Idaho AG says schools were OK to oust electioneers
The Idaho Attorney General’s office handed down an opinion Thursday stating the Coeur d’Alene School District was within its rights to remove a conservative demonstrator from the Hayden Meadows Elementary School grounds last Election Day.
Deputy Attorney General Robert Berry wrote an analysis that defended the district's decision to remove a resident from the school grounds. In a response to an inquiry from Megan O’Dowd, attorney for the school district, Berry wrote that public schools don’t fall under the same practices as other public places.
“Idaho law requires schools to provide their premises as polling locations,” Berry said. “However, public schools are not traditional public forums. Schools may control their property while it is being used as a polling place, and may exclude individuals from school property not involved in the voting process. Schools may also prohibit individuals from engaging in electioneering or other similar communications within 100 feet of school property where that school is a polling place.”
At the heart of Berry’s opinion is both the definition of what a “polling place” constitutes versus a “building.” The deputy attorney general further argues that public school grounds are not public forums open to the same electioneering standards typically found in other public spaces, as the general public does not ordinarily have free rein to roam school campuses.
An attorney for the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee plans to file a federal lawsuit today claiming that, in addition to violating electioneering laws, the district committed political discrimination by allegedly removing conservative demonstrators but choosing to allow others from different political persuasions to remain on school grounds during past elections.
Jeremy Ray Morris, attorney for the KCRCC, said he’s read Berry’s opinion and considers it just that: an opinion. He added that the opinion hypothesizes a world where private landowners living within 100 feet of a school would not have the legal right to place political signs on their lawns or in their windows.
“Once again, the state Attorneys General have it wrong,” Morris said Thursday. “Based on this terribly flawed opinion, anyone living within 100 feet of [school property] would be prohibited from even having a sign on their property, turning large swaths of our local community into criminals.”
Morris further noted that the opinion did not address the issue of viewpoint discrimination, something he said his lawsuit will include.
“This AG’s opinion does not address equal protection whatsoever,” Morris said. “It does not address viewpoint discrimination. And to the extent that it does address the state statute, adhering to that opinion would be absurd.”
Scott Maben, communications director for the school district, said school districts should be able to manage activities on school grounds.
“We are grateful to have this legal analysis from the Attorney General’s office supporting our position that the school district can exercise control over activities on school property when designated schools are being accessed by voters on election days,” Maben said. “The safety of students and staff is always our highest priority. We also want to ensure that voters who visit our schools on election day are able to easily and safely enter and exit our parking areas and buildings.”
Maben also dismissed allegations of viewpoint discrimination, saying the district maintains a consistent policy.
“Our position has never been about any one group or political party,” he said. “Anyone who engages in electioneering or political activity on school property will be asked to move off school property, and previously we have notified other groups and individuals that this is our position.”
