A hurricane, a fugitive and the fall of Troy: Fallout from Collier County’s anti-federal ordinance

Aug. 28, 2023 by David Silverberg

Beginning this month, the nation baked in relentless, climate change-induced heat; wildfires and storms took lives and wreaked immense havoc; former President Donald Trump was charged with a total of 91 alleged crimes under four indictments; he and 18 of his associates were indicted in Georgia for trying to overthrow the 2020 election; all were arrested and processed in the Fulton County Jail; Trump’s mugshot was released; Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) steadily dropped in the polls; Republican presidential candidates except Trump held a televised debate; in Naples convicted Proud Boy Chris Worrell and his girlfriend fled before his sentencing and disappeared; Collier County commissioners passed an ordinance asserting their right to ignore federal law and Hurricane Idalia formed in the Gulf of Mexico.

Other than that, it was a typical, sleepy August.

Looking ahead, of all these monumental events, the one that looms largest, with the greatest, longest and most far-reaching consequences for Southwest Florida in particular was…

Passage of the anti-federal ordinance.

Why is this? Let us count the ways.

The vote

On Aug. 22 the Collier County Board of Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to pass the “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County” ordinance. Commissioners Rick LoCastro (R-1), Chris Hall (R-2), Dan Kowal (R-4) and William McDaniel (R-5) voted for it. Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-3) cast the only negative vote.

The decision came after weeks of intense debate and hours of testimony on the day of the vote that saw 52 speakers argue both sides.

Proponents, in particular Hall, the bill’s sponsor, maintained that the ordinance protects Collier County citizens from an overreaching federal government by giving them standing to sue officials whom they might allege violated their basic rights. They argued that it actually enhanced adherence to the United States Constitution.

“Collier County has the right to be free from the commanding hand of the federal government and has the right to refuse to cooperate with federal government officials in response to unconstitutional federal government measures and to proclaim a ‘Bill of Rights’ sanctuary,” the ordinance asserts.

Opponents argued that the law was unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, vague, unenforceable and would encourage lawlessness and confusion.

(The Paradise Progressive extensively covered this debate both in 2021 when it was first raised, and in 2023 and expressed strong opposition. Past articles can be seen here. The ordinance’s full final version can be downloaded at the conclusion of this article.)

Now that the ordinance is law in Collier County, what are some possible effects in both the immediate and long term?

Hurricane hell

*Debris lines a street in Naples, Fla., following Hurricane Ian in 2022. (Photo: Author)*

Ironically enough, the Collier County Board of Commissioners passed the anti-federal ordinance right in the depths of hurricane season, just when the “I” storms seem to come at Southwest Florida (Irma, Ian, Idalia).

Hurricanes are an annual fact of life in Southwest Florida and last year’s Hurricane Ian showed just how devastating they can be. Just north of Collier County the town of Fort Myers Beach was virtually wiped off the map. Collier County too suffered flooding and wind damage.

After Hurricane Ian, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stepped in to aid the affected area. Search and rescue crews from all over the United States were brought into Fort Myers. People were sheltered and fed. Housing was provided to those left homeless. FEMA worked hard to restore communications and infrastructure. When it came time to clean up, FEMA funding helped with debris removal and restoration.

But FEMA works according to an extensive and complex set of federal laws and regulations and those laws and regulations govern its relationships with the states and localities it helps.

There is a real question whether FEMA would be legally able to assist a county that proclaims itself outside federal law.

Hurricane season lasts until Nov. 30 and Collier County could be hit at any time. This year, if it’s struck, FEMA leadership will have to weigh whether it can assist a county that has proclaimed its right not to obey federal law and may not follow any of the rules and regulations that govern disaster assistance.

If that’s the case, Collier County alone would have to bear the costs of debris removal and clean up and would get no federal assistance with rescue and restoration. Those costs could run into the billions of dollars and the county could be crippled financially for decades. Physical damage that might otherwise be quickly repaired could linger just as long.

What is more, this could affect insurance and insurance rates in the county. Insurance companies are already fleeing the state and rates are skyrocketing, but with a county outside federal law and beyond the reach of FEMA, Collier County and everything and everyone in it will become uninsurable.

With its anti-federal ordinance, Collier County proclaimed its determination to go it alone. If it finds itself devastated by a hurricane, it may just get its wish.

Law enforcement

*The FBI poster for Naples Proud Boy Christopher Worrell. (Image: FBI)*

The anti-federal ordinance injects a degree of uncertainty in the federal search for Proud Boy Christopher “Chris” Worrell.

On May 12, Worrell was convicted of 19 crimes related to his participation in the riot and insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. On Aug. 15, a warrant was issued for his arrest because days before his scheduled sentencing. Worrell and his girlfriend, Trish Priller, had disappeared.

His flight made national news and he is now on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) most wanted list.

In a regular, law-abiding jurisdiction, the local law enforcement agency would be expected to join with federal law enforcement in investigating and apprehending this criminal as a matter of course. However, in a jurisdiction that has carved an exception for itself that kind of cooperation cannot be assumed.

This is particularly true in Collier County where Sheriff Kevin Rambosk, the highest ranking local law enforcement official, endorsed the anti-federal ordinance, not once but twice. The first was in 2021 when it explicitly nullified federal law and the second was this year’s slightly less harshly worded statute.

Whether Rambosk would be able to execute federal warrants was the subject of considerable discussion during the Board’s debate and while Worrell’s name wasn’t explicitly mentioned, it certainly seemed he was on commissioners’ minds.

After one rambling introduction, Kowal asked Rambosk, who testified through Zoom: “If that came to you, for you, and the FBI walked down here with a warrant in hand that was signed by a judge and a law that was created in the federal statutes, that don’t mean you’re going to deny him the right to serve that warrant. Yes or no?”

Rambosk returned an equally meandering response. “No, that’s exactly correct. We would never operate outside the Constitution and particularly as we talked about the 4th Amendment [against unreasonable searches or seizures and requiring a warrant or probable cause], nor should any other law enforcement agency in this country, because if you enter someone’s…. If there’s an expectation of privacy and you enter into somebody’s residence without a court order to do so that was lawfully issued, we’ll arrest you for burglary.”

This seemed to indicate that the Collier County Sheriff’s Office would still assist federal law enforcement agencies.

But further questioning by Saunders revealed the dilemmas created by the ordinance. Saunders pressed Rambosk to explain how he would determine if an action was unconstitutional or not.

“If we believe and our legal staff told us that it is in their opinion that it is unconstitutional, and we had the right evidence, court cases, information to support that then we would take the appropriate action,” said Rambosk.

“Would that appropriate action be going to the judge to rule in whether that statute is constitutional?” Saunders continued. “I mean, I’m just trying to get at: can you make that determination? I think you’re saying no, you can’t but maybe you can.

Rambosk answered: “Yeah, well, pardon me, we do that each and every day. We look at a case, we determine whether we believe it fits within the criteria of the law and I think even with a constitutional complaint we would make that assessment and if we believe that it goes to that level we may have to take it to court. I’m not even sure if any of us know that at this point. We would take that act.”

The vagueness and illogic of the ordinance was clear in this dialogue. Rambosk said he wouldn’t impede a lawful federal investigation but he wasn’t sure how he’d determine whether it was lawful or not and he might go to a judge to get a ruling. But he wasn’t sure.

The confusion was the result of the confused thinking in the ordinance itself.

So at this point it’s not clear, at least in public, if the Collier County Sheriff’s Office is assisting the FBI in pursuing Worrell or if they would assist this or any other federal investigation in the future. According to Rambosk, they’ll make it up as they go along.

At the very least the ordinance creates a fog of uncertainty in policing, since it carves out an ill-defined exception to the clear and uniform application of law and its enforcement. This is particularly relevant in the Worrell case, since Worrell has claimed to be a political prisoner subject to “blatant civil rights violations,” in his own words. Indeed, it almost seems as though the ordinance was drafted with him in mind, to allow him to evade federal justice.

The ordinance is almost certain to be challenged in court at some point, although when and under what circumstances cannot be known in advance. However, the US Department of Justice would be a prime candidate as plaintiff given that the ordinance is not only unconstitutional, it has the potential to hinder and impede uniform law enforcement nationally, especially if it is taken up by other jurisdictions, as its advocates propose.

The sky could fall

*The Naples Airport terminal. (Image: Naples Airport)*

The Naples Airport is what is called a “general aviation” airport; it doesn’t serve regularly scheduled commercial flights but rather private aircraft, including charter flights, sightseeing tours, training flights and businesses. Private jets and aircraft are especially in evidence when the wealthy fly in on weekends and holidays in season and at the time of the Naples Wine Festival.

The airport handles over 100,000 takeoffs and landings a year and serves an estimated 200,000 passengers. It employs 85 people directly, according to its website. Economically, it affects an estimated 3,250 people in related businesses and services, making it a significant economic engine in Collier County.

It is also an official port of entry into the United States and governed by the federal rules governing customs, immigration and security.

Like every airport in the United States, the Naples Airport is subject to the federal laws, rules and regulations that govern aviation as administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Federal rules also govern hiring, non-discrimination and working conditions. Port of entry regulations are overseen by the Department of Homeland Security.

These rules and regulations must be national. Rogue airports making their own rules would make safe and orderly travel and commerce impossible.

By legally asserting its right not to follow federal law, Collier County may have created an aviation hazard, a civil rights violation and a border vulnerability.

The FAA could conceivably order the airport closed as a result.

The funding conundrum

Everyone grumbles when paying taxes and headlines usually concentrate on instances of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. But what often goes unnoticed is the vast majority of times when taxpayer money is put to work for good.

This includes federal support for infrastructure including roads, bridges, housing, education, Internet access and a wide variety of other goods and services that help people, towns and counties prosper, flourish and stay safe. For example, President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed in November 2021, invests $1 trillion in America’s foundations.

But all of that federal money comes with strings attached and those strings are intended to ensure that the money is used for the purpose intended and to prevent any misuse.

By declaring itself outside federal law, Collier County has also declared itself outside the rules and regulations governing federal funding. As a result, it may have cut itself off from that pipeline, which means it will get no help on any improvements, repairs or assistance.

Even worse, it is conceivable that by passing this unconstitutional measure, the federal government could try to claw back money currently in the pipeline or already distributed. On a personal level, the ordinance could create a loophole that encourages people to try to evade federal taxes, incurring the intervention of the Internal Revenue Service.

The curse of Cassandra

These are just some of the potential consequences of Collier County asserting that it has a right to ignore federal law.

When the Collier County Board of Commissioners voted for its anti-federal ordinance the skies did not darken and the earth did not open up. Lightning did not strike and whirlwinds did not blow. The sun still shines and the waves of the Gulf still lap the beaches. People go about their business.

The effects of this ordinance will not be felt all at once. However, over time they will have their impact. It will come in boardrooms and offices as officials or businesspeople try to conclude contracts or negotiate deals. It will come when people get their insurance bills or when the effort to clean up storm debris drags on interminably because there’s no federal money provided to speed it. It will come when lawyers review documents to reach some goal and hit the complicating roadblock of a county outside federal law.

This article doesn’t even go into the impact of giving citizens the standing to sue county officials for simply carrying out their mandated duties, as covered previously.

As for dismissing these concerns as overdrawn or extreme, perhaps that is best answered by the Greek myth of Cassandra.

Cassandra was a princess in the ancient city of Troy. The god Apollo blessed her with the gift of prophecy but when she refused his advances, he imposed a curse: she could see the future accurately but no one would believe her prophecies.

Cassandra warned the Trojans against keeping the Greek queen Helen in their city. They ignored her. She warned them not to go to war with the Greeks. They ignored her. She warned them that the Trojan horse left by the Greeks was a trap. They ignored her. She warned them that Troy would fall. They ignored her. And Troy fell.

Those warning of the consequences of Collier County’s anti-federal ordinance may be dismissed by its advocates as alarmist—but like Cassandra, the opponents may also be right.

The so-called “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County” ordinance is a Trojan horse and Collier County commissioners have taken it inside the city walls. They and all residents will have to live with the consequences.

One can only hope that Collier County does not go the way of Troy. But as Cassandra might have said: “You have been warned.”

*Trojans celebrate their acquisition of a monumental horse left by retreating Greeks in the 2004 movie “Troy”. (Image: Warner Bros.)*

Editor’s Note: From 2004 to 2013 the author was editor of the magazine Homeland Security Today, whose coverage included the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration.

Click on the button to access the final, signed, engrossed version of the “Collier County Bill of Rights Sanctuary County ordinance.” (Contact TheParadiseProgressive@gmail.com regarding any difficulties accessing or downloading the document.)

collier-county-ordinance-2023-39-engrossed-final Download

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

The Donalds Dossier: Will Donalds condemn anti-Semitism at home in Southwest Florida?

*Eyes wide shut: Rep. Byron Donalds and Rep. Pramila Jayapal appear simultaneously during a Donalds interview on The National Desk TV program. (Image: Office of Rep. Donalds)*

July 25, 2023 by David Silverberg

Hypocrisy in politics is as old as human interaction itself.

People have become inured to blatant hypocrisy, which Webster’s Dictionary defines as “a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel, especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.”

As common as it is, especially since 2016, sometimes political hypocrisy is so pure, so unadulterated and so outrageous it stands out on its own.

But sometimes it also presents a challenge to do right.

So let us set the stage for this instance. It concerns anti-Semitism, which is emerging as a chronic problem in Southwest Florida.

The local context

For months Southwest Florida has been plagued by instances of anti-Semitism, whether in the form of vandalism in Cape Coral, or leafletting in Naples or in one of the most egregious cases, the posting of an overtly anti-Semitic video by Katie Paige Richards, the then-campaign manager for Collier County School Board candidate Tim Moshier.

But this is also a problem throughout Florida, which has seen anti-Semitic banners hung from overpasses, anti-Semitic light projections on stadiums and buildings in Jacksonville, and Nazi fanatics complete with swastika flags demonstrating outside Disneyworld in Orlando. Moreover, its two leading presidential nomination candidates, former President Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), have used anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes in their election campaigns.

To its credit, law enforcement has fought back when crimes were committed. For his part, DeSantis signed state House Bill 269 prohibiting a variety of actions taken by anti-Semites, while also condemning anti-Semitism in a speech delivered in Jerusalem.

Throughout this, Southwest Florida’s Republican political establishment has remained notably silent. For example, the Collier County Republican Party never condemned anti-Semitism in general or repudiated Richards’ video. Neither have Southwest Florida’s congressional representatives spoken out.

But now one has. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), who represents the coastal area from Cape Coral to Marco Island, has condemned anti-Semitism—and he blames the Democratic Party for it.

The congressional context

What prompted Donalds to finally weigh in were remarks by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-7-Wash.), head of the House Progressive Caucus, on July 16 at a conference in Chicago by Netroots Nation, a progressive training and political activism organization.

When she was speaking she was confronted by angry, rowdy people who felt that progressives weren’t doing enough to condemn Israel for its actions.

“Hey guys, can I say something? Can I say something as somebody that’s been in the streets and has participated in a lot of demonstrations?” Jayapal told the group. “I want you to know that we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state, that the Palestinian people deserve self-determination and autonomy, that the dream of a two-state solution is slipping away from us, that it does not even feel possible.

“While you may have arguments with whether or not some of us onstage are fighting hard enough, I do want you to know that there is an organized opposition on the other side, and it isn’t the people that are on this stage,” she added.

Jayapal’s characterization of Israel as racist brought an immediate wave of condemnation from Democrats and provided Republicans an opportunity to both condemn her statement and try to drive a wedge into Jewish support for Democrats.

Jayapal herself subsequently issued a lengthy statement saying “I attempted to defuse a tense situation” and “I do not believe the idea of Israel as a nation is racist.” However, she also noted, “I do, however, believe that Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government has engaged in discriminatory and outright racist policies and that there are extreme racists driving that policy within the leadership of the current government.”

She continued: “As an immigrant woman of color who has fought my whole life against racism, hate, and discrimination of all kinds and viscerally feels when anyone’s very existence is called into question, I am deeply aware of the many challenges we face in our own country to live up to the ideals of our nation here. The only way through these difficult moments is to have real conversations where we develop our own understanding of each other and the traumas we all hold. These are not easy conversations but they are important ones if we are ever to move forward. It is in that spirit that I offer my apologies to those who I have hurt with my words, and offer this clarification.”

Forty-one congressional Democrats, including six from Florida, issued a statement condemning Jayapal’s statement: “We will never allow anti-Zionist voices that embolden antisemitism to undermine and disrupt the strongly bipartisan consensus supporting the US-Israel relationship that has existed for decades,” it stated. The signers wrote they were “deeply concerned” with Jayapal’s comment and “we appreciate her retraction.” (The six Floridians were: Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-25-Fla.), Jared Moskowitz (D-23-Fla.), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-20-Fla.), Frederica Wilson (D-24-Fla.), Darren Soto (D-9-Fla.) and Kathy Castor (D-14-Fla.)).

On July 18, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 57 affirming that Israel is not a racist or apartheid state, rejecting all forms of anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and affirming that the United States will always be a staunch partner of Israel. It passed by an overwhelming vote of 412 to 9 with one member voting present.

The Donalds context

Donalds, like all his Republican colleagues condemned Jayapal and attempted to exploit the controversy.

But he also went further, painting all Democrats as anti-Semites. “There is a strain of anti-Semitism embedded deep within the Democratic party,” he tweeted on July 19. “Many Dems believe Israel should give up more territory & even question its existence.”

He elaborated in an interview on “The National Desk,” a news program produced by Sinclair Broadcasting, prior to the congressional vote.

“Let me be clear on this one,” he said. “They do believe that the state of Israel should give up much of its territory and that maybe they shouldn’t even be in that region. It’s really unfortunate that you have this strain of anti-Semitism that is embedded deep within the Democrat Party. This was not a mistake, this is actually a main line thought process amongst congressional Democrats, senatorial Democrats and it’s the Democrat Party. And so their Party’s got a lot to answer for and for Jewish voters in our country, please keep in mind that these aren’t just comments here or there that go away because the media chooses not to talk about them anymore and ignore these statements, these are a state of fact within the Democrat Party. So we’re going to vote today, that’s all well and good but that vote is not going to be indicative of the mindset of too many Democrats.”

In fact, the vote revealed the pro-Israel, anti-hate mindset of 195 Democrats who supported the resolution. A tiny minority of only 9 Democrats opposed it. (Reps. Jamal Bowman (D-16-NY), Cori Bush (D-1-Mo.), Andre Carson (D-7-Ind.), Summer Lee (D-12-Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-14-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-5-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-7-Mass.), Delia Ramirez (D-3-Ill.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-12-Mich.))

Commentary: Hypocrisy and its cure

While Donalds may have suddenly discovered the menace of anti-Semitism, it did not prevent him from turning around and exploiting tired anti-Semitic tropes and scapegoating in his fundraising.

“Radical left-wing Democrats funded by George Soros are targeting me with a disgusting smear campaign,” he declared in a July 22 fundraising appeal. He didn’t identify either the smear campaign or these radical, left-wing Democrats. Using the specter of Jewish financier George Soros to make his appeal more urgent is a common conservative, anti-Semitic tactic used both by DeSantis and former President Donald Trump.

“Fighting back against their vicious attacks won’t be cheap…Which is why I was so concerned when my finance director flagged our fundraising numbers on our campaign’s weekly call yesterday.” Then, of course, he asked for money.

To condemn anti-Semitism in others and then exploit it to one’s benefit is the essence of hypocrisy. This instance was particularly glaring and, to use a Yiddish word, “chutzpadik.”

First, for the record, George Soros, 92, retired as head of his foundations and hedge fund on June 12.

Still, Soros will no doubt continue to be a scapegoat for far-right, conspiracy-minded conservatives for the foreseeable future.

But now that Donalds has established himself as a staunch defender of Israel and put himself on the record opposing anti-Semitism and xenophobia with his vote, can he bring himself to condemn and fight the ground-level, grassroots anti-Semitism infecting Southwest Florida, especially among Republican MAGA conservatives?

Congressional Democrats can take care of themselves. But it’s everyday Jewish citizens who need to hear him repudiate the extreme anti-Semitic conspiracy fantasies and baseless accusations infecting his district in Southwest Florida.

He should do it. Constituents will be watching closely.

What’s more, it’s in his personal interest. After all, the kinds of people who hate Jews don’t like him, either.

_______________________

Editor’s note: From 1981 to 1983 the author worked as Assistant Editor of The Near East Report, the newsletter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobbying organization on Capitol Hill. He extensively covered Middle East policy and politics during his active career in Washington, DC.

Liberty lives in light

The Paradise Progressive receives no funding from George Soros. It relies on readers to keep liberty’s light alive in Southwest Florida.

Shot taken at Rep. Spencer Roach home has historical impact

*Florida state Rep. Spencer Roach interviewed at his home in North Fort Myers yesterday. (Image: Fox4)*

July 21, 2023 by David Silverberg

Until now, Southwest Florida has been free of political violence despite some strong passions and fanatical loyalties.

However, yesterday, July 20, state Rep. Spencer Roach (R-76-DeSoto, Charlotte and north Lee counties) revealed that someone had fired a bullet into his home.

“I called (the Lee County Sheriff’s Office) this morning because someone shot out my front window at my home,” Roach told Florida Politics. “Honestly, I’m a little shaken up about it. They shot through the window of the kids’ room, where the foster kids sleep.”

What makes the shot at Roach’s home more significant than the everyday shootings that occur in gun-saturated Southwest Florida is that it appears politically motivated. Like a first drop of rain that heralds an approaching storm, it could be a precursor of greater violence to come unless the perpetrator is found, arrested and prosecuted—swiftly.

The Roach record

Roach pointed out to The News-Press that “As you can see, there’s 20-25 houses on this street and there’s only one that got a bullet hole in it. I have to think that was deliberate.” He spoke to virtually all local media about the incident and it has been extensively covered in print, broadcast and online.

It’s not the first time a gunshot threatened Roach. In August 2022, a bullet was fired into the wall of his district office. However, that was found to have been an accidental shot from a neighboring women’s self-defense class.

Roach, a Louisiana native and Coast Guard veteran, is a staunchly conservative Republican. He backs Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for president. In the Florida legislature he proposed that school board races be made partisan. In September 2021 he sent a letter to the superintendent of Lee County schools threatening to seek his firing if he didn’t immediately withdraw a mask mandate for school students (this after an outbreak of COVID in the schools).

But Roach has also enraged extreme, Trumpist, Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republicans.

In January 2022 he penned an op-ed that appeared on the website Florida Politics titled, “No Coronation for Donald Trump in ’24.”

After predicting (incorrectly) that Trump wouldn’t run for president, that DeSantis would and would beat Trump, “all hell broke loose,” he wrote. “Overnight I’ve become a pariah within the Republican Party. I’ve been vilified by many of my supporters and called out as a ‘RINO,’ ‘sellout,’ a ‘traitor fit for GITMO,’ and publicly denounced as a ‘Never Trumper.’” (To clarify, Roach maintained that while not a “never Trumper” he was also not an “only Trumper.”)

It wasn’t the only reason for Roach to feel outcast.

In December 2022, Roach denounced the election of Michael Thompson, an extreme Trumpist and fringe conservative as chair of the Lee County Republican Executive Committee (REC). Thompson won the election by a single vote after numerous, contentious rounds of balloting. Roach called the outcome “a dark day for the future of the Lee GOP.”

This brought forth a new round of vitriol.

“Apparently Spencer Roach has just jumped the proverbial shark and is now a full-on establishment RINO,” posted a MAGA supporter calling himself Ragnar Danneskjöld on Facebook. “He really doesn’t like it that you ‘holocaust deniers’ (aka America First folks) won the Lee county REC. There has always been doubts as to his ‘conservative’ bonafides, now he’s let us all know the real Roach. That’s one of the benefits to the America First movement…these RINOs just have to expose themselves, like moths to a flame, or bugs to a roach motel.”

Most recently, the Lee County REC considered resolutions condemning the Florida legislature’s vote providing a resign-to-run loophole that allowed DeSantis to run for president and contending that a new Florida law allowing permitless carrying of concealed firearms did not go far enough. The resolution argues that under the Second Amendment, citizens do not need even that permission.

“Amongst the delegation, I’ve been the most vocal critic of this new regime, what I would call a hostile takeover of the Lee County Republican Party, so there’s no love lost there,” Roach told Florida Politics after the shooting.

“But I don’t (think they’re behind the shooting). I hope not. It’s Florida politics, so nothing would surprise me, but I have a hard time believing those people — many I’ve known for years — would be so upset with my political decisions that they’d come and try to assassinate me.”

Commentary: Marceno time

Given that the crime scene is in Lee County, it’s in the jurisdiction of the tough-talking, publicity-seeking, ostentatiously aggressive Sheriff Carmine Marceno.

While the most dangerous place in Lee County may be anywhere between Marceno and a microphone, the sheriff has produced results. The shooting into Roach’s house is a new opportunity for Marceno to back up his talk with action.

Solving this crime should be a priority. Like the breaking of a single window pane, allowing it to go unsolved and unpunished invites bigger, badder and possibly more deadly crimes.

Furthermore, the fact that this seems politically motivated makes its resolution even more important. It was in an atmosphere of unpunished political violence that fascism thrived in post-World War II Europe. Historically, political violence has fed on itself and proliferated, bringing down law, order and democracy.

Roach himself seems to recognize the stakes.

“Perhaps my greater concern for the future of the GOP lies in the vicious backlash I have experienced since daring to express an opinion contrary to accepted dogma,” Roach wrote in his January 2022 op-ed. “Blind loyalty to Trump has become a litmus test of conservative bona fides, and any opinion to the contrary — real or perceived — is met with immediate public reproach, repudiation, and ostracization.”

And now it may be met with bullets.

Whether the latest bullet represents a broken pane or a drop of rain, history imbues this kind of crime with much more significance than just a random discharge. It needs to get more than just an ordinary response.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

Responding to Chris Hall and the really bad idea of Collier County’s anti-federal ordinance

*Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall speaks during the July 11 Board meeting. (Image: CCBC)*

July 16, 2023 by David Silverberg

At the Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting on July 11, Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) gave a brief speech explaining his justification for planning to introduce a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County Ordinance” at the upcoming August 22 meeting.

The speech contained a number of points that merit further examination, analysis and comment.

These were different than the arguments for a nearly identical ordinance introduced almost precisely two years earlier in 2021. That ordinance was defeated by a 3 to 2 vote of the Board.

In the discussion prior to the 2021 vote, members of the public advocating passage insisted that commissioners pass the ordinance or resign. Their tone was bullying, dictatorial and autocratic. They demanded that the Board ignore all the potential consequences pointed out by opponents—illegality, unconstitutionality, litigation, disruption, loss of federal funding, and damage to the county, to name a few—and nullify federal law simply because they demanded it.

That approach didn’t succeed then.

So what arguments is Hall using to promote this ordinance now and how valid are they?

The speech

Hall stated in his speech: “And so, this whole thing is brought up, we heard comments today that we’re looking to cherry-pick federal law, that we’re looking to secede from the union, that we’re looking to nullify federal law that we don’t like and that’s so much baloney.”

In fact, those comments were valid arguments from opponents. The proposed ordinance does all those things. But Hall is confusing intentions and impacts.

Hall and his allies, most notably lawyer Kristina Heuser, who drafted the 2021 version, may not have intended to treat American laws as a buffet, selecting some and rejecting others, or effectively seceding from the United States, or nullifying federal law in Collier County, but that’s the ordinance’s impact.

When a jurisdiction rejects federal authority, it rejects everything that comes with it; all the laws, acts, orders, rules, and regulations as well as the federal government’s grants, funding, benefits, support and protection.

The law of the land must be adhered to in its totality. Rejecting it makes one an “outlaw”—literally, someone outside the law and subject to all the resulting penalties and punishments. Law is an all or nothing proposition. There’s no picking and choosing; the law is the law.

It has been well established that US federal law supersedes any city, state or county’s preferences. Remove it and there’s nothing but chaos. In this case, nullifying federal law leaves Collier County lawless.

It’s also worth noting that Collier County is already on the record accepting, adhering and faithfully supporting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States, now and in perpetuity. It expressed this allegiance in a resolution that passed the Board of Commissioners on July 13, 2021, the same day it rejected the first nullification ordinance.

What’s deeply disturbing here is that Hall—and presumably his allies—seem unable to distinguish between the intentions in their heads and the impact they’re imposing on the ground. That’s not a good attribute for lawmakers or legislators.

And, as the old saying goes: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

“I don’t know where all that started but it’s out there.”

It started with drafting an ordinance that nullifies federal law! There’s no mystery here. Any literate citizen can read the proposed ordinance and drawhis or her own conclusions—and they did. It’s “out there” because the ordinance is “out there.” Whatever anyone may believe to the contrary, people still read, they still think and they can draw their own conclusions—and they have done so about this ordinance.

“I just want to publicly put an end to all of that because this is an ordinance, a sanctuary for the Bill of Rights. A sanctuary is just a safe place.”

Indeed it is and the greatest sanctuary in the history of the world is the United States of America. It was a sanctuary for the Pilgrims who came to find religious freedom, it was a sanctuary for immigrants who came to find life, liberty and pursue happiness, and today it remains a sanctuary for democracy and all the human rights embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Essentially, the nullification ordinance is an attempt in Collier County to de-sanctify the sanctuary for inalienable human rights that is the United States of America.

“So I’m bringing this up because in case things ever twist off in Washington, DC, in case things ever twist off, God forbid, in Tallahassee, we’re going to have a sheriff that’s going to back and honor the Bill of Rights that were given to us in the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Concern that things might “twist off” is justified because things did indeed “twist off” in Washington, DC—on Jan. 6, 2021.

As Southwest Florida’s own Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), who was present that day, put it in a statement at the time: “We are a nation of laws that have governed this exceptional Constitutional Republic for more than two centuries, and no amount of anger should ever compromise that,” and “sadly today, a bunch of lunatics tried to destroy that truth”—that “the Rule of Law, and the institutions…make America the greatest country ever to exist.” He called the mob violence “thuggery” and “a tragedy.”

Fortunately, authorized forces of discipline and order, governed and guided by law, put an end to the insurrection and attempted coup. Those forces of law and order, like the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have investigated and punished the “lunatics” and thugs who attempted to overthrow the government. They continue to investigate and prosecute them to this day.

But it takes all law enforcement—federal, state and local—to protect and enforce the law. A local sheriff is not empowered to abrogate federal law or take its enforcement entirely into his or her own hands. An armed enforcement organization unmoored in law is no longer a law enforcement agency but a vigilante posse, a mob, a horde.

Southwest Florida has experienced this before. Almost exactly 100 years ago, on May 25, 1924 in Fort Myers, Fla., a white mob lynched two African American teenagers who were accused of raping white girls with whom they were seen swimming. The boys were hanged without trial. The local sheriff was unable or unwilling to stop the violence.

Take away the authority of federal law and a local sheriff, far from protecting the Bill of Rights, is more likely to be helpless, or complicit, in the face of its violation—with potentially lethal results.

“We’re going to have the right to bear arms, we’re going to have the right to due process of law, we’re not going to have to take soldiers and put them in our house, every one of those Bill of Rights.”

Those are exactly the rights that American citizens have now under the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. There’s no need to carve out a county exception to them. In fact, it’s more important to strengthen them, as Collier County’s existing Bill of Rights resolution does.

“The one gentleman said. ‘What about the 11 through the 27th?’ We’re not nullifying those.

Yes you are, if you nullify federal law in Collier County. And it’s worth remembering that those other amendments include things like birthright citizenship and prohibition of slavery, as the gentleman, Todd Truax, pointed out.

Those rights also include the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Hall and his allies may not be consciously threatening women’s suffrage but they will put it in jeopardy if they nullify federal law. The Supreme Court has struck down a woman’s right to abortion. Will an outlaw Collier County now strike down a woman’s right to vote—however inadvertently?

“We just want to make it a safe place here. We’re not looking to do anything other than live life happily ever after. But in case anything ever happens, I would like to have an ordinance that the sheriff has the authority to enforce.”

Collier County, Florida, USA, is a safe place thanks to the supremacy of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Its residents can live life happily ever after under the protection of American law at the federal, state and local levels. If they deem a law unconstitutional they can challenge it in court. If they want to make their opinions known, they have a right to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. Standing behind those rights is the full force and faith of the United States as empowered by its Constitution.

Compared to that majesty, a rogue Collier County unmoored in federal law, as this ordinance proposes, would be a place of extreme unsafety, without any guarantee of protected rights or personal security.

Not only does the ordinance threaten individual citizens, it threatens the county in every way, from its smooth functioning and management to the personal security of its leaders and employees. Every Collier County official—especially its commissioners—would be at risk for personal bankruptcy for simply doing their duty since the ordinance will be enforced through civil lawsuits and officials will have to pay for their legal defense out of their own pockets.

As the county attorney pointed out in 2021, the ordinance invites frivolous litigation. Collier County would become a legal hellscape of greedy attorneys jostling like jackals to rip chunks of county money from its coffers and officials’ personal bank accounts—and those of their families.

It would also empower a single, wealthy, litigious individual alleging, however flimsily, that his rights had been violated, to beggar the county’s officials, impose a reign of legal terror and nullify not just federal laws but all county ordinances protecting its citizens. This single individual would be able to bring the county’s functioning to a halt and force it to bend to his whim just as surely as if he held a gun to every official’s head—and by passing this ordinance commissioners would in effect hand him that gun.

An issue that was not raised at the meeting is the fact that this ordinance would render Collier County and everyone and everything in it uninsurable. At a time when insurers are pulling out of Florida due to extreme risk, Collier County would add another incentive to avoid insuring the homes, businesses and persons in its jurisdiction.

The insurance industry is heavily regulated at the federal level. A county that declares itself unbound by federal law would be a market in which insurance companies would be unable to function without potentially violating their governing charters and regulations. They could lose their licenses and be prosecuted or sued for operating there.

So in addition to suffering the extreme risk of storms and natural disasters, this ordinance would not only be a disincentive to insure anything in Collier County, it would be a near-insurmountable barrier if a company actually wanted to do business.

“So with that, I want to bring that forward on July the 25th [later changed to Aug. 22] and I’m sure we’re going to hear a million comments about it.

It’s not sufficient to simply resign oneself to receiving “a million” comments in opposition, and just dismiss them as a reaction of liberals, or leftists or chronic malcontents. It’s more important to ask oneself why there are “a million” negative comments. Might there be some wisdom in this overwhelming perception? Could it be because “a million” people recognize this ordinance as A REALLY BAD IDEA?

Nor should a public servant simply scan the subject lines of “a million” e-mails and simply ignore them. Perhaps it’s important as a public servant to read what these constituents and citizens are actually saying and ponder the substance of their messages.

“You know, when I ran for this office, I ran to protect and secure the rights of the people and we’re not looking to do anything other than to do that. We want to enhance your rights and protect them even more than what you feel you already have protected. So I wanted to say that publicly because there’s going to be those out there…I’m sure I’m going to get e-mails. But flame-suit on.”

It’s a worthy aim to protect and secure people’s rights. But the way to do it is not to carve out exceptions from the laws and the Constitution. The best thing that can be done is to withdraw the threat of nullifying federal law in Collier County and drop this deeply flawed ordinance altogether.

Sometimes the noblest act of all is simply to do no harm.

The very best outcome would be to let August 22 pass as just another steamy summer day in Southwest Florida.

Going forward

During the meeting, Commissioner Burt Saunders (R- District 3), asked that the vote on the ordinance be held over until September, when many residents were back in the area—including him.

Hall rejected holding it that long, although he agreed to hold it until August 22 as a professional courtesy to Saunders.

But Hall made the point that anyone could participate remotely.

“People have every opportunity to send us e-mails, to call us, to write us, to Zoom in. I mean, just because they’re not here and there’s going to be other items that I’m going to be on the other side of, that my people are going to have the same opportunity.”

It’s interesting that Hall referred to ordinance supporters as “my people.” As a county commissioner, “his people” should be everyone in the 2nd District, which stretches from the county line in the north to Pine Ridge Road in the south and from the coast in the west to roughly Interstate 75 in the east. He should be serving all of them, even those with whom he disagrees. Instead, he sees himself serving only a small and ideologically-driven minority.

But in his larger point, Hall was right: people should take the opportunity to call, write and Zoom and express their opinions on this issue at any time before August 22.

This otherwise obscure and remote county is facing a choice. It can become a lawless, outlaw MAGAstan that rejects America’s laws, history, Constitution and, most importantly, its Bill of Rights. Or it can celebrate its past century and prepare itself for a happy and prosperous next century and remain Collier County, Florida, USA, with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the dignity and protection bestowed by 247 years of history, struggle and democracy.

And yes, the choice is that stark.

________________

Commission Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) has complained in the past that too many e-mails sent to his office were repetitious and unoriginal, seemingly automatically generated by bots. Messages to commissioners should be original and individual and the more personal the better.

*Collier County’s Commission districts.*

Collier County commissioners can be reached by mail at the address:

Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112.

To contact commissioners by e-mail and phone:

Rick LoCastro, Chairman
Commissioner, District 1
Rick.LoCastro@CollierCountyFL.gov

239-252-8601

Chris Hall
Commissioner, District 2
Chris.Hall@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8602

Burt L. Saunders
Commissioner, District 3Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov

(239) 252-8603

Dan Kowal
Commissioner, District 4
Dan.Kowal@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8604

William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Commissioner, District 5
Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8605

A full copy of the proposed ordinance can be read and downloaded by clicking on the button below. (Contact TheParadiseProgressive@gmail.com regarding any difficulties accessing or downloading the document.)

2023-bill-of-rights-sanctuary-county-ordinance-final-2 Download

*The Collier County Bill of Rights reaffirmation resolution passed unanimously on July 13, 2021.*

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

UPDATED: Collier County anti-federal ordinance to appear on Aug. 22 agenda

*Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall responds to criticism of his proposed federal nullification ordinance. (Image: CCBC)*

July 13, 2023 by David Silverberg

A proposed ordinance nullifying federal authority in Collier County, Fla., will be introduced at the August 22 meeting of the Board of Commissioners.

Commissioner Chris Hall (R- District 2) told the Board that he will be introducing the “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County Ordinance”) at that time. He made the remarks at the very end of the regular meeting of the Board on Tuesday, July 11.

While he originally intended to introduce the ordinance at the next Board meeting on July 25, Hall acceded to a point of personal privilege from Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3), who requested the delay because he will be unable to attend the next two meetings in any form including remotely. When he made the request, Saunders stated that he thought the ordinance would pass but he wanted to be present for the discussion.

Board Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) supported delaying the agenda item to Aug. 22 because he wanted the full Board present and the date would give all time to prepare. “For another bite of the apple, the juice is worth the squeeze,” he said.

Hall responded to a wave of opposition to the ordinance expressed in the earlier part of the Board meeting. (See: Collier County anti-federal nullification ordinance in limbo after public opposition). Opponents (including this author) argued that the ordinance is unconstitutional, impractical and illegal.

In response, Hall made the following statement (presented in full):

“As for the controversial time in the summer, we’re going to work through the summer and I want to work, I don’t want to play babysitter to the agenda items. People have every opportunity to send us e-mails, to call us, to write us, to Zoom in. I mean, just because they’re not here and there’s going to be other items that I’m going to be on the other side of, that my people are going to have the same opportunity.

“And so, this whole thing is brought up, we heard comments today that we’re looking to cherry pick federal law, that we’re looking to secede from the union, that we’re looking to nullify federal law that we don’t like and that’s so much baloney. I don’t know where all that started but it’s out there.

“I just want to publicly put an end to all of that because this is an ordinance, a sanctuary for the Bill of Rights. A sanctuary is just a safe place. So I’m bringing this up because in case things ever twist off in Washington, DC, in case things ever twist off, God forbid, in Tallahassee, we’re going to have a sheriff that’s going to back and honor the Bill of Rights that were given to us in the Constitution of the United States of America. We’re going to have the right to bear arms, we’re going to have the right to due process of law, we’re not going to have to take soldiers and put them in our house, every one of those Bill of Rights. The one gentleman said. ‘What about the 11 through the 27th?’ We’re not nullifying those. We just want to make it a safe place here. We’re not looking to do anything other than live life happily ever after. But in case, anything ever happens, I would like to have an ordinance that the sheriff has the authority to enforce.

“So with that, I want to bring that forward on July the 25th and I’m sure we’re going to hear a million comments about it. But I think it’s… . You know, when I ran for this office, I ran to protect and secure the rights of the people and we’re not looking to do anything other than to do that. We want to enhance your rights and protect them even more than what you feel you already have protected. So I wanted to say that publicly because there’s going to be those out there, I’m sure I’m going to get e-mails. But flame-suit on.”

___________________

Video of the commissioners’ discussion of the ordinance’s introduction can be seen here at points 3:04 to 3:17.

To see previous Paradise Progressive reporting on this issue:

ALERT! They’re baaaaaaack: Proposed anti-federal ‘Bill of Rights Sanctuary County’ ordinance threatens Collier County

The Battle of Collier County: Inside one county’s struggle to stay in the United States

Sanctuary in America: Haven or insurrection by other means?

A license for lawlessness: Collier County, Florida’s proposed “sanctuary ordinance” and a better way forward

To contact commissioners:

Rick LoCastro, Chairman
Commissioner, District 1
Rick.LoCastro@CollierCountyFL.gov

239-252-8601

Chris Hall
Commissioner, District 2
Chris.Hall@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8602

Burt L. Saunders
Commissioner, District 3

Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov

(239) 252-8603

Dan Kowal
Commissioner, District 4
Dan.Kowal@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8604

William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Commissioner, District 5
Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8605

A full copy of the proposed ordinance can be downloaded here. (Contact TheParadiseProgressive@gmail.com regarding any difficulties accessing or downloading the document.)

2023-bill-of-rights-sanctuary-county-ordinance-final-1 Download

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

Collier County anti-federal nullification ordinance in limbo after public opposition

Collier County resident Kate Tardiff holds up a “passport” issued by Key West when it seceded from the United States in 1982 and declared itself the Conch Republic. She was comparing the island’s short-lived satirical secession to Collier County’s serious proposed federal nullification ordinance. (Image: CCBC)

July 12, 2023 by David Silverberg

Disclosure: The author testified against the proposed ordinance.

The fate of a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County Ordinance” proposal is uncertain after it drew overwhelming opposition from county residents at yesterday’s Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting.

In what would otherwise be a quiet, mid-July Board meeting, seven speakers expressed opposition to the idea of a sanctuary ordinance and only a single one defended the concept. A ninth speaker addressed personal topics.

The ordinance has not yet been formally introduced and was not on the agenda for the meeting. Nonetheless, speakers were allowed to make statements on the proposed ordinance by Board Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1), under a provision for public comments on future agendas.

If the ordinance is introduced and the Board chooses to proceed, its consideration will be advertised and appear on the agenda of the meeting when a vote will be taken. The next regular meeting of the Board is scheduled for July 25. Agendas are posted on the Board’s website about a week before the meeting.

However, Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3) urged the Board not to take up the matter during the summer when many residents are absent. LoCastro noted that people can call into meetings to testify if they’re not on site.

Following the discussion, it was unclear whether the proposed ordinance would be introduced.

The ordinance as written would nullify federal authority in Collier County, making all county officials and law enforcement officers subject to lawsuits for any alleged violation of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

(To see a full discussion of the proposed ordinance as well as obtain a downloadable copy, see “ALERT! They’re baaaaaaack: Proposed anti-federal ‘Bill of Rights Sanctuary County’ ordinance threatens Collier County.”)

The opponents

The first of the eight speakers in opposition to the ordinance was Tamara Mitchell, a Collier County resident, who pointed out that the ordinance, which was first proposed in 2021, “was illegal then, it’s illegal now. A state cannot nullify federal law” and Collier County does not have that authority. She pointed out that the ordinance would result in chaos and the county would not be able to retain its employees.

“There is no need to have a county sanctuary for the Bill of Rights since the United States is a sanctuary for the Bill of Rights in every jurisdiction,” she said. “Why waste time on a proposal that is clearly illegal, will create many serious problems and is inherently unnecessary?”

She was followed by this author, who echoed her arguments on the proposed ordinance and added that debating it would simply be a repeat of 2021, would waste everyone’s time and would be unnecessarily divisive.

Jane Schlechtweg, chair of the Collier County Democratic Party, pointed out that the ordinance even violated the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States taken by everyone present at the outset of the meeting.

Susan Cone, a county resident, warned of the economic consequences of ordinance, which would make the county “dysfunctional and lawless.”

Kate Tardiff, another resident, held up a Key West “Conch Republic” passport. It was an artifact of the time in 1982 when the Florida island seceded from the United States—“and lasted exactly one minute,” Tardiff pointed out. At least, she said, “that was tongue-in-cheek.”

But Tardiff had a serious message: “If this anti-American ordinance is passed we may as well declare our secession from the United States of America,” she said. However, she declared the ordinance “DOA, dead on arrival.”

Todd Truax, who runs an elder care facility in Collier County, noted that the ordinance would nullify all sorts of federal rules in the county like the kind he had to obey governing healthcare and employment. He asked: what would happen to the constitutional amendments after the Bill of Rights, numbers 11 to 27? Would they simply be ignored? Would all kinds of federal regulations be dropped? “Would this allow me to own slaves? Because I have some labor challenges,” he said. “It’s preposterous.”

Earlier in the meeting there had been discussion of an ordinance to ban excessive sound from cars modified to magnify engine noise. Under the ordinance, could this be regulated? “My noisy, orange Mustang Fury GT is my expression of free speech,” he pointed out.

Katherine Cunningham, a member of Moms Demand Action, a group opposing gun violence, noted that the proposed ordinance would nullify a variety of measures meant to protect the public. When first raised in 2021, the ordinance’s focus “was to prevent the enforcement of gun laws in Collier County,” she said. Groups pushing to nullify federal laws were attempting to negate gun safety and red flag laws despite their effectiveness in preventing gun violence.

“This bill reflects an attempt to block bipartisan gun safety laws passed with overwhelming support by voters and to block the courts’ interpretation of the Constitution to the detriment of public safety,” she said.

Melanie Wicker, a county resident, urged the commissioners to emulate Marshal Matt Dillon from the western television show “Gunsmoke” and uphold the rule of law even when townspeople were angry and wanted to take the law into their own hands.

“When people feel threatened and angry they can start to act like a posse gone bad,” she said. She argued that it is up to law enforcement authorities to administer the law equitably and the ordinance would force Collier County’s Sheriff Kevin Rambosk to choose which laws are constitutional and which were not, putting him in jeopardy.

“I hope this ordinance will never come before this board but if it does, please follow the example of Marshal Dillon and [Commissioner Burt] Saunders [who opposed it in 2021] and uphold the rule of law and abide by the Constitution as it is written. Vote no to vigilantism. Vote no to this ordinance,” she concluded.

The proponent

The sole speaker in favor of the ordinance was Kristina Heuser, an attorney advising the Naples law firm of Boatman Ricci, who drafted the 2021 ordinance and, presumably, the latest version.

She characterized the reaction to the proposed ordinance as “a lot of hyperbole and fearmongering” and said that it was much narrower in scope.

“The ordinance makes it unlawful for the county to help the federal government in carrying out or executing unlawful or unconstitutional mandates of the federal government. So it’s not nullification, as we heard this morning, it’s not rendering willy-nilly just like federal law to be unconstitutional for you or that…we’re not going to abide by federal law in the county, it’s specifically saying that no willful official or employees will participate in carrying out or executing unconstitutional federal orders or mandates,” she said.

Heuser argued that the ordinance was based in settled federal law and the anti-commandeering principle and it had been upheld in federal courts. She said she looked forward to explaining this further at the next, July 25, meeting of the Board.

What’s next

If commissioners proceed with the proposed ordinance it may appear as an agenda item for the next Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting on July 25. The agenda for that meeting should be posted about a week before the meeting. Agendas can be checked here.

In 2021 the ordinance was placed on the agenda without prior notice on June 22 before its defeat by the Board on July 13.

At that July 13 meeting residents turned out in large numbers to argue against the ordinance. The turnout at yesterday’s meeting demonstrated that opposition to the ordinance had not slackened.

While the Commission considers whether to add the ordinance to the July 25 agenda, residents can express their opinions to the commissioners at the contact information below.

Rick LoCastro, Chairman

Commissioner, District 1
Rick.LoCastro@CollierCountyFL.gov

239-252-8601

Chris Hall

Commissioner, District 2
Chris.Hall@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8602

Burt L. Saunders

Commissioner, District 3

Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov

(239) 252-8603

Dan KowalCommissioner, District 4
Dan.Kowal@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8604

William L. McDaniel, Jr.

Commissioner, District 5
Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8605

The entire half-hour discussion of the ordinance can be viewed online on the Collier County television channel. Discussion of the ordinance begins at mark 1:10 and concludes at 1:42.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

ALERT! They’re baaaaaaack: Proposed anti-federal ‘Bill of Rights Sanctuary County’ ordinance threatens Collier County

*Like the ghosts in the movie Poltergeist, the idea of an ordinance nullifying federal law in Collier County threatens to return again. (Image: Poltergeist)*

July 9, 2023 by David Silverberg

On this coming Tuesday, July 11, longtime county observers expect Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) to introduce a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County” ordinance that will attempt to take Collier County out of the authority of the US federal government.

If the Board of Commissioners approves putting the proposed ordinance on the agenda on Tuesday, it may be advertised as a county ordinance for a vote at the next regular meeting on Tuesday, July 25.

This will mark the second time that extreme conservative activists have attempted to nullify federal law in Collier County, Fla.

On July 13, 2021, the Board voted down an identical ordinance by a vote of 3 to 2.

Like its predecessor, the current proposed ordinance argues that the federal government is encroaching on citizens’ rights and privileges, particularly through executive orders. It attempts to nullify federal authority by allowing lawsuits against county officials.

“Collier County has the right to be free from the commanding hand of the federal government and has the right to refuse to cooperate with federal government officials in response to unconstitutional federal government measures, and to proclaim a Bill of Rights Sanctuary for law-abiding citizens in its County,” it proclaims.

If passed, Collier County would effectively secede from the United States, lose the protection of US law and essentially be rendered lawless.

The proposed ordinance

The proposed ordinance has 13 establishing clauses (paragraphs beginning “whereas,” that state the facts as viewed by the drafters). (A link to download the full ordinance is at the end of this article.)

These paragraphs argue that the federal government is increasingly encroaching on citizens’ rights and privileges, particularly through executive orders that are not based on legislation. It then goes on to list a variety of laws and precedents that the drafters believe are being violated.

The second section lists the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

It is in the third section that the draft gets to the substance of the proposal. It defines an “unlawful act” as any “federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation, which violates or unreasonably restricts, impedes, or impinges upon an individual’s Constitutional rights including, but not limited to, those enumerated in Amendments 1 through 10 to the United States Constitution.”

Such federal acts will be “invalid in Collier County and shall not be recognized by Collier County, and shall be considered null, void and of no effect in Collier County, Florida.”

The fourth section prohibits the county and its officials from enforcing “unlawful acts” as defined by the ordinance. Any official who violates the ordinance can be sued in court and punished under the county code.

The fifth and sixth sections hold that if the ordinance conflicts with any other law, the more restrictive rule will apply and that even if sections of it are invalidated in court, the rest of the ordinance will remain in force.

The previous effort

The new proposed ordinance closely tracks its predecessor, which was introduced in June 2021 and defeated by a 3 to 2 vote of the Board of Commissioners on July 13, 2021. It was drafted by lawyer Kristina Heuser who is of counsel to the Naples firm of Boatman Ricci.

It was introduced by Commissioner William McDaniel Jr. (R-District 5) and supported by a group of allied individuals that included retired firefighter James Rosenberger, his wife Carol DiPaolo, anti-COVID vaccination activist Beth Sherman, and Keith Flaugh, head of the Florida Citizens Alliance, a conservative education advocacy organization.

It was also backed by a variety of officials and legislators, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), state Rep. Bob Rommel (R-currently-81, then-106, Naples) and the county’s top law enforcement officer, Sheriff Kevin Rambosk.

The same coalition is likely to back the current proposed ordinance.

Some things have changed, however.

The composition of the County Commission changed with the 2022 election of commissioners Chris Hall (R-District 2) and Dan Kowal (R-District 4). Both were endorsed by conservative grocer and farmer Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III and backed by the Citizens Awake Now political action committee he heads.

Another difference was passage on April 11, 2023 of a Collier County Health Freedom Ordinance, prohibiting mask and vaccination mandates in the county, duplicating state law. Passage of that and an accompanying resolution—although both were heavily revised and diluted—likely emboldened the effort to reintroduce the current ordinance.

At the time of its first introduction, the United States was still in the midst of the COVID pandemic, which fed advocates’ anti-vaccination passion, paranoia and conspiracy theories. It was also closer in time to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection and attempted coup at the US Capitol. At the time of the 2021 debate, ordinance advocates feared federal law enforcement officers arriving in Florida to arrest Jan. 6 rioters and mentioned that in their arguments for passage. Since then, 91 arrests have indeed taken place in Florida, more than any other state.

Analysis: Ordinance consequences

What remain unchanged since its first introduction are the potential consequences of the proposed ordinance. These were enumerated and discussed by residents and County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow during the 2021 consideration and vote.

The ordinance would bring the orderly functioning of Collier County to a halt. Any resident could bring suit against virtually any action by any county official or law enforcement officer if the resident argued his or her constitutional rights were being violated. The officials would be personally liable for providing their own legal defense, potentially beggaring them for simply running the county.

“The big issue here is not going to be damages,” Klatzkow told commissioners at the time. “It’s going to be attorney’s fees. There is an incentive for attorneys to bring actions under this because every hour they put in is an hour they can bill.”

Exactly what would constitute a violation and how that violation would be determined remain unclear in the current draft as in the first version. Attorneys testifying during the 2021 debate pointed out the ordinance’s vagueness, unenforceability and unconstitutionality.

Since it would put Collier County outside federal law, the ordinance would jeopardize all of the county’s federal grants and benefits, which are so numerous that they ran to five single-spaced pages when presented to the Commission during the debate. It would also likely make the county ineligible for federal assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster.

Since it does not recognize federal authority—including federal courts—enforcing the ordinance would be a Catch-22. For enforcement, county authorities would have to refer cases to federal courts that they did not recognize and these courts would hand down verdicts that the county wouldn’t recognize because it won’t accept federal law.

A way around this was never satisfactorily explained during the 2021 debate.

The ordinance would interfere with federal law enforcement in the county, including immigration regulations and criminal investigations.

It would complicate commerce as businesses both inside and outside the county would have to deal with a jurisdiction that didn’t recognize any federal commercial rules including health and safety, labor, and taxation regulations.

The ordinance could interfere with the orderly administration of federal programs like Social Security, Medicare and food assistance on which county residents are dependent.

In addition to all these impacts within the county, passage of the ordinance would make Collier County a national laughingstock, if not an international pariah. Potential visitors and guests would hesitate—to put it mildly—traveling to a destination that didn’t recognize national law and was effectively lawless.

Given its obvious unconstitutionality, the ordinance would immediately be subject to court challenge and the county would have to pay the costs of defending it—likely in federal courts whose authority the county would be fighting not to recognize.

“It is so unconstitutional in so many ways I would say, ‘Let’s go out and have a beer and forget about this,’” said David Millstein, a retired civil rights attorney who also taught civil rights law and served as former head of the Collier County American Civil Liberties Union, at the time.

Commentary: Stopping stupidity at the source

On the day that the Board of Commissioners defeated the first ordinance, it also unanimously passed a resolution stating that: “…The County Commission of Collier County, Florida reaffirms its loyalty, its patriotism and its allegiance to the United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights, its Amendments and the duly constituted laws, acts, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States of America and that these have force in Collier County as they do in the rest of the United States, now and in perpetuity.”

That resolution should reassure all who are worried about the applicability of the Bill of Rights in Collier County, Fla.

There is no need for a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary County” because the United States itself is a sanctuary for the Bill of Rights in every jurisdiction and in all places where American law holds sway.

What is more, the Commission rejected it after fully debating it in 2021 and examining all its aspects and implications. The arguments then also apply now.

The clear and obvious fact is that this proposed ordinance is nothing more than a legalistic expression of rage and paranoia ungrounded in actual law or reality from people who simply don’t want to follow rules they don’t like. It is part of a wave of politically-driven sanctuary proposals that have cropped up around the country.

The ordinance is not formally on the published agenda of the next meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday morning.

However, as happened in 2021, it may be slipped onto the agenda without prior notice. If the Commission chooses to schedule formal debate, the ordinance will have to be advertised and is likely to formally appear for a vote on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 25.

To register an opinion on this ordinance, whether it should be considered by the Commission at all and whether it is right for Collier County, residents can weigh in with commissioners or speak at the July 11 scheduled meeting.

That meeting will take place at 9 am in the Board of Commissioners chamber on the third floor of the Administration Building at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Fla.

Public petition speakers are limited to 10 minutes and general address speakers to 3 minutes. Speakers must fill out request slips available outside the chamber prior to the meeting.

Commissioners can be contacted at:

Rick LoCastro, Chairman
Commissioner, District 1
Rick.LoCastro@CollierCountyFL.gov

239-252-8601

Chris Hall
Commissioner, District 2
Chris.Hall@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8602

Burt L. Saunders

Commissioner, District 3

Burt.Saunders@CollierCountyFL.Gov

(239) 252-8603

Dan Kowal
Commissioner, District 4
Dan.Kowal@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8604

William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Commissioner, District 5

Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.gov

239-252-8605

A full copy of the proposed ordinance can be downloaded here. (Contact TheParadiseProgressive@gmail.com regarding any difficulties accessing or downloading the document.)

2023-bill-of-rights-sanctuary-county-ordinance-final Download

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

‘We conduct excellent elections’ — Q & A with Melissa Blazier, Collier County Supervisor of Elections

Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier. (Photo: Author)

July 3, 2023 by David Silverberg

This morning Melissa Blazier filed the paperwork to run for Collier County Supervisor of Elections in 2024.

Blazier is already serving as Collier County’s Supervisor. She was appointed to the position by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on May 19. This followed the retirement of her predecessor, Jennifer Edwards, who held the position for 22 years.

Until now, the position of county Supervisor of Elections position was a relatively non-controversial post, with straightforward duties, requirements and results, both in Collier County and around the country. But since the 2020 election, election supervisors have come under unprecedented scrutiny. Never has the clean and accurate counting of votes been more subject to challenge—or been more important.

Blazier has been working in the Elections Office for the past 17-and-a-half years and knows every aspect of election management. She was certified as an Elections/Registration Administrator by the National Association of Election Officials’ Election Center and is a Master Florida Certified Elections Professional through the Florida Supervisors of Elections.

Educationally, she has a magna cum laude Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from Hodges University. In 2010 she graduated from the Associate Leadership Collier program spring class of 2010, the 2014 Leadership Collier class and the Leadership Marco class of 2019.

She’s active in a wide variety of civic and political groups including Kiwanis, where she’s president of the Naples chapter, the American Legion Auxiliary and the League of Women Voters. She’s a member of the Naples Republican Club, Republican Women of Southwest Florida Federated, and the Women’s Republican Club.

How does Blazier see her job and the challenges ahead? We sat down with her last Wednesday, June 28, for an interview. What follows is a verbatim question and answer transcript. Brackets [ ] denote summations or editor’s clarifications.

Q: What assurance can you give Collier County voters that we will have fair, accurately tabulated elections in the future, free of any interference or problems?

A: As you know, I was trained by the best, so for over 17 years I worked under Jennifer [Edwards] and I have no plans in changing the way that we conduct elections in Collier County, any of our voter registration, voter outreach, elections. Our goal is just to improve. How can we do things better?

Q: You are going to be up for election yourself in the August [20, 2024] Republican primary and then, of course, in the general [election]. How do you deal with counting the votes for your own election? What’s the process? Is there a recusal, or what happens?

A: It’s something that we’re going to have work through as we get closer to that primary. So, if the Supervisor of Elections is contested on the ballot then he or she can no longer serve on the Canvassing Board for that specific election.

What I will be able to do is serve on the Canvassing Board in an advisory capacity. I can be there to provide information, laws, updates, stuff like that. But I cannot vote on acceptance or rejection of any of the ballots that are brought to the Board. That’s something they will do on their own without my input.

Now, they can ask me questions and I can give feedback on the law and processes but not any kind of an opinion.

Q: And the Canvassing Board consists of?

A: It should consist of a county judge, the chair of the Board of County Commissioners and the Supervisor of Elections.

Now, there are different reasons in statute on why… . Let’s say, a county commissioner would not be able to serve on the Board if they’re actively participating in an election by endorsing. They can actually donate money to a campaign but by actively and verbally endorsing a candidate then they can no longer serve on the Canvassing Board. The same goes for the judge. The Supervisor of Elections positions don’t endorse.

Q: So, under this circumstance it would be a two-person Board?

A: What would happen then is that the chief judge would actually appoint someone to fill in the Supervisor of Elections role and that could potentially be another judge, it could be a county commissioner or it can be a member of the public.

So, for the City of Naples, for example, during their municipal elections, we don’t hold them in conjunction with the presidential preference primary. They typically have their mayor, their city clerk serves and then the City Council appoints one member of the public to serve on their Canvassing Board.

Q: And your primary doesn’t coincide with the Presidential Preference Primary, which is March 19. Yours is in August.

A: Right, so for the March election we’re good with me serving on the Canvassing Board. Once we get to August…and then, assuming that this race goes past August and goes on to the general [election in November] I won’t be able to serve on either of them.

Q: What improvements do you have in mind and are there any you can implement now, while you’re Supervisor, before the election?

A: Some of the things that we’ve already done we started when Jennifer was still here, but we’ve implemented a public records software. Really, I think [the software is] better for the requestor but it’s a lot better for the office in management of public records requests.

As you can imagine, our public records requests, the volume has increased dramatically over the past few years, so it turns into kind of a tracking nightmare for staff. You know: who’s working on what request? What information has been released? Where do we stand on certain requests?

So the software actually tracks the records requests as they’re incoming: who can be assigned to them, what responses? If an invoice needs to be sent, has it been paid, has the check been cashed, when can we close? And then, one of I think the best parts of it is that once a public records request has hit 12 months old, it can be archived so that we don’t keep a public records request as a public record for infinity.

So that’s a nice tool. We’re also going to launch TextMyGov [a texting service allowing voters to opt in to receive election alerts. It also has a keyword software technology allowing a user to type in a question and receive a quick answer. If an answer is not readily available, a staff member can text back. The technology is expected to be in use before the end of the year].

These are things that don’t seem hugely significant. To us they are but we can make these small changes as we go into 2024.

We typically try not to make huge changes in presidential election years. Voting is already confusing enough for people that we don’t want to give them additional things that they have to learn or do in a presidential year when we see the highest turnout. So, typically, if we would have implemented something big it would have been in 2022. But internal things, tools like this that helps the voters but also helps staff, those are things that we’ll try to get done before we get to March.

Q: Have certain kinds of public record requests shown up more than others? Are you getting a lot of challenges to results or anything like that?

A: Not necessarily challenges, but requests for pretty much any report we could possibly pull out of our election management software as well as our voter registration database.

So, people want full registration rolls, they want to know voter history for all of our voters, when we removed certain voters, we’ve updated their addresses, changed party affiliation.

Q: And this is private citizens making these requests or are these parties?

A: Mostly parties and different advocacy groups. It’s been a lot since 2020.

Q: Yes, I would expect. Now, speaking of the challenges: you haven’t had any challenges to the results of the 2022 elections so far, that I’ve heard of?

A: No.

Q: When I was here the last time, Alfie Oakes [Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, the farmer, grocer, conservative activist and Republican committeeman] was challenging the notion of electronic voting—he was at least the most outspoken person in favor of paper ballots. Jennifer said, “It’s not legal, it’s not the law.” Now that you’re supervisor, do you have a response to that?

A: The state of Florida is all paper. We all use paper ballots. His contention is with the scanners actually tabulating the results of those paper ballots. I believe that they would like us to—and it’s not just him, it’s the CCREC [the Collier County Republican Executive Committee]. They passed a resolution to hand count all ballots, I think it said, for all elections.

The impression I get is that they’re most interested in the top races on the ballot and not the others but I believe the resolution was shared with our legislative delegation and there it stays.

Q: Because making that change would have to be done at the state level?

A: Yes. It would have to be changed in law. That’s not something we can decide to do. And certainly not, given the deadlines we have to certify an election, it’s not possible to hand count—and I’m talking about one race. When you think about the general election ballot, we have over 30 contests on that ballot, with over a hundred different ballot styles that we would potentially have to hand count. I know that no one likes to hear this, but machines are more accurate than human beings are.

Q: Given the challenges—I don’t have to recount what happened in 2020—are you having any difficulty getting staff and volunteers for the 2024 election? Are you recruiting now? What’s the status?

A: We’re always recruiting election workers. The most difficulty we’ll have will be during the primary when almost half of our population in Collier Country goes north somewhere. So we always struggle to find workers in August. We typically don’t in March and November. We won’t use as many workers in March as we will in November but I think it’s a struggle in every county across the nation, really, to find election workers.

Q: Is there anything that you’re doing that’s new and different that’s unique to Collier County?

A: Right now, no.

Q: Are there any changes from past presidential elections that you’ll be implementing this year for the presidential election in ’24?

A: Voting-wise, for early voting we implemented two additional early voting locations in 2022. We didn’t do that in 2022 because we needed them for the 2022 general election but because we knew we were going to need them for the 2024 general election.

So, we’ve got 11 early voting locations instead of 9 now. Then, in the next couple of months, staff, we’re all working together for re-evaluating our precincts. Because we know that we’re going to have to change some boundaries. Growth is huge in [county] District 1 and in District 5. Some areas in District 3, now that the Board and the School Board agreed on pushing the District 3 boundaries out into the Golden Gate estates, we’re going to have to break some of those [precincts] up.

But we do that every odd-numbered year. We look at them and think: “Alright, if we’ve got 8,000 registered voters in one precinct and—Heaven forbid! —they all actually showed up on Election Day, this specific church isn’t going to be able to handle all of these people. So how can we break it up, what other locations can we use?” We lost two locations in 2022 because of the hurricane, that had water damage, so we should be able to move back into those locations for 2024.

But then, we have another couple of locations that have reached out and said, “Hey, we don’t want you to come back.” So we’ve got to find some new space. That happens every year with new leadership in different facilities.

So we always see some changes there. Some people really like to have elections on Election Day in their locations, some don’t. That’s OK, I understand. I mean, it’s not like we pay a thousand dollars to staff some place for a day. It’s $200. So, it’s not like these places are getting rich by letting us use their building for an entire day.

Q: You set the precincts, correct?

A: Yes. We identify the actual polling locations, we draw the precinct boundaries, but then, if a precinct boundary changes, we have to submit it to the Board of County Commissioners through an executive summary. It’s typically something that goes on consent agenda and really, what we’ll do for this one is some clean-up. But it all has to be finalized by them.

Q: Do you think you have things well in hand at this point?

A: Yes. There’s nothing—really, I just moved offices. I moved myself down the hall. I moved my lunch table down two doors. I’ve been in the office for a million years and, trust me, Jennifer and I talk every day. So, between text and e-mail and phone calls, I don’t think we’ve missed a beat there.

Nothing else has really changed. We’re going to go through a little bit of reorganization staff-wise in the office because, obviously, I moved out of my position, I moved someone else into my old position, so I’ve got to fill his old position so we’re going to kind of shake it up a little bit. And we need to do cross training with staff in the office so we’re going to work on that over the next six months going into 2024.

But the election side of it? The election side, we’ve got under control.

Now, is it going to be different not having a Supervisor of Elections actually not on the Canvassing Board for a primary? Yes, that’s going to be different. As long as I’ve been here, Jennifer never had opposition. So, it’s just something new and at the end of it we’re going to be able to check off the list and say, “Done that,” and hopefully we won’t have to do it again. It’s something that we’ll work through.

I think people aren’t going to see a change in what we’ve been doing. We conduct excellent elections and there should be no change to that.

Q: Subjectively, how does it feel to step into the shoes of someone who held the position 22 years before you?

A: It’s a little nerve-wracking. She said that as she was leaving. She said, “Just remember, it’s going to feel different because your name is on the door now,” and it definitely does. It makes you put on a different hat, you think about things differently from a staff perspective, to: “OK, my name is on the door now.”

So it’s a little nerve-wracking, a little more intimidating but I’ve been here long enough that I’ve seen 17-and-a-half years of changes. We’ve gone through multiple types of voting equipment, software changes, and all that since I’ve been with the office. That part of it I can handle pretty well. It’s the other stuff; you definitely think a little differently when your name’s all over the place.

Q: Tell me about your opposition.

A: There’s already someone who has filed to run for Supervisor of Elections. His name is Tim Guerrette. He filed back in March. He filed even before Jennifer announced that she was going to retire.

So, I have not filed yet. I do plan on filing soon. But I have not yet. At this point there is no rush for me to file.

Q: How are you going to handle gearing up a campaign, with all your duties in the office?

A: Yes, it would be nice if I didn’t have to have a full-time job during that, but I do. I did so much stuff before and after work; speaking to different groups and going to different functions so I don’t think a lot of that will change for me. It’s just going to be different when I’m wearing an office hat and when I’m wearing a campaign hat.

Q: Is there a point where you actually start a formal campaign or are you restricted from doing that?

A: You can start whenever you want. And quite honestly, I plan on filing next week. Because, why not? Because I can.

Q: Oh, because I was planning on posting this on Monday morning.

A: That day, Monday morning, July 3rd. The first Monday of the month, so I figured we would do it then, just to get organized over the summer.

Q: Are you anticipating a tough fight?

A: Yes.

Q: I assume you’re running as a Republican?

A: Yes, I am. And he is also a registered Republican. There’s going to be a primary and we’ll see if anyone else jumps into the race and whether there’ll be a general or not.

Q: The only primary is the August one, correct?

A: If there are two Republicans and no one jumps in the race it would be a universal primary, which means that all registered voters in August will be able to vote in this contest. Then it would be said and done in August.

If somebody else jumps into the race, which obviously there’s plenty of time for that, the filing deadline isn’t until June of next year, there could be 15 people in this race by June. Who knows? The more the merrier.

Q: I’m glad you look at it that way! That’ll make for a very interesting contest here in Collier County. Do you have any sense how much this is being replicated around the state and even the nation in terms of contested supervisors of elections?

A: A lot. Several other offices across the state already have that existing supervisor of elections has opposition.

And, we’ll see what happens when we come up to qualifying, how many more are going to retire. A lot have already announced that they have no intention of running again. I think it was just this week, in Politico, that Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections, initially she was planning on running and now she’s saying, no, she’s not going to run. I know the Orange County Supervisor of Elections has said he’s not planning on running. There’s a handful more, so you’ll see a big shift across the state.

Q: On a personal note, what got you interested in elections? What drove your interest in this?

A: My parents own Kelly’s Fish House, right across from Tin City. So I was there, and my son was 3 months old, it is his 24th birthday today, by the way. So my son’s 3 months old, my husband’s in trim carpentry, construction-type stuff. So he was working days, I was working part time at an oil company, Kunz Oil Company, doing accounting work for them and then I picked up a few evening shifts at my parents’ restaurant.

So I met this very nice couple, and became friends with them and he at that time was the chief deputy in the Supervisor of Elections office. And so a position became available, I had been friends with them for several years, for about seven years, and Jennifer’s executive assistant position opened up and he said, “I think you should apply for it.”

I said, “OK, now, my son’s old enough now, he’s in school now, so I don’t have to work nights any more,” I was pretty much working two jobs and I thought, “You know, I could work for the county. A government job? Everyone talks about the great health insurance. Why not?”

So I applied and interviewed with Jennifer and she gave me the job [in 2006] and 17-and-a-half years later, here I am. I never thought in a million years that in 17-and-a-half years I would be sitting where I am. That was definitely never my intention back then.

Melissa Blazier files the paperwork for her candidacy with David Carpenter, the county’s qualifying officer. (Photo: Supervisor’s Office)

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

The Donalds Dossier: Byron for Trump VP? And if so—why?

*Byron Donalds and Donald Trump in a 2020 Donalds campaign video. (Image: Campaign)*

June 27, 2023 by David Silverberg

For the past month at least, there have been rumors that Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) is seeking—or is being considered—as former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate.

Vice presidential speculation is always a feature of presidential campaigns. It’s fun. Anyone can participate. But it usually occurs much later in a campaign, mostly around the time of a party’s national convention.

But just as hurricanes and tornadoes are occurring out of their usual seasons, so the vice presidential agitation is starting earlier this year too.

Donalds’ possibility as a candidate was heightened, if not confirmed, by a fundraising appeal he sent out on Saturday, June 24.

It was headlined: “Who should be our nominee for Vice President?”

“Friend,” it began, as do all his appeals. “There’s been a lot of talk about who should be the Republican nominee for President.”

It then proclaimed in red colors: “I’ve made my opinion clear: Donald J. Trump is the ONLY candidate who can save our country, which is why I’ve endorsed him for President of the United States.”

It continued: “However, I haven’t heard nearly as much discussion about who the Republican nominee for Vice President should be. It’s critical that the nominee is another America First warrior who will stand up to the radical Left no matter what kind of witch hunts the radical Left and the Deep State throw at the ticket.”

Who might that be?

It then invited the reader to nominate a vice presidential candidate with a link to another page. On that page the reader can participate in a vice presidential poll and write in his or her nominee—and fill out a form with one’s name and e-mail address. The poll is conducted by WinRed, a professional Republican fundraising company based in Arlington, Va.

No doubt respondents will be constantly dunned for donations until they’re in their graves and possibly beyond.

While the poll may provide some kind of rough measure of popularity and may have gone out under the names of other Republican candidates, it was especially interesting coming from Donalds.

Might Southwest Florida’s own Donalds be actively auditioning for Trump’s vice president?

And, for God’s sake, why would anyone want that job?

The 12th Amendment complication

A Donalds vice presidential candidacy could be rendered moot at the outset. There is a widespread perception that the 12th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the President and Vice President from being from the same state.

Adopted in 1804, the Amendment sets out the procedure for electing the President and Vice President.

The opening lines of the Amendment are: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves…”

This has generally been interpreted to mean that when Electors take the separate votes for President and Vice President, the elector should not be from the same state as both of the candidates.

Put another way, a Floridian Elector could not vote for both a President and Vice President from Florida.

However, the consensus of opinion is that the Amendment does not prohibit a President and Vice President from the same state.

“This is one of those rules that many people get wrong,” wrote Kevin Wagner a constitutional scholar, and political science professor at Florida Atlantic University, in the Palm Beach Post in 2021. “There actually is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents candidates for President and Vice President who live in the same state from running together. As a practical matter, it might be a bad idea, since presidential tickets are often put together to create geographic diversity. But, having two from the same state is permissible.”

The 12th Amendment question has come up before. In 2000, both George W. Bush and his preferred vice presidential candidate, Dick Cheney, were residents of Texas. The constitutional problem was skirted when Cheney took out a Wyoming driver’s license and changed his residency to that state, which he had represented in Congress, four days before Bush named him.

In 2020 there was speculation that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might pick former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate. However, this never materialized.

Most relevant to Florida was a 2015 fact-check of MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell by Snopes writer Jon Greenberg. At the time, there was speculation that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush might select Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate. O’Donnell flatly stated that they could not be from the same state.

Greenberg delved into the question and rated the statement as false. But he raised other possibilities, including that state electors might cast one vote, just for the president or just for the vice president. That would make a difference only in an extremely tight race.

But then, John Harrison, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, offered a hypothetical option directly relevant to Florida.

If both the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates were from Florida, “‘The Florida Republican Party might seek an amendment to Florida law so that non-Floridians could serve as electors, and nominate a slate of, say, Georgians, who could come down for the day in December when the electors give their vote,’ Harrison suggested.

“Harrison added that the Constitution is silent about whether electors must come from the state that appoints them. Harrison acknowledges that this question could be argued (in court) either way.”

Given Florida lawmakers’ propensity for constitutional work-arounds, like legislating a loophole for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to run for president despite the state’s resign-to-run law, this is a highly plausible solution for a Trump-Donalds ticket.

What is certain is that having two candidates from the same state introduces a complicating factor that would dog a campaign and bring the legitimacy of any victory into question. One can only imagine the uproar if Trump won a second term with Donalds as his vice president.

But the 12th Amendment has another impact relevant to Trump and Donalds.

The Electors, it states, “shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

It was this act, the opening, counting and certification of the electoral votes by the President of the Senate—i.e., the Vice President of the United States—before the assembled members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, that Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to violate and which Pence resolutely refused to do on Jan. 6, 2021. When that didn’t work, Trump incited insurrectionary mob violence to disrupt and stop the certification. It was also this constitutional certification that Donalds attempted to stop by voting against it at the direction of Trump.

So if Donald Trump were elected President and Byron Donalds was Vice President, two men who tried to violate the Constitution and overthrow the 2020 election would be the nation’s two highest officials counting and certifying an electoral vote.

This raises another question based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

There have already been arguments whether sitting members of Congress who supported the Jan. 6 insurrection or attempted to overthrow the 2020 election are eligible for office. The question is so troublesome it has been glossed over.

But a Trump-Donalds ticket would raise it anew and give it new prominence—and urgency.

Idol and idolator

Donalds has been a Trumper since 2015. When he addressed a crowd at Trump rally at the Collier County Fairgrounds on Oct. 23, 2016, he said: “The time has come to get away from the same politicians with the same old promises and the same phrases and the same suits and the same cool hair. The time has come to make Donald Trump the next president of the United States!”

Since then he has remained consistent in his support, praise and adulation of Donald Trump, no matter what the circumstances, the issues, the scandals, the insurrection, the indictments or the arraignment.

Indeed, following his unsuccessful bids for Republican House Conference chair and Speaker of the House, Donalds has become more active and insistent on Twitter and in media of all sorts. He has spewed forth a gusher of Trumpist propaganda and talking points so rabid that they practically foam off the page. He was the first local politician to endorse Trump over DeSantis before the latter officially declared his candidacy.

In addition to fundraising and currying support with the MAGA base in his district, Donalds’ loud protestations of Trumpist loyalty seem intended to cement his relationship with Trump and deflect any charges of RINOism (Republican in Name Only), which were swirling about him in some Republican circles.

For all this, Trump has never seemed to particularly acknowledge Donalds or make him a priority. He didn’t endorse Donalds when he really needed it in his 2020 primary run; despite a general endorsement after the primary, he didn’t mention Donalds at all when he campaigned in Fort Myers during the general election campaign in October 2020, when Donalds was diagnosed with COVID and couldn’t be on stage. In December 2021 he did endorse Donalds for re-election but he didn’t endorse Donalds during his conference leadership run or his speakership bid. Often it seems that Trump looks through Donalds rather than at him.

Given the cascade of indictments, lawsuits and accusations against Trump, at the moment there is not exactly a stampede of people seeking to be his vice presidential nominee, which makes Donalds’ focus on the position even more interesting.

Another factor probably dampening enthusiasm for the Trump vice presidential slot may simply be Trump’s proven practice of turning on everyone around him. First and foremost is his turning on DeSantis, who went from “a brilliant young leader” to “Ron DeSanctimonious” and “Meatball Ron.” He lambasted his former attorney general, Jeff Sessions, as “mentally retarded,” Bill Barr became a “gutless pig,” his chief of staff, John Kelly had “a VERY small ‘brain,’” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was “overrated”—and so on and so on.

Most of all, there’s the example of Trump’s treatment of Vice President Mike Pence. After four years of faithful, loyal, totally subservient, self-effacing service, Trump turned on him when Pence refused Trump’s command to violate his oath and the Constitution. In an otherwise humiliating and degrading tenure, it was Pence’s only show of resolve and independence. His reward was to have his boss incite a howling mob to try to hang him.

Trump hasn’t changed. Indeed, if anything he’s gotten worse, as witness his ire on May 30 at Kayleigh McEnany, who went from his faithful mouthpiece to “Milktoast” [sic] and RINO.

So Donald Trump’s new vice presidential pick, whoever he or she may be, can only expect public abuse, insult and humiliation in exchange for his or her expected role of total abasement and unreflecting defense of all of Trump’s lies, delusions and insanities.

What is more, after his experience with Pence, when he selects his running mate, Trump will likely not just be looking for a political loyalist or someone from another geographic area to balance the ticket. He’ll be looking for a slave—and “slave” is the right word for it—someone unthinkingly obedient and utterly without independent will.

In Trump’s likely calculation, the major thing Donalds would bring to the ticket in addition to slavish loyalty would be his race. Because he is African American, Donalds would help deflect charges of racism, a role he has consciously been playing on behalf of Trump and the MAGA movement since 2015.

If Donalds is regarded by the world as a “prop” for the MAGA movement now, it is nothing compared to the tsunami of disgust and denunciation he would face as Trump’s running mate. It would also be supremely ironic in light of all Donalds’ efforts to date to get people to look past his race and focus on his policies and prescriptions.

This scrutiny would be especially acute in light of the fact that as Trump’s vice president Donalds would be a heartbeat away from an obese president who would be 78 years (and 7 months and 6 days) old on the day he takes the oath of office in January 2025. Nothing focuses global attention on every pore of an individual like the possibility of succeeding to the US presidency and commanding the nation’s nukes.

The prospect of Trump standing again on the inaugural stage and taking the oath should prompt every American to contemplate what a second Trump presidency would mean—as well as the vice president’s role in it.

Contemplating catastrophe

Right now, with his multiple criminal indictments, many more in the offing, and his sea of troubles of all sorts, Trump winning the presidency seems distant and unlikely. However, he’s leading in the Republican primary polls, he has an iron grip on the Party and he is likely to be the Republican nominee in 2024. Further, as commentators are pointing out, even if he’s convicted and in jail, he can still run for President.

So a second Trump presidency, if unlikely, is still a possibility.

Even in the calmest, most rational, most objective light, a second Trump presidency would be a catastrophe that the United States might not survive.

A second Trump presidency would represent the triumph of evil. It would mean the imposition of a Trump tyranny. It would undoubtedly be the end of American democracy. It would elevate the absolutely worst people to positions of power in feudalisic service to their overlord. It would likely lead to the abrogation and elimination of the Constitution. It would be the end of the United States as a leading power in the world. It would mean the end of personal freedom of thought, action and speech. It would inaugurate a lawless, amoral regime of vengeance and viciousness.

Listing the implications and consequences could go on and on.

And Trump’s second in command would be party to it all. The position of Vice President might best be renamed First Accomplice. The First Accomplice will share all the guilt, all the blame and all the criminality that Trump unleashes.

If indeed Donalds wants the dubious distinction of joining Trump on the presidential ticket, this is what he would be signing up for. He would get the position and prominence he craves—and right between the eyes. He already endorses Trump’s criminality, now he would embrace and become one with it. African American politicians and journalists already scorn him; as a vice presidential candidate he would earn their vituperative hatred. If he had any illusions that he could moderate or mitigate the worst of Trump and Trumpism he would join all the other would-be saviors who have been demoted, disgraced and discarded.

And if, somewhere, somehow, he summoned the moral strength to oppose a Trump outrage he could face the same kind of mob Mike Pence faced—a lynch mob.

Even without the vice presidency, Donalds has endorsed the full Trumpist MAGA program. He has embraced it, he is actively promoting it and he is attempting to implement it in Congress with all its implications and consequences.

Byron Donalds wants to rise. It is conceivable that Trump will tap him as vice president.

Vice President John Nance Garner, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vice president, once famously said that the vice presidency is “not worth a warm bucket of spit” (or a word to that effect).

That would go double under Donald Trump. But if that’s the bucket Donalds wants to dive into, that’s certainly his prerogative as an adult.

He just shouldn’t expect anyone to try to pull him out when he starts to drown.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

Polling and surveying could put FGCU on the national map—and benefit Southwest Florida

Public opinion research has impact on the region

*Volunteers canvas a Naples, Fla., neighborhood during a 2018 campaign. (Photo: Author’s collection.)*

June 20, 2023 by David Silverberg

Southwest Floridians could be forgiven if they don’t pay attention to polls. After all, there’s an avalanche of polling going on right now.

Every day political news junkies can see a spectrum of headlines: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) or former President Donald Trump up or down in polls measuring sentiment in different states; good news or bad news for presidential candidates in increasingly exotic and narrow slices of Republican potential primary voters; approval and disapproval ratings for President Joe Biden and Democrats versus Republicans, are just a few.

Most times, national pollsters don’t bother with Southwest Florida. It’s too obscure and unpopulated to make a decisive difference in any election or have an impact as a market (as compared, say, to Miami).

But popular sentiment in Southwest Florida is important and deserves to be measured regularly, scientifically, apolitically and objectively. Right now there are no reliable, public sources of information about Southwest Florida public opinion. What is more, regional public sentiment will become more important as the area’s population grows.

Southwest Florida should have a better finger on the pulse of the region’s people. Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) could provide an academic, non-political center for such polling and surveying that would be an asset to the region and potentially to the nation. What is more, it could provide a source of income to the school, boost its national reputation and train students for future jobs.

Two examples explain why public opinion research is important in Southwest Florida and the impact it can have.

On the Table and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida

(Terminology note: This article distinguishes between “polls” and “surveys.” A “poll” or “polling” examines choices, whether between candidates or anything else, for example, between different products. A “survey” or “surveying” gathers information to determine attitudes and opinions. Both use representative samples to extrapolate conclusions and probabilities about larger populations.)

Two surveys conducted in Southwest Florida have provided significant insights into the region’s public thinking.

On the Table

One survey was just released yesterday, June 19, by the group On the Table for Southwest Florida. It sought opinions on the area’s most urgent social challenges.

Started in 2014 by the Chicago Community Trust, On the Table is a non-profit organization that attempts to bring communities together to discuss issues of common interest and concern. It claims to have involved over half a million residents in over 25 communities across the country.

In Southwest Florida’s case, the Charlotte Community Foundation, the Collier Community Foundation and the Collaboratory, a community problem-solving network based in Fort Myers, collaborated to hold a community forum on March 30. The forum consisted of networked but physically remote conversations by participants across the region, including people in Glades and Hendry counties. According to On the Table, over 4,000 people participated.

Of those participants, 811 completed a survey on the area’s social problems. FGCU participated in processing the results.

By 70 percent across all counties, the participants ranked the need for affordable housing and the problem of homelessness as the area’s most urgent need.

That was followed by mental health and substance abuse issues at 61 percent, healthcare access and cost at 52 percent, employment and economic development at 49 percent and kindergarten through high school education also at 49 percent. Other issues mentioned included hunger and food insecurity, transportation and traffic, crime and violence, social justice and equality, environmental issues, services for the disabled and senior citizen issues.

*Regional social issues listed by On the Table participants, grouped by county and priority.*

These results are not statistically authoritative; there are many arguments that could be made about the sample and the methodology and On the Table acknowledged this. “Respondents constitute a non-random sample, as such conclusions cannot be scientifically generalized beyond the collected survey,” it stated in its final report.

However, it added: “Yet, even with that caveat, data provided powerful insights into the most important social issues facing the region.”

That is absolutely true. The On the Table survey was significant in providing insight into people’s concerns about the challenges to the region. In the absence of any authoritative, dedicated think-tank comprehensively analyzing the region’s needs, this was a good start. The results can be used by lawmakers and government officials in shaping solutions and proposals and setting priorities.

It was a significant surveying initiative in a region that has too little such insight as it moves forward.

The Conservancy of Southwest Florida

On Feb. 20, 2019, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, an environmental advocacy organization, released The Southwest Florida Climate Metrics Survey.

It was a survey of 800 adults over 18 years of age that had been done the previous October. It covered 401 respondents in the Fort Myers area, with proportions in Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry and Lee counties.

This survey was significant in revealing that Southwest Floridians understood and believed that climate change was real and was happening—in contrast to their public officials and politicians who until then denied it as an article of faith.

According to the respondents in that survey:

76 percent noticed more severe weather and changing seasonal weather patterns over previous years;
75 percent believed climate change was happening;
71 percent were concerned about climate change;
59 percent believed the effects of climate change were already happening.

The survey found that public attitudes changed after 2017’s Hurricane Irma, which Rob Moher, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, characterized as “a wake-up call for Southwest Florida.”

It also revealed that residents supported government action to deal with climate change, with 93 percent calling for more government protection of mangroves and wetlands and 67 percent saying the government needed to protect everyone from the impacts of extreme weather.

It cannot be overstated just what a revelation these results were at the time. They helped change attitudes throughout the region. On Sept. 11 of that year, then-Rep. Francis Rooney, the Republican representing the 19th Congressional District, published an article in Politico magazine: “I’m a conservative Republican. Climate change is real. It’s time to stop denying a crisis that our constituents are already seeing every day.”

The Conservancy survey was a solid example of how the revelation of citizen attitudes can inform official actions and positions.

It would be very interesting to see the results of a follow-up survey on attitudes in the wake of Hurricane Ian.

A modest proposal: A public opinion research center at FGCU

Given the importance of public attitudes on regional issues, public surveys shouldn’t be as infrequent and sporadic as they are in Southwest Florida.

The region has an institution in FGCU that could serve as an impartial, politically neutral center for public polling.

In this, it can look to the example of Monmouth University in Long Branch, NJ. A liberal arts institution founded in 1933, in 2005 it created its own Polling Institute and recruited Patrick Murray, a professional New Jersey pollster, as its founding director.

“At small schools, the idea is to use the poll as a loss leader for visibility for the institution,” Cliff Zukin, a Rutgers University professor who taught Murray, said in a 2018 New Jersey Monthly magazine interview. The idea, according to Zukin, is to hire good pollsters, then watch them and their numbers flash across screens, emblazoned with the institution’s name. Quinnipiac, Siena, Marist, Fairleigh Dickinson—all are schools that followed this playbook.

Today, Monmouth University is not only highly respected for its polling, which is considered some of the best in the country, it monitors public opinion, works with faculty and students on public opinion research and provides input into government decisionmaking. What’s more, it trains students for jobs in public survey research.

There is no reason that FGCU could not also follow this playbook. Not only would it raise the school’s profile, it would provide regular insight into Southwest Florida public opinion. With time and as its reputation grows, it could expand its reach throughout Florida and the Southeastern United States and then nationally. It could take on commercial, non-political polling and surveying, creating a revenue stream for the University. It could partner with other established academic polling centers like Monmouth University. And it would do this while training students for jobs in public opinion research, which is a field in much demand.

Whether FGCU decides to go this route or not, there is a real need for insight into public opinion in Southwest Florida. The two major surveys done to date have shown how this kind of research can have a real impact. For a growing region, knowing how people are thinking and feeling would provide a useful tool and be an asset both for FGCU and for all of Southwest Florida.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!