Kevin Landry asks supporters to not vote for him for the District 1 seat, Anoka Country Board. In effect, dropping his contest for the seat held by incumbent Matt Look.

 Strib.

ECM keeps the report simple - 

Kevin Landry has informed ABC Newspapers that he will be informally dropping out of the Nov. 9 General Election race for County Commissioner District 1.

His name will still appear on the ballot, but he is asking supporters not to vote for him.

It will be interesting, that non-contested contest, what count "Landry" as a non-candidate will still draw. Matt Look has a polarized community Gestalt to where a vote "for" Landry, with his name still available on the ballot, would be a way for those in District 1 set against Look to express their feelings.

Leaving that part of the ballot blank is another option. Likely what I will do. Probably what I'd have done if Landry had not made his decision to end the contest. Leaving it blank would meet Landry's request that people not vote for him.

At any rate Look needs no more road signs and can concentrate his printing business on other jobs. He has already posted some new signs around District 1.

Trump and the documents - Tump lawyers apparently filed a civil suit separate from the warrant court activity - its application, issuance and return.

 In seeking a special master, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply because it apparently is not a criminal law filing. There is no pending criminal action.

Key online filings from that civil action are: Trump's and DOJ's. Please note that case captions are "the same" - but not identical as to caption detail, as if the special master request was first filed and by the time DOJ filed the matter had been assigned to a Judge CANNON. 

Trump's lawyers filed first, with a separate civil case opened as a result. 

Without seeing the Court's case docket for CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON, we are left with a best guess on how one "parties" designation on one substantive filing led to the caption change on the other, as a procedural matter, but the cause number is clearly defining - there is one single civil case containing two opposing filings. 

The online redacted warrant copy Crabgrass reviewed has yet another case caption, so readers can see this is a separate matter from the initial warrant filing and execution activity.

Each of the substantive items cited in the above paragraph is a filing which speaks for itself, and readers can form opinions of the quality and gravitas of each. 

The opinion Crabgrass holds is that after seeing the DOJ spelling out more damning obstruction of justice detail, the rambling politicized Trump filing might have been better left undone.

................................................

Worth noting: FRCrP 41(g) exists and a "special master" application arguably could be premised on that, but FRCrP 41(a)(1) seems to make that whole rule advisory rather than governing in its warrant proceedings reach. Rule 41(a)(1) states:

Rule 41. Search and Seizure

(a) Scope and Definitions.

(1) Scope. This rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seizure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances.

The circumstances are surely special, yet it appears FBI-DOJ conformed its warrant application, search and seizure by that rule.

...........................................

Beyond that, again, FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) apply in civil actions. And it seems the special master question is being processed as a civil case for relief after a grand jury warranted search and seizure; where the claim is a special impartial party should examine seized documents to determine which, if any, might be privileged.

Whether a special master is appointed or whether the FBI taint team review will be deemed to apply and suffice is a question resting on the discretion of the judge (in this case a Judge Cannon who reportedly was appointed by Trump to that District Court bench).

___________UPDATE____________

EmptyWheel on otherwise privileged material which might fit an exception, given the stall/obstruction dimensions of Trump's side.

 

Trump FBI DOJ document situation --- Hoping to get this correctly described - The NA (National Archives) discovered classified material in an earlier set of boxes Trump and his lawyers turned over. From there, time and a possible obstruction of justice stonewall were a concern, national security matters making time of the essence.

The FBI-DOJ use of "taint teams" to independently review a trove of seized documents to determine if privileged attorney-client materials are included, and to hold these things apart from evidence turned over to investigative agents as evidence or information which might lead to evidence is being questioned.

Prior to the Aug 2022 Mar a Lago search and seizure by federal agents fifteen boxes of materials were turned over to NA which discovered classified material within the boxes. This was viewed as an exigent concern, DOJ was informed and NA wanted guidance on whether it should allow FBI to investigate the boxes. 

The DOJ informed Biden and his people that FP (former President) asserted executive privilege over box contents, not attorney client privilege, but that letting agents paw through the boxes would possible quell President-advisor candor in the future if wrongful disclosure practices happened or might happen.

Biden and his people indicated they asserted no privilege over the material on their own acount, and that DOJ and NA should work things out, with a particular DOJ official to be involved.

FP lawyers were not asserting exigent need to review the box contents based on a privilege assertion, being loose as to time or time pressures.

This NA letter available online now to FP lawyer Corcoran resulted. It speaks for itself. This was before the Mar a Lago search.

After the Mar a Lago search a taint team, as had been described in the DOJ affidavit of probable cause was given access to the seized boxes and folders, and has completed its review and isolated some privileged material.

John Solomon was designated by Trump as an agent to deal with NA while also being a journalist. He has written online, in chrono order, Aug 23, "Biden White House facilitated DOJ's criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos; AND  Aug 29, "Before FBI seized privileged Trump memos, DOJ filter teams already tainted by legal controversy; which online reports each speaks for itself questioning Biden's power to waive or affect a privilege asserted by FP after FP had been fired by the electorate and questioning taint team reliance (with links), etc. 

Where this will lead is unclear. FP has moved for appointment of a special master to do a privilege review; Corcoran filing. This is separate from the search warrant proceedings, and a different jurist has jurisdiction. 

It appears as if the FBI - DOJ has been careful with its conduct as merited by the nature of the situation, including public and media attention.

How and on what basis FP counsel might seek to suppress evidence should things result in a criminal indictment and trial are anticipated but premature questions at this point. Judicial ruling on any suppression effort is even more remote.

Rolling Stone's Aug 23 report,"Trump Tells His Lawyers: Get ‘My’ Top Secret Documents Back," should also assist reader understanding of the current status of things without any seized or returned document having yet been made public beyond disclosure to the public of search warrant papers, redacted or otherwise.

I.e., no underlying evidentiary document has been publicly disclosed.

The DOJ has an ongoing duty to provide a defendant or potential defendant notice of exculpatory material it holds, likely meaning some copies of things in the total document trove would have to be expeditiously turned over to Corcoran or other Trump lawyer(s). Timeliness of such exculpatory disclosure can be a litigated issue.

MOREOVER: With the Immaculate Declassification assertion likely to fail, clearance status of individuals on litigation teams might arise as an issue needing resolution; and neither executive privilege nor attorney client privilege exempts advisors or attorneys from accessorial criminal liability arising from conduct already or yet to happen, if such conduct has or will occur. Coconspirator status is the most common accessorial liability that arises in white collar criminal contexts.

Solomon's reporting has noted this taint team challenging petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, as pending decision to accept or decline. Solomon wrote:

The filter/taint team procedure "needlessly and harmfully exposes assertedly privileged communications to the government's eyes," lawyers for defendant Mordechai Korf and others argue in asking the nation's nine justices to consider the case. "It undermines essential protections for the adversary system. And it jeopardizes the confidentiality needed for the applicable privileges to serve their vital purposes."

File

20220418134323040_Petition for Writ of Certiorari.pdf

While the justices weigh whether to take the Korf case, at least three other federals appeals courts have already raised concerns about the teams in other cases.

Scott Jensen. Matt Birk.

 Alliance for a Better Minnesota. Read it. It puts a frame around the picture of the Jensen persona. 

Primary Election results are in, and the ballot has been set for the 2022 election. Running as the conservative candidate for governor is far-right extremist Scott Jensen, whose anti-choice and anti-public school policies are at the forefront of his plan for Minnesota. 

And Jensen’s extremism doesn’t stop there. Throughout his campaign, he has spread baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, promoted dangerous misinformation about COVID-19, and defended his running mate, Matt Birk, who compared abortion to slavery and said that rape victims shouldn’t be able to get abortions. 

From those opening paragraphs the item fleshes out the full picture.

[UPDATED] Howie Klein at DWT asks one of the hard questions about Trump. If he held a shitload of secret stuff, how was he intending to monetize it?

Link. Why trust he did not seek to monetize things? What's his track record?

It is interesting how the host of Republicans having shown an outrage show over the search is shrinking in terms of current news. They know who the FBI and DOJ are dealing with.

I am not defaming the man by saying he did such and such. I don't know. The worry that this individual held stuff that possibly could be monetized by unprincipled conduct is all I see. Innocent unless proven guilty.

What has the FBI and DOJ walking on egg shells is if a criminal trial arises how hard it will be to get a jury without one or more who'd hang a jury, trial or retrial. 

People for some reason believe Trump, or think him a hero. Beyond reasonable belief, the nation has many more who'd have gone into the Capitol when incited to do so. They simply were not there at the time.

________UPDATE________

DWT at another recent post began - 

As North Carolina former Congressman Brad Miller noted this morning, “No one who played inside the lines had Roy Cohn for a lawyer.” I’m guessing historian Steven Beschloss would agree with him, having tweeted something many of us have been thinking today “We have no reason to assume he isn’t still holding stolen documents in other locations.”

Roy Cohn. Does anyone know how Jarad's hedge fund is doing? How it is fee structured? Jarad does management services, charges fees. At least two billion invested in the fund, up front, on Jarad's track record. 666 Fifth Ave., etc.

___________FURTHER UPDATE_________

WaPo, here and here, showing a pattern of Trump disdain for records law applying to him by doing all he could to overcome restrictions on "The Boss." The first WaPo item focuses upon tearing up documents as the urge struck him, aides trying to recover decorum and conformance to law. The latter post stated mid-item - 

“Any documents that made it to the White House residence were these boxes Trump carried around with him,” explained Stephanie Grisham, a former senior White House staffer. “Usually the body man would have brought them upstairs for Trump or someone from the outer-Oval at the end of the day. They would get handed off to the residence and just disappear.”

Boxes of documents even came with Trump on foreign travel, following him to hotel rooms around the world — including countries considered foreign adversaries of the United States.

“There was no rhyme or reason — it was classified documents on top of newspapers on top of papers people printed out of things they wanted him to read. The boxes were never organized,” Grisham said. “He’d want to get work done on long trips so he’d just rummage through the boxes. That was our filing system.”

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in refusing to turn over documents, at times suggesting that the records are his and should not be given back to the Archives.

However, not even some of Trump’s closest advisers anticipated that what they viewed as a bureaucratic dust-up with archivists would snowball into a serious FBI investigation for potentially violating federal law in removing and retaining classified documents without authorization — a felony punishable by five years in prison.

He held onto stuff and stalled and obstructed reasonable concerns over security. He was "The Boss," and the laws were nagging by underlings. Until the warrant, search and seizure.

While having cause to look at Trump with a skeptic's eye, Michael Cohen in reporting stated his guess of some things already compromised -

 

Michael Cohen, former President Donald Trump's personal lawyer for 12 years, believes Trump may have given away top-secret information while traveling around the world during his tenure in the White House.

In a TikTok on Monday, Cohen reacted to a recent article by The Washington Post that reported on how Trump would take unorganized boxes of classified documents with him on overseas trips and store them in hotel rooms, even in countries that were considered adversaries to the US.

Stephanie Grisham, who served as White House press secretary under Trump, also told the Post that documents the former president sent for would often "just disappear."

Cohen said in his TikTok: "Let me be very clear, considering I know this 'Mandarin Mussolini' extremely well. Donald doesn't take boxes of material around the world for no reason at all. He took it for nefarious reasons."

"I stand firm when I say that Donald wants to use this in order to hold the country hostage," he later said. "That's his goal. His goal, because he knows his ass is in the grinder right now. He knows that he's cooked, that he's going to use this information, look for all we know, he's already given it away, but there's definitely more that's there."

Cohen posited that Trump would try to use the classified information to "ensure that he doesn't spend the rest of his natural life behind bars charged with treason."

He previously theorized that the former president intended to use the classified documents he kept at his Mar-a-Lago home as a "bargaining chip" in case he was ever at risk of being indicted or jailed.

"The second that they put him in handcuffs, he'll turn around and say: 'You don't seem to understand. I have the documentation showing, for example, where our nuclear launchpads are, or other information — sensitive national security information," he said.

Cohen suggested a situation in which Trump could threaten to have his supporters release the top-secret information to Russia or Iran. "My prediction, indictments are coming soon," Cohen said in his Monday TikTok.

Cohen has been known to criticize Trump and make bombastic comments about the former president.

This differs from speculation about possible monitizing intent, but Trump had some intent to his actions, and his general character and habits suggest speculation is not without cause. The worse would be some bad motive, better would be extreme hubris which was not monetized but nonetheless caused harm. Best would be despite all risk and worry, nothing strongly impacting national security happened.

Sometimes things are classified because they can be, not because they merit it. It can be where bad news can be hidden from public awareness.

In any event, he could have intended monetization as DWT speculated, or CYA "insurance" against being driven to jail by his past deeds, as Cohen suggested.

We do not know. Citing possibilities is not a firm accusation, nor suggestions of probable likelihoods. It is inference from circumstantial evidence, be it a strong inference, or a guess of "could have" or "might have intended had the seizure not been made." Careless, reckless, or ill-motivated are all things which might ultimately be explanations after FBI - DOJ and litigation happen and become history.

Moot the suit. Becker School Board rescinds the communications plan over which the teachers union sued, calling it "a gag order."

 Earlier Crabgrass posting examined some aspects of the Becker confrontation, along with notice of the Board's Policy 471, proposed and tabled earlier this year, and apparently left tabled. The communications plan was passed by the Board after which it became the subject of the litigation, not the proposed Policy 471. SC Times also reported.

The union withdrew its suit over the communications policy after the Board's rescinding it. Strib Aug. 24 reporting - 

The board met in a closed session Tuesday to discuss the pending litigation with legal counsel and, after reopening the meeting, voted unanimously to rescind the policy.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 18 in Sherburne County District Court, states the communication plan violates the free speech provision of the state constitution, as well as several state laws, because it bans teachers from saying anything that is not positive about the district to the public.

The local teachers union, Becker Education Association, announced Wednesday it will withdraw the lawsuit, but stated in a release it "retains the right to refile if the board adopts a similarly problematic policy."

"We're relieved. The Becker community deserves to hear the unfiltered truth from classroom educators about what's happening in our schools, both the successes and things we need to improve," said Jason Baune, one of the co-presidents of the local union. "Becker teachers hope to work with the school board in the future to provide students the best education possible."

When the board approved the communication plan on May 2, School Board Chair Mark Swanson said people should understand "this is the first generation of this communication plan and we'll continue to look for further improvements."

But the local teachers union, as well as the state teachers union Education Minnesota, said the policy went too far and was a "gag order" on teachers.

Swanson said Tuesday he supports revising the plan to implement in the future.

"We're disappointed that we've had to go through this adversarial process in working through that communication plan," he said. "We're also disappointed, as we stated in the district's statement to the media, that the lawsuit misconstrues the purpose and the effect of the district plan, as well as the goals and objectives that were stated on May 2."

Superintendent Jeremy Schmidt declined to comment Wednesday on the communication plan or lawsuit. But when describing the plan at the May board meeting, he said the goal of the policy was to set guidelines for communication inside and outside the district, as well as standardize the district's branding with use of the bulldog emblem and e-mail signatures.

Related Strib reporting, March and April of this year, in chrono order, "Becker students protest as anti-LGBT group presents to school board - Inviting the Child Protection League to speak was "careless and reckless," a student said," and "Two Becker school board members resign following anti-LGBTQ presentation - One cited the students' lack of respect at the meeting as a reason for resigning in the middle of her term." 

Child Protection League (CPL) is a Republican-infiltrated whack job operation complete with a pair of pseudo-expert out of state event talkers whose online characterizations call to mind at Crabgrass the duke and the dauphin in Huck Finn. But that, of course, is wholly subjective.

Julie Quist (having ties back to Michele Bachmann days and ways) was the speaker CPL sent to Becker, the step which drew vocal protest as she spoke.

CPL's homepage (https://cplaction.com/) from its first text is illustrative of its gravitas. After images of attractive children, it speaks -

Teacher Licensing – Action Needed

The new teaching standards will embed basic Marxist principles and practices such as critical race theory (CRT), fluid sexual identity, and gender politics into ALL Minnesota schools. When formally adopted, the new requirements must be met to become or remain licensed to teach in Minnesota, including teaching in Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) from pre-natal on as well as Adult Basic Education. We must do all we can to try to stop this indoctrination forced on our schools and teachers!

*** Immediate Action Needed!***

It is not too late to submit written comments to Administrative Law Judge James R. Mortenson regarding the proposed new radical Minnesota Teacher Licensing requirements.

Go to Teacher Licensing Hearing STILL OPEN FOR COMMENT! for background information, a replay of the August 24 hearing and how you can submit your comments before September 13.

Your comment is vital to add to the voices opposing this radical indoctrination that will be required of every teacher and student!

Will Children be Harmed by the Covid 19 Shots?

The FDA in a hurried rush approved Covid injections for “emergency use” for children 6 months to 4-year-old bypassing clinical trials and releasing pharmaceutical manufacturers from liability! Before considering whether to inject your children or not, please read our article Will Children be Harmed by the Covid 19 Shot? which includes detailed information, numerous references and warnings from reputable doctors putting their reputations on the line to disseminate the truth.

We have additional information about Covid, masking children and more at Covid 19 and the  Experimental Injection.

You get the drift. Marxist - Oh my, Marxism in our American Great Again school  thing!!! Vax deniers.

It is not rocket science to foresee a train wreck when you pick the wrong train engineer and crew. Whack job invitations by cogent School Board members can be anticipated to end badly. Whoever boosted CPL to the Becker Board and Superintendent as credible should be confronted and chastised. 

UPDATE -

Ten years ago is not that long a time, yet with Bachmann faded into current obscurity- did she take an Omerta oath to escape the Congressional ethics inquiry - it seems old history. However, the hate and scare approach lives on. For background, MJ, here and here, both 2011 items. In that intervening time DOMA fell and marriage equality has gained majority support among voters. The hate agenda has paled. But that does not stop vile agenda mongering, and a school board stoking the flames by going vile is difficult to accept as anything other than imprudent.

The redacted-then-publicly-released Affidavit of Probable Cause filed by the FBI in support of its application to search and seize items at Mar a Lago is online as a pdf document.

 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22267193/govuscourtsflsd6178541021.pdf

Redactions are substantial. Attachments are included. Those attachments which are included are unredacted.

Paragraphs 80 - 84 appear to be boiler plate. The FBI - DOJ imposes two teams. One is investigatory and potentially leads to prosecution. Another in those paragraphs is mentioned to do a review re attorney-client privilege, and is empowered to deny the other team access to privileged material or to seek a judicial determination where the privileges team is uncertain.

Attorney actions deemed coconspiratorial to commission of a crime would not be privileged, and it is likely if any question in such a direction arises among the privileges team members, that would be taken to a judge. Presumably the magistrate who issued the warrant might retain jurisdiction under the arrangement.

It appears that only already known information remains unredacted. 

Note: It seems a cut/paste web search of a link given in affidavit paragraph 25 might fail, for the item which is online at this link:

 https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/ferriero-response-to-02.09.2022-maloney-letter.02.18.2022.pdf

FURTHER: A six-page explanatory document is online

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10810

At p.5-6 of that item the contention of Trumpian immaculate declassification is analyzed. 

The attachments to the Affidavit include a Trump lawyer's letter making the assertion of existence of an immaculate declassification authority via reliance on dicta in a divided-court Supreme Court decision involving civil service law and a security clearance denial for a worker wanting to work at a Trident military installation, i.e., inapposite to the factual and legal posture of the present question; Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 US 518 (1988).

In order to fully inform the court on the immaculate declassification contention when applying for the warrant, the affiant even goes so far as, at paragraph 53, referencing an item Breitbart posted online (where, again, cut/paste from the online pdf copy of the affidavit might fail):

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/05/documents-mar-a-lago-marked-classified-were-already-declassified-kash-patel-says/

BOTTOM LINE: What's release of the redacted affidavit worth as to any additional insight into the search? 

Have a look and decide for yourself.

_________UPDATE_________

Empty Wheel has posted interesting thoughts and analysis re Trump/documents and related matters; and in one item links to this Rolling Stone online item. 

In a different item, Rolling Stone sees the affidavit, as redacted as it is, as having more gravitas than Crabgrass sees. Readers can reach their own views, while we all wait for how many other shoes are to drop.

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________

AP coverage of the redacted affidavit, carried by Strib.

 

Ron DeSantis is an extremely dangerous demagogue. Pulling a stunt even Trump could have seen as a bad idea. That bad. Worse than Ted Curz. Perhaps.

 Huey Long would shudder at the indecency. 

 

Ron DeSantis announced criminal charges over alleged illegal voting in 2020, the first major public move from the Republican’s new election police unit. Photograph: Amy Beth Bennett/AP

“This is all performance art by the governor,” said Daniel Smith, a political science professor at the University of Florida who has studied felon voting rights in Florida. “He’s decided to continue to prey on the most vulnerable individuals in Florida. It’s par for the course.”

This is a very ambitious limited man who should be reined in for the good of humanity. Beyond ELECTION INTEGRITY, there is another INTEGRITY in question - and MIA. 

This is an obscene thing to do to people who are powerless to avoid being run over by a power tripping merchant. 

Is this man fit to be governor of a State?

On one of those Florida beaches, DeSantis would be the sand kicking brute. Just open the image in a new browser tab. Have you seen a meaner expression on a politician's face than this man cannot keep from showing? The bunch in the photo, each of them, they don't look friendly. No they don't.

__________UPDATE__________

WaPo has coverage. Their drift seems to be not viewing the DeSantis stunt as in any manner being a worthwhile or substantial exercise of Florida executive machinery - 

When they went to the polls in November 2018, Florida voters made two choices. They narrowly selected Rep. Ron DeSantis (R) to serve as their governor. They also overwhelmingly decided to grant felons the right to vote by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

[...] DeSantis called for legislation that would constrain implementation of the seemingly straightforward policy. In June 2019, the new governor signed a bill that mandated that felons be enfranchised only after they had repaid any outstanding fines or fees they owed.

This is trickier than it sounds, both because of the direct cost of making the payments and because of the way in which those fees might have been assessed. It was often hard for those subject to the law to determine what they owed.

 “Florida has no centralized database to allow people to figure out what legal financial obligations they owe to the state,” ProPublica explained last month. “Instead, its 67 counties and various state agencies each maintain their own databases.”

The law was challenged in court, with opponents arguing that it amounted to a modern poll tax. In September 2020, shortly before the first election in which those individuals would have been able to vote, a federal appeals court ruled that the pay-your-fees stipulation could stand.

The problem was that a number of people covered by Amendment 4 had already registered. That ProPublica article details the case of Kelvin Bolton, who had registered while in jail. A county elections official came and told prisoners they could register, so he did. He doesn’t remember being told that he needed to pay off any fines so, when he voted in the November election, he was unwittingly committing another crime.

ProPublica found 10 examples of people similarly affected: told they could register to vote and then doing so — and ending up with criminal charges.

Those 10 cases probably don’t overlap with the 20 announced by DeSantis in a campaign-style event on Thursday. [...]

Each was a felon.

 [...] Just as DeSantis was aware of the political utility of announcing the creation of the “Office of Election Crimes and Security” earlier this year, in the midst of ongoing agitation on the right over the specter of rampant voter fraud, he is aware of the utility of standing at a lectern and announcing that purported criminals had been found.

Mind you, this is 20 voters out of more than 11 million who cast ballots in the state that year. [...]

And that this isn’t “voter fraud," as such. An operating theory of Republican politics in the Donald Trump era has been that there’s a rampant effort to cast votes illegally on behalf of unwitting actors. This is people casting votes on their own behalf who are simply having their votes thrown out. [...] There have been multiple examples in recent years of states making splashy announcements about fraud only to have those allegations wither. Skepticism is warranted here particularly given DeSantis’s track record of hyping culture-war victories that turn out to be little more than the hype itself.

There has been actual voter fraud alleged in Florida. Four people who live in the conservative, senior-oriented community of the Villages have been arrested for committing fraud. DeSantis did not hold a press conference to celebrate that triumph of law enforcement.

That clarifies another particularly revealing aspect of the governor’s announcement. The subtext to much of the fretting over purported illegal voting is that it’s the wrong people who are casting ballots, which is clearly what DeSantis wants to highlight. [...] The backlash against Amendment 4 had some obvious grounding in worries that those new voters would vote for Democrats — in part because they were disproportionately Black.

This week brought related news on that front. The Justice Department argued in a court filing that a law DeSantis signed last year restricting voting access included “provisions that impose disparate burdens on Black voters” — provisions “chosen precisely because of those burdens to secure a partisan advantage.” The filing was offered as an appellate court evaluates whether a lower-court ruling that the law is discriminatory should stand.

Last, this web search = florida ron desantis felony voters

Readers can scan the return list to get a feeling for the mood and judgment the media holds toward this nasty-mean DeSantis self-promotional huckstering.

CRT - Over a year ago Strib noted the move. They don't know what it is and might not care enough to read, but they hear the name and don't like it. That's enough for opportunistic Republican candidates.

Perhaps "opportunistic Republican candidates" is repeating myself, and "Republican candidates" would do.

Strib, July 17, 2021:

GOP campaign operatives are already positioning critical race theory as a wedge issue in the 2022 midterm election, much like Republicans effectively used defunding the police as a blunt instrument against swing district Democrats last fall.

"It's this idea that the American dream — individualism, hard work, free markets — doesn't truly apply equally to everyone," said Michael Minta, who teaches classes on politics and race at the University of Minnesota. "Republicans are using the whole idea about diversity and teaching about race, and they're finding a term — that they don't necessarily quite understand, or care to understand — and using it to rouse racial resentment that's out there in the population."

The concept has become particularly controversial around schools, where conservative activists have begun disrupting local board meetings across the country, including a Rochester Public Schools meeting last week.

Critical race theory is not being taught in Minnesota's K-12 classrooms, but groups have raised alarm about the once-a-decade process of revising state social studies standards. Proposals under review would include more lessons from the Native American perspective, as well as studies in LGBTQ civil rights and the history of segregating policies such as redlining, which pushed people of color out of certain neighborhoods through lending policies or denying them mortgage insurance.

Republicans claim the most extreme DFL activists want those lessons to be added at the expense of teachings on the Civil War, World War II and the Holocaust.

"They want to tear it down and replace it with something else," said Jeff Niedenthal, a consultant who has been traveling to American Legion clubs and cities such as Ashby for presentations on critical race theory.

Mark Westphal, a history teacher and vice president of the Minnesota Council for the Social Studies, said the conversation has been around adding to, not subtracting from, current standards.

"It's trying to bring in a more inclusive set of histories, and that's where a lot of conservatives argue that it's going to be a rewriting of history," said Westphal. "It's a fear-based proposal that's going to rile up the troops."

More broadly, conservatives say critical race theory is being used to accuse all white people of being racist, whether they think they are or not.

If the candidates don't really know what they are jumping with spurs on, then perhaps teaching CRT might prove helpful. School children could go home and disavow their elders of false impressions, if taught the truth.

They are not going to remove the Gettysburg Address to make room. They are going to instead pick up the pace, should CRT become an added curriculum topic.  Picking up the pace might well work to not bore the brighter of the students, while also challenging the average.

CRT could be taught in part by juxtaposition. Have Birth of a Nation available on the school network, with it discussed in terms of propaganda as well as for cinamatic groundbreaking. The horseback chase scenes were the birth of every western move horseback chase scene ever since. What was it like to ride in a segregated bus? In New Orleans, 1954 - the year the Brown v. Board of Education decision struck down school separate-but-equal fictions - bus seats had a metal grab bar atop with two holes into which the segregating sign could be moved. Blacks behind the sign, whites in front; and depending on relative passenger numbers the sign could be shifted so that everyone had a seat, which might not have been the case with an immovable sign unable to accommodate shifting percentages. I saw it in action. It seemed weird.

Students should learn how that was a reality as recently as during the Truman-Eisenhower post-war years. I attended the segregated Robert E. Lee public grade school, (since integrated and renamed). At age ten. There was a large assembly room where we'd all stand every morning before class and pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag, while on an opposite wall there was the big somber portrait of General Lee. 

UPDATE: While in earlier years going to Central School in Ferguson, MO, then a sleepy white town, with the Masonic Temple next door, and schooled with a stern certainty to not ever leave school grounds and mess around there during recess. Very different times. Monkey bars and wood seat swings where if you'd swing hard enough you could do a 360.

Are there many among us who remember when CRT stood for cathode ray tube? And BLM was the Bureau of Land Management, of interest to those concerned with use of federal public lands? Whistle stop campaigning, back then? When vacuum tubes would burn out in a radio and have to be replaced.

Strib carries a somewhat strident and slanted ACLU official's op-ed about the Becker School Board's Policy 741, reaching beyond that specific situation. While not going so far as to say it is your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it does wave the ACLU flag loud and strong.

 Link. Hopefully someone will submit and have pubished a counterargument.

Taking the BOTTOM LINE final paragraph of that op-ed as a starting point:

Censorship can never win. It is the weak option deployed by tyrants and despots. It threatens our most cherished values. We must be better than that. For our children. And our nation.

How true is that?  

We have a two-party political system. That censors what can be attained or not in government. The mainstream media focusus upon the range of distinction, one party against the other, and that is a narrow spectrum; mainstream media self-censoring.

And what is "win"? Short term, HUAC, House Unamerican Activities Committee, did win. Long term, Keynes was correct; long-term we're all dead.

American citizens during WW II were put into concentration camps. Throughout the meaningful length of the Pacific war, they were kept there. Right or wrong, that "censorship" of Japanese Americans won for as long as it was thought a needed policy, and then history can judge, afterwards. 

Loyalty oaths, post WW II in the 50's prevailed. Winning in that sense. Sign one or have no job. That was in parallel to "Are you now or have you ever been a card-carrying member of the Communist Party?" Effective for as long the power structure felt necessary, later, okay, question it  then.

Should Critical Race Theory be taught in Minnesota High Schools? If so, how? What else is an option to quelling it? The thought here is CRT has truth to it, and has been carried to extremes by some voices, and the young should be aided in being able to see the process of separating the intellectual wheat from the chaff.

That would aid the aim of Minnesota Constitution Art.XIII, Sect.1  which states :

Section 1. Uniform system of public schools.

The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

However, in parallel and again to aid critical analytical skill development, Replacement Theory should be taught, juxtaposing Unite the Right Charlottesville, young white male tiki-torch parades with the chant, "Jews will not Replace us" with an examination of the guiding aims of the UN, in terms of the universal declaration of human rights, which goes beyond our Bill of Rights; UN notions of political refugee vs economic refugee status, immigration policy vs. nationalism and sovereignty; and how a notion of Aryan exceptionalism worked out badly in fascist scapegoating war. 

The history of white people, Europeans repeatedly at war with each other and on Crusade over borders and land, and after the reformation over belief systems nobody could touch or feel or prove but were thought by participants as worth killing over. Kings in England and France losing their heads, Cromwell too, with that but a top of the ladder reflection of the death at lower rungs - all that suggests "Aryan people" might have an actual exceptionalism, a greater ghost in their machine, than others. 

The notion that nations could coexist short of war under "ground rules" with UN enforcement and scrutiny and guidance short of warfare, in a world where the last big one ended when one nation nuked another (us vs Japan, Japan nuked) is a notion that grew out of the two highly destructive Euro-centric Twentieth Century mega-wars, and the thought there might be a better way. All that should be a part of teaching Replacement Theory, where open immigration policy might diversify ethnicities in what then were predominantly, and nearly exclusively, white peoples. To an extent the U.S. was one such white nation, but with its history of slavery and racism to be faced, why not replace these clearly defective war-mongering Aryans; i.e., there is some rational argument to made favoring Replacement and it might be somebody's basis for doing what Replacement Theory complaints allege?

Even football which is hand-to-hand combat among volunteers has rules and penalties. Yet participants are allowed to do things which would be assault and battery if done off field, in the streets. Nations in dealing with one another arguably are best with rules and penalties, especially if that lessens the likelihood of nuclear frying of the planet. I.e., it is best if they are censored as to actions if not words.

Etc. The drift, teach disputed dogma and doctrines from an expansive perspective, to enhance critical thought capacities before turning the young loose on the economic and political "real world."

The thought at Crabgrass is that a most critical part of recent history that should unquestionably be taught in high schools to prepare the young for the real world is Operation Gladio. Web searching, here, here and here. No links beyond that, readers know of it or should really, really do the web research needed to learn.

It is a part of defining U.S. policy that shaped world history after the Second World War.

Back to the ACLU: They never could have opposed Operation Gladio while it was being most effective, short-term, because our federal government kept it secret.

Censorship does win, when operations of major magnitude are hidden behind National Security laws and constraints. You cannot fight and change what you don't know about, manipulative people know that, and secrecy law is the strongest form of censorship consistently winning in our U.S. of A.

Which is why we should not prematurely judge Trump's cache of secrete documents without the scenario playing out as to what and why he held onto stuff.

Trump is Trump. That is why we should think to attribute bad motivation without knowing more, but waiting and seeing how the dance ends.  It is drama, actual not fictional, and the young should be schooled in a way that would encourage them to want to pay attention in a learned and not emotion-driven sloganeering way. 

Back to that Minnesota Constitutional provision demanding uniform, effective public schooling statewide. It has been litigated mainly as to local or regional funding capacity discrepancies under the notion that the State's legislature has a duty to somehow balance funding. It is also administratively implemented by the State's DOE, where professionals who know what they are doing make universal curriculum policy decisions on a statewide basis. 

What the Becker School Board and Education Minnesota might best do in litigation is hammer out a settlement where controversial fact and doctrine positions are mediated at the DOE level. Local control of schools, in particular curriculum policy, is madness. Standards for medical clinics are not set by their patients, but instead standards development is left to the professionals who are experienced and wise in knowing what's likely best. Problems exist with "trusting bureaucrats" but is that a greater threats than trusting the Becker School Board handful of persons?

Final wrap-up. Censorship prevailing. Anti-bullying law and school policies censor those who, violence free, can verbally make life miserable (to the extent of some suicide), for others. The bullies' freedom of speech gets censored. Don't say that is bad because it is best reasonable policy, even while clearly being speech censorship.

Final censorship observations: Defamation law crimps unbridled freedom of speech. So if you want to criticize somebody, pick empty pocket folks like the homeless with their tents on urban sidewalks, or those addicted to drugs, whereas Roy Cohn was who he was without newspapers ever saying much against him because he was known to be a litigious bastard who'd drag any reporter or editor over the rocks if critical, even if truthfully critical. The lesson being money and power can censor the speech of others who are less wealthy or powerful, censorship does succeed that way and always has, and that censorship lives now and into our foreseeable future.The fact is the ACLU cannot do jack about it, so highfaluting chest beating on the Strib op-ed page might not be the best thing to be teaching our young, or that segment of the young who read online Strib editorials.

ACLU highfaluting chest beating might even actually be counterproductive relative to a more measured presentation of beliefs and actualities by ACLU personnel.

The bottom line might be that the Becker School Board putting their rock at the base of the big hill and starting to push upward might not end bad if they and Education Minnesota explore settlement within already drawn litigation lines, and settlement negotiations move and work in an exemplary manner to where controversial school content can be rationally addressed and balanced. Teachers do occupy a position of trust where, for example sexual interactions with pupils are Verboten, and there might well be speech responsibilities that the DOE, the union, and school boards recognize and attempt to balance in light of that position of trust.

[UPDATED] The Becker School Board has promulgated a Policy 471, over which Education Minnesota and ACLU are litigating on a free speech basis, in Sherburne County.

First thing to note, without reading the plaintiffs' complaint, but inferred from coverage, the speech issue is grounded on the Minnesota Constitution Bill of Rights, rather than (possibly in addition to) U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. 

That seems prudent, given the turkeys on the U.S. Supreme Court and the comparative higher quality of Minnesota Supreme Court Justices, and that the general principle is that a State can be more protective of an individual right than the federal standard might be. Dodging biased chaotic ill-restrained rabid idiots seems prudent, and beyond that, Education is a local issue, primarily.

Moreover, there is Minnesota Constitution, Art.XIII, Sect. 1 which might have reach to the issues of the contested Becker School Board Policy 471. (online reporting has been remiss in discussing the item with a word or two excerpted, but without giving the above link to the full text). Art.XIII, Sect.1 states :

Section 1. Uniform system of public schools.

The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

While likely ancillary, the provision does want uniformity, Policy 471 being an exceptional provision unique to Becker schools, and the intent of public education is to promote a survival of a stable republican form of government via "intelligence of the people," so that "a thorough and efficient system of public schools [exists] throughout the state."

It could be argued that Policy 471 intrudes upon promoting "intelligence of the people" should discovery in the litigation uncover a hidden intent to squelch teaching of CRT, in a multi-page guise of equitable treatment being required, person to person, in Becker schools That could be a factor. 

Even if there is found to be no material intent to stymie CRT as a classroom topic, as likely or unlikely as that may be, there nonetheless is a question of whether the policy's constraints generally work against "intelligence of the people" as well as the separate question of whether it is Constitutionally infirm as an unlawful constraint of speech.

Furthermore, the Policy is six pages long, not something shorter and crystal clear, as if saying, "Any teacher teaching CRT can be fired for that, and likely would," which would be easier to contest based on specificity, whereas the longer item might be open to contesting on "void for vagueness" elasticity grounds; over wording detail, where it could be overturned as written only to be tightened up and reimposed with more careful language. Presumably the plaintiffs and defendant(s) would prefer a more lasting determination, for one side or the other.

With all that as a prelude, MPR, e.g., has posted Friday, Aug. 19:

click the image to enlarge and read

Further online coverage: SC Times; CBS Minnesota; MPR (Aug 2); Strib (Aug 2); Strib(lawsuit coverage); Education MN (press release); websearch.

The EdMN press release begins:

ST. PAUL, Minnesota. Aug. 18, 2022 – A sweeping policy of prior-restraint against the speech of its staff has prompted a lawsuit against the Becker Public School District by the union representing its teachers.

So the matter is framed as prior restraint, and the Policy 471 text runs together coverage upon students and staff; i.e., there is no independent teacher conduct provision. Moreover, the policy states:

 II. GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY
[...] Classrooms, hallways and all other Becker Campus locations during school hours are to remain a positive learning atmosphere that are [sic] respectful, fair and equitable for everyone at all times. Classrooms must be free of any personal bias or *non-school materials* favoring any particular group, *political ideology,* favored class or promoting controversial issues. Grandstanding by students, staff and employees will not be permitted.

There are two interesting dimensions. Curbing non-school materials can be argued by the board as aimed at uniformity - using school materials - per the earlier cited Constitutional provision. Curbing personal bias favoring any political ideology makes the issue inclusive of prior restraint of political speech or expression.  In particular controversial political speech is curtailed. (Note, however the Policy's definition's section embraces a specialized meaning for "controversial issues" apart from the common meanings one might attach.) 

Presumably, a student wearing a tee shirt emblazoned, "Fuck Socialism. Capitalism Rocks," would  or could be punished for being in  contravention of Policy 471. 

Policy Sect. V, clause 8 reads:

8. Individuals found in violation of this policy can expect disciplinary action up to and including suspension, termination, or discharge.

A teacher wearing a tee shirt saying "Fuck Capitalism, Socialism Rocks," could be fired. On the spot. Security will escort you to your automobile. Right to a hearing is not specified in Policy 471; but there might be contract language or another Board policy on point.

The policy was passed without any implementation process, due process procedures or hearing rights, explicitly delineated beyond:

VI. IMPLEMENTATION/NOTICE OF POLICY
The Superintendent is hereby directed by the School Board to immediately enact all necessary administrative procedures, necessary definitions, directives, and/or district rules to implement, enforce and effectuate the intent of this policy. A written copy of the Superintendent’s Administrative procedures, directives and/or district rules will be provided to all school board members.

The Superintendent is also charged with the responsibility to track and document each incident where this adopted board policy has not been consistently applied, enforced and/or has been violated and to report such deficiencies to the School Board. The Superintendent is further required to report to the board in writing specifically "why" the adopted board policy was not enforced and what specific actions were taken by the Superintendent to immediately address any deficiencies noted in the Superintendent’s report.

School board members will get enforcement procedural detail. No provision is made for comparable "implementation" notice to faculty (unless buried elsewhere than in the enforcement clause). Ditto for student/parent notice.


Clause VI is followed by an extensive list of "Legal references," stuff readers could easter egg hunt, with one notable item, "Policy 403 (Discipline, Suspension, and Dismissal of School District Employees). There is no explicit stated mandate that Superintendent "Implementation" be consistent with Policy 403; yet that arguably is implicit.

Courts in Constitutional challenges to statutes and regulations often will read provisions in a way which may limit a provision but will save it in the limited way as Constitutional.

However, Policy 471 is such a thing that it would be unfair to expect a judge to wrestle with it in all its glory to fashion a limited way it would be Constitutional, unless holding it to be Constitutional, as written, no divining of things needed.

Defendant(s) could challenge standing and argue a rational analysis rather than strict scrutiny should apply.

However, prior restraint of political speech where a job loss could result from such speech suggests litigating things now meets standing concerns, especially if vagueness argument is also offered. Presumably the Constitutional basis for objection likely will result in a strict scrutiny analysis. But judge shopping might tip the scale one way or the other on technical modes of dispute.

Presume the case is not rejected as unripe for litigation now on standing grounds, there not being a specific plaintiff already injured in some way by Policy 471 being enforced; and let the strict scrutiny question vs rational basis issue hang; it is fun to speculate on boundaries.

The tee shirt saying "Rolling Stones" should be okay under the full text of Policy 471. But what of one saying, "Grateful Dead. Ship of Fools?" It touts a song; but might school authorities discern an intent to criticize or ridicule the board or administrators over Policy 471, implicit though not explicit ridicule, and exact some Draconian or light punishment per enforcement/implementation vagueness of Policy 471?

That is an interesting hypothetical.

The gut level guess of Crabgrass? It would take a special judge to not throw out Policy 471, ditto for a special panel of appellate judges. The guess is EdMN and ACLU will prevail. The further guess, the Board, if losing, will not give up and will author and pass a replacement text, more tightly written, (but however narrow or broad, it will impede CRT being taught in the Becker schools).

Guesswork can always prove wrong. The Board faces the question of how much tax spending on litigation voters will tolerate, as well as the question of how popular in the district Policy 471 stands.

That's anybody's guess.

________UPDATE_______

Ripeness and standing - The EdMN press release (final paragraph) seems to have anticipated presenting an actual plaintiff harmed by a chilling effect, two actually, as representative plaintiffs: 

The co-presidents of the Becker Education Association, Jason Baune and Ben Pany, had no additional comment about the lawsuit because any such comment to the news media might reflect negatively on the district. Such a comment to the news media is currently prohibited and could expose the staff members to disciplinary action.

________FURTHER UPDATE_________

To clear confusion, it appears the ACLU and Education Minnesota lawsuit is aimed against TWO things, with Policy 471 being one. Finding things clearly from online reporting has been a challenge for Crabgrass.

The ACLU in a letter  dated July 29 objected to passage of Policy 471. In Education Minnesota's Press Release dated Aug. 18, objection was raised to a Becker Schools communication plan, the EdMN item stating:

The lawsuit claims a communications plan approved by the Becker school board May 2 violates the free speech provision of the state constitution and several state laws. The lawsuit asks the court to prevent the district from enforcing the policy against its staff. 

To the best of Crabgrass understanding this second item, along with Policy 471 is at issue in the instigated litigation. No copy of a Plaintiffs' Compliant has been located by Crabgrass online which would fully confirm issues raised.

The contested communications plan is online HERE. It appears to have a separate history to Policy 471, yet arguably overlapping. 

LGBTQ issues are intermixed. A Strib image re Becker Schools and that dimension.

Policy 471 proposing banning all flags except Old Glory would curtail display of the Gay Rights Rainbow flag, as well as a Somalia flag or an Israeli one. It is speculative but perhaps the flag thing is aimed less at the Union Jack, etc., than at the Rainbow flag. The LGBTQ dimension includes an anti-gay presentation objected to where two Board members subsequently resigned.

The contested communications plan online HERE states:

The mission of Becker Public Schools is to prepare self-directed learners to thrive in a changing global community.

[...] Key Components of the Plan
•To ensure compliance with data privacy laws and other legal considerations, employees may not make statements to the media, individuals, or entities outside the District relating to student or personnel matters. Inquiries regarding such matters must be directed to Directors and Building Administration. The Director of Community Education and Superintendent will oversee district communication and may also be used as a resource on specific inquiries.

 •Communication must be tied to the goals, objectives, and emphasis of the school district mission statement.

•Key messaging should position Becker Public Schools as a collaborative, “community centered” school district that is committed to providing an exceptional education for all students

 The language, "To ensure compliance with data privacy laws and other legal considerations, employees may not make statements to the media, individuals, or entities outside the District relating to student or personnel matters" surely states a prior restraint gag order. What beyond "student or personnel matters" goes on in a school? The language includes curriculum critiques, as "student matters," and Policy 471 commentary, which would relate to a student and personnel matter. The language does not state a process may follow improper communication, however it might be specified as proper or otherwise. It is a blanket, "may not" ban on everything.

In addition to the above referenced ACLU letter to the board, there is another letter online. Under signature of former Rep. Erin Maye Quade, Gender Justice, Advocacy Director, another letter was sent as reported/reproduced online, here, stating in part:

I am reaching out on behalf of Gender Justice regarding Policy 471. We have heard from concerned parents, teachers, and advocates that Policy 471 is a veiled attempt to censor LGBTQ students’ speech and expression. We are concerned and disappointed that the Becker School Board is once again promoting anti-LGBTQ policies. This policy would violate students’ First Amendment rights, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and Title IX. We urge you to reject proposed Policy 471.

As we made clear in a letter on March 21, 2022, the Becker Public Schools school board has a legal obligation to protect and support LGBTQ students. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, schools have a duty to ensure that students are not subject to hostile environments in school on account of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or transgender status. Further, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a notice of interpretation that confirms that Title IX protects students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and is subject to enforcement.

When it comes to protecting the health, safety, and well-being of marginalized youth in your school district, there are no “two-sides” to the question. Policy 471 defines a controversial issue as “an issue that is the subject of a public referendum which is being debated by political candidates, groups, communities, committees, or organizations”. Even though some political candidates feel entitled to dispute the rights of LGBTQ people, and turn basic human rights into a political debate, your students are human beings, not “political issues.” Our state and federal laws are clear: it is nonnegotiable that schools must uphold and protect the rights of LGBTQ students.

If the Becker Public Schools continue down this path of failing to prevent discrimination against LGBTQ students, you are putting yourselves at risk for legal action. As we need not remind you, the Anoka-Hennepin school district was sued for discrimination and for violating the constitutional rights of students. [...]

So, Education Minnesota, ACLU, and Gender Justice oppose Policy 471 and the communications policy in various combinations and under varying stated grounds for objection. It appears Gender Justice is not a litigation party. Whether Board members are individually named as defendants in the Complaint is unknown without seeing a copy of the item.

Hopefully this update helps understanding of readers.

GRUMPING CURMUDGEON: One of the several MSM outlets publishing online about the litigation might help readers immensely by posting the Complaint. It is a step expected of reasonable commercial media outlets; but is yet to be seen. 

Indeed, from commercial media coverage it is not entirely clear whether EdMN and ACLU are suing in a joint compliant, or each suing separately, via separate complaints. Better detail might help better understanding. 

FURTHER: It is unclear whether a notice of representation or a responsive pleading to the complaint(s) has been filed at this time.

FURTHER: Incorrect references to the Policy 471 herein as 741 were noted and corrected.

FURTHER: Thanks to a Los Angeles outlet, the 16 page teachers' union Complaint is online. (NO THANKS TO STRIB). ACLU is not a listed plaintiff, suggesting their Complaint is separate. Or that they have not actually filed. The online item from the union only challenges the communications policy, not Policy 471.  It appears it might be the only lawsuit served, so far. The online item is signed and dated, but has no cause number, nor court receipt stamp. It might be pocket filed, having been served but not filed at the time the press outlet posted it.

Bring Me The News posts online,  here (Aug. 19) and here (Aug. 4), should help readers understand things. As of Aug. 19 reporting was:

The same union is also considering legal action against another proposed policy in Becker that seeks to restrict students from learning the history of racism and LGBTQ-related topics within the district.

The policy, the proposal of which was criticized, states that classrooms would need to be free of any "personal bias" or materials "favoring any particular group, political ideology, favored class or promoting controversial issues." 

This comes amid a wider push from right-wing activists nationwide to restrict the teaching of and access to materials relating to race, sex, and LGBTQ+ people.

After the policy was proposed, the ACLU of Minnesota and Education Minnesota each sent the district a letter, stating the policy interferes with the First Amendment.

The school board chose to delay the vote during a meeting held on Aug. 1, saying a legal review was needed to go forward. No meeting has been held since.

The Becker Public Schools District issued the following statement to Bring Me The News:

“We have been made aware of recent court filings in connection with a legal action challenging certain aspects of the School District’s new communication plan. We disagree with the claims and assertions being made in those filings, and believe the lawsuit misconstrues the purpose and effect of language in the School District’s plan. Because the judicial system is the more appropriate forum in which to address these issues, the School District will respond through the legal proceedings before the Court.”

So, ACLU has voiced issues but not filed any court action. And,  Policy 471 presumably is being honed and tuned and cleaned up while tabled. Hopefully, we have seen the last of it. It could stay tabled forever. 

"Will respond" in the final Aug. 19 paragraph means no responsive pleading has been filed. A response this soon after the union filed would not normally be expected. The released statement quoted in the final paragraph suggests a blanket denial will be the response.

The initial impression Crabgrass had was an action against Policy 471 had been filed. This is incorrect.

FURTHER: The same Los Angeles website posting the complaint also posted the ACLU letter:

https://www.losangelesblade.com/content/files/2022/07/ACLU-of-Minnesota-Letter-to-Becker-Schools.pdf

The ACLU letter references and the posting includes a data request. At three pages total it is a very tightly worded and worthwhile read. 

Of interest, the ACLU letter references U.S. Constiution Bill of Rights Amenement 1. The union lawsuit, Count 1, p.7 et seq. is premised on Minnesota's Bill of Rights.

This has been previously commented upon in earlier paragraphs.

____________FURTHER UPDATE___________

Some really weird wording in the Becker board's proposed Policy 471 made this reader say, huh, that is really strange; I wonder what strange mind came up with that. It is within "Definitions":

E. “Inherently Divisive Concepts”: advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including the following concepts: (i) one’s race, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, sex, or faith, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously; (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, sex, or faith; (iv) members of one race, sex, or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex, or faith; (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, sex, or faith; (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, sex, or faith; and (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.

That is convoluted, overly wordy, and just more than would be needed to be clear.

Some "creative" but tortured mind wrote that, and it is stylistically different with other parts of the draft Policy 741, where clarity exists.

Answer. The new ultra conservative Virginia governer in January of this year issued one of several prompt executive orders, this one having the language:

For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.

Ape something stupid, look like a stupid ape. Just because some East Coast dogmatic politician with a wild hair wherever had a scrivener who would so scriven does not mean it is good scrivening. To the contrary, ich bin glaringly awful. 

Fit to be tabled. 

Just say, CRT es ist Verboten, Ja! It is a cleaner way. Keeping the conceptual elegance.

What this means, however The Becker Board thought it's policy helped rather than hindered recognition and fostering of the rights of LGTQ students, or otherwise; somebody inserted a CRT kill switch, using bad text to plagiarize. Some reporting has mentioned Youngkin, but absent detail of linguistic taking.

For readers wondering at the length and repeated updating to this post, the answer is  that education is one of the most critical  things a government mandates and implements. The future of the nation is the young in the schools. The world's future is the world's young. They have rights. They deserve respect. and kindness rather than political censorship in the guise of quelling "political indoctrination."

A school board that is negligent or wrongly beligerant in tuning the minds and rights of the young will reap what it sows.

We know what Youngkin is sowing; and it is against Virginia's best interests.