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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT