumstances that justify lifting the stay. The state writes in its brief that “Indiana citizens will suffer great harm to their residential privacy if the stay is lifted and PVI acts as if it has a license to flood Indiana homes with calls.”

In September, U.S. Judge William Lawrence ruled that Indiana’s Automatic Dialing Machine Statute is preempted by federal law and the state couldn’t prevent out-of-state entities from placing political robo-calls to Hoosiers. That decision was appealed, and the stay was issued allowing Indiana to enforce the statute pending a 7th Circuit decision.

The 7th Circuit has not ruled on Patriotic Veterans’ motion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT