Judiciary

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Clair McFarland, Cowboy State Daily
Clair@CowboyStateDaily.com

A Wyoming woman who slipped on an icy sidewalk at the Family Dollar in Wheatland three years ago is now suing the store chain for more than half a million dollars.   

Cherie Wilson in a federal court complaint filed Monday said that when she fell on the sidewalk in front of the store in December 2019, she incurred “personal injuries of physical and mental pain and anguish; permanent disability/disfigurement; lost income; loss of enjoyment of life,” and medical expenses that will extend into the future.    

Wilson alleged that the fall was due to downspouts on the building dumping drainage water “directly” onto the sidewalk.   

The Family Dollar store also had ignored “many warnings and prior injuries” caused by the ice, Wilson claimed in the suit.   

“They failed to maintain the building in a safe manner, failed that day to recognize the dangerous man-made condition and remedy the situation, and failed to warn the public,” the suit reads.   

Family Dollar Denies Allegations  

Family Dollar in its response to Wilson’s complaint asked the court to dismiss her claims altogether, saying Wilson failed to bolster her argument with sufficient facts. The business chain further alleged that the incident was Wilson’s own fault, others’ fault, or otherwise beyond Family Dollar’s control.   

“(Wilson’s) alleged injuries were proximately caused by… events beyond the control of (Family Dollar),” reads the counterclaim.   

Wilson had sued Family Dollar in May, in Platte County District Court, but because she asked for more than $75,000 in damages, the negligence case was transferred to federal court, the U.S. District Court for Wyoming.   

The whole suit was filed Friday in the federal court and is still pending.   

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Leo Wolfson, political reporter

Judge Joseph Bluemel dismissed a lawsuit against the Uinta County Republican Party and its leadership last Thursday, deciding the county party’s rules allow its leadership to decide who can vote for future county party leaders.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jon Conrad, a committee member who ran for the county chairman’s position.

“The recent decision by the Court has fully vindicated the Party and has proven the claims of Conrad and his co-complainants were without merit,” Uinta County GOP Chairman Elisabeth “Biffy” Jackson said in a post on the party’s Facebook page Monday night.  

In March 2021, previously-elected officers Jackson, Karl Allred, Lyle and Jana Lee Williams were allowed to vote in the county party’s leadership election, despite each losing their respective precinct committee elections in August 2020.

The 2021 leadership elections resulted in Jackson, the Williams’ daughter, becoming county chairman, Allred  state committeeman, and Jana Williams elected to state committeewoman. 

The lawsuit asked the court to declare the 2021 elections null and void, to order new elections to select officers and to rule that Jana Williams, Jackson and Allred take no action in the positions “they now improperly purport to hold.”

The plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued that the Uinta County Republican Party is governed exclusively by the state election code.

“Allowing the Uinta County Republican Party to disregard state statute by granting voting privileges to whomever they so desire, need, or wish to vote, in an obvious, blatant and brazen effort to maintain power among a dynastic group of exclusive individuals, is a violation of the (state) election code, which precludes those who are not qualified to vote in order to properly preserve election integrity and to prevent election fraud and corruption,” said initial filing written by the plaintiffs.  

State Sen. Wendy Schuler, R-Evanston, Rep. Danny Eyre, R-Lyman, former Rep. Ron Micheli and county central committee members Clarence Vranish, Clara Jean Vranish and Troy Nolan joined Conrad in the lawsuit.

Under state law, precinct committeemen and women are elected in public primary elections but party leadership is elected through internal party elections. The precinct committeeman and committeewoman, along with the county party chair represent the county at meetings of the state party central committee and committee meetings during the state convention.

Although state and county Republican party bylaws specify elected county party officers can vote in elections along with precinct committeemen and women, state law says that voting can only be done by the county central committee, which consists, but the defendants argued is not limited to, the elected precinct committee members.  

The Uinta county party’s bylaws specifically allow elected officers who are not county committee members to vote at State Central Committee meetings. The state party also allows this.

In his decision, Bluemel said state law was purposely written in an unambiguous manner to avoid overregulating political associations. 

“The Uinta County Republican Party and its members decide “the stringency, and wisdom, of membership requirements … so long as those requirements are otherwise constitutionally permissible,””  Bluemel said, quoting a decision from a 1998 D.C. Circuit of Appeals case. 

The defendants said the court cannot interfere with the party and its members’ First Amendment right to free speech.

State law says during county party’s elections for officers, the county’s “central committee shall elect the chairman of the county central committee, one state committeeman and one state committeewoman and other offices as provided by the party bylaws.”

The defendants argued that in this law, the phrase “as provided by the party bylaws” indicates elections are to be conducted according to bylaws that allow for elected officers to vote, whether precinct committee members or not. They further argued that since state law identifies the county central committee of each political party as consisting of precinct committeemen and committeewomen elected in the county at the regular biennial primary election with no mention of the word “only,” it was not intended for a central committee to only consist of elected precinct committee members.  

The plaintiffs disagreed and said “as provided by the party bylaws” refers solely to “other offices” apart from the county officers. 

“When the taxpayers of the state of Wyoming fund an election and members of the Republican Party of Wyoming vote in that election for positions which represent them in the county and state level, the state must have a legitimate interest in the regulation of the same,” the plaintiffs argued.

Bluemel said the court cannot add words to laws to create meaning and said the issue is limited for the county party to decide.

“If the legislature had intended the phrase ‘as provided by the party bylaws’ to act as instruction as to how the county central committee should carry out the election, syntax would have directed the legislature to position the phrase within the sentence to construct that meaning,” Bluemel wrote. “The court must assume that the arrangement of the words within the statute is an ‘intentional act by the legislature’ and the court will not read into the statute words that the legislature chose not to include.”

Bluemel denied the defendant’s request compelling the plaintiffs to disclose their funding sources for the litigation. 

“While the Court has now resolved the matter in the Party’s favor, the case has uncovered a concerning trend of certain individuals seeking to divide the Republican Party,” Jackson said in her post.

A state-level political action committee known as Wyoming Hope was utilized to pay $5,000 of plaintiff Micheli’s legal expenses. This Teton County-based organization called Wyoming Hope, was set up by Jackson resident Wayne Hughes.

“For all perspectives involved, it was an important legal question needed to be answered: Do political parties need to follow Wyoming laws and statutes or simply internal bylaws?” Hughes told Cowboy State Daily. “The question needed to be answered so Wyoming could address it according to law.”

Hughes said Bluemel’s decision to find party bylaws more important than state law, was “kind of insane.”  

Hughes purchased Cowboy State Daily in early 2022. 

Conrad also filed a complaint with the Wyoming Secretary of State and solicited a criminal investigation against the Uinta County GOP officers. The Secretary of State determined that it lacked jurisdiction and no criminal charges were ever filed.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Clair McFarland, Cowboy State Daily
clair@cowboystatedaily.com

Language contained in U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe vs. Wade has state Democratic lawmakers worried about the future of other issues, such as gay marriage and the right to obtain contraceptives. 

In his concurring opinion on Friday’s ruling, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the rationale putting abortion access decisions in the hands of state governments could, in future cases, apply to other court precedents. He specifically mentioned landmark cases guaranteeing the right to engage in private, consensual sex acts; the right to same-sex marriage, and the right of married people to obtain contraceptives.   

“There’s this concern that many individual rights are threatened by this decision,” said Rep. Andy Schwartz, D-Jackson. “And I share those concerns.”  

Rep. Chad Banks, D-Rock Springs, echoed Schwartz.   

“Justice (Thomas) said abortion protection is not outlined specifically in the Constitution. If you take that logically to the next step, neither are LGBTQ rights,” said Banks.   

‘Between a Male and a Female  

Same-sex marriage became legal nationwide following Obergefell vs. Hodges, a 2015 Supreme Court case affirming the practice as a fundamental right. However, Wyoming legalized it earlier, in 2014, at the direction of a federal court that struck down gay-marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma as well.   

Although currently legal in Wyoming due to court precedent, state law defines marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman.   

Rep. Cathy Connolly, D-Laramie, attempted three separate times between 2011 and 2014 to change the state’s definition of marriage to a civil contract between two natural persons, and again in 2018 and 2019.   

Substantive Due Process  

Thomas did not say that gay marriage or any other rights are bound to be overturned. But his reasoning opened the possibility the Supreme Court might reconsider rights that were once considered fundamental under the Fourteenth Amendment – such as abortion and gay marriage – and decide if the framers of the Constitution intended those as inherent rights.   

Neither abortion nor gay marriage are listed as rights in the Constitution or its amendments.   

“We could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,” Thomas wrote. “To answer that question, we would need to decide… whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and if so, how to identify those rights.”  

The doctrine of substantive due process holds that certain personal rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, even if they are not specifically listed in the Constitution as protected rights.   

Thomas, however, said that for Supreme Courts of the past to claim certain rights as fundamental when they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution is a form of “judicial policymaking,” which in casual political parlance often is called “legislating from the bench.”   

“(The Court) invoked an ethereal ‘right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning,” wrote Thomas.   

He expressed sharp disagreement with the doctrine, especially relating to abortion, calling it a stretch from the Constitution’s intent:  

“That 50 years have passed since Roe, and abortion advocates still cannot coherently articulate the right (or rights) at stake proves the obvious: The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification,” he wrote.   

‘The Whole Idea – Just Gone’  

It’s absolutely likely that someone now will bring a court case challenging the various rights placed in limbo, according to Lander-based attorney Jon Gerard.   

“Someone will,” said Gerard after reading the concurrence. “(Thomas) is opening the door… just to get rid of substantive due process entirely. The whole idea – just gone.”   

Gerard quipped that some law school textbooks are in for a complete makeover.    

Different rights have different levels of protection, and for rights attributed to the Constitution and its amendments – as abortion formerly was – the highest level of protection from governmental infringement applies.  

That standard is called strict scrutiny.   

“It’s so important to have strict scrutiny for things like privacy and bodily autonomy, things like this,” said Gerard.   

Similar to Julie Burkart, who is working to open an abortion clinic in Casper, Gerard theorized that the Wyoming Constitution may have more specific language that could be mobilized to preserve abortion access and the other rights formerly protected under substantive due process.   

Codifying abortion as a federal right in a U.S. Constitution amendment, however, “just never will pass,” said Gerard. The nation is so evenly polarized in general, the two-thirds ratification for adding amendments is hard to reach on partisan issues, he added.   

Probably Not Wyoming  

Gerard also said he doubted that the Wyoming Legislature would specifically enact constitutionally uncertain laws, like a ban on gay marriage, in order to make the current Supreme Court change its earlier and less fundamental precedents.   

But other states might.   

“I’m sure other states will start challenging that,” he said. “They could very easily enact a law in any state saying gay marriage is now illegal in our state, or contraceptives are now illegal or whatever. There are a ton of (constitutionally) unenumerated rights.”   

Procreation  

Schwartz said the right to obtain contraceptives, specifically, should be safeguarded following the court’s decision, since overturning Roe vs. Wade means some women may have difficulties obtaining abortion.   

Wyoming is slated to outlaw abortion in less than a month, but Colorado is expected to still offer the procedure.   

Schwartz clarified that he did not know if Wyoming lawmakers would push to outlaw contraceptive use or any other rights that may be relegated to the states in the event of a court challenge.   

A handful of Republican legislators on Wednesday told Cowboy State Daily they absolutely would not outlaw contraceptives; but they were split on the gay marriage issue.  

Caucus  

The Wyoming Democratic Caucus, that is, every Democratic delegate to the state’s Legislature, on Friday dispatched a general statement condemning the overturning Roe vs. Wade.   

But in an apparent reference to Thomas’ constitutional reasoning, the group also bemoaned what it saw as a deterrent to LGBTQ youth looking to settle in Wyoming. 

“(This) signals to… women and LGBTQ youth that you are not welcome here,” said the statement.   

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Leo Wolfson, Cowboy State Daily

The leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft decision on abortion will probably have little benefit and may even backfire on those responsible, according to several Wyoming attorneys.

The draft decision leaked last week to Politico seemed to show that a majority of Supreme Court justices support the reversal of the landmark abortion ruling “Roe v. Wade,” which recognized abortion as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Former Wyoming Supreme Court Justice Bill Hill, who spent 20 years on the court, said the early release of the draft opinion may have the opposite effect of what the person who released the ruling may have intended.

“I think it could very easily backfire on the on those who wanted it released, surreptitiously,” he told Cowboy State Daily.

Lander attorney Christine Lichtenfels said she does not believe the leak benefited pro-choice advocates because they had been expecting the court to eventually overturn the 1973 ruling.

“What’s really going to matter is in June when the decision comes out,” she said.

The leak of the draft ruling, believed to be the first in the U.S. Supreme Court’s history, was harshly criticized by Hill, who spent several years as the Wyoming high court’s chief justice.

“It’s despicable, deplorable and criminal,” he said.

Hill said he sees the leak as a criminal theft of confidential U.S. government property and said the party found responsible will be in “deep trouble.” 

He said during his time on the Wyoming Supreme Court, such drafts were frequently circulated among the justices and their clerks.

“It gives each justice a chance to comment on the final order,” he said. “You’re depending on the good faith of your colleagues and the employees of your colleagues on the court to look out for the court.”

Hill said he had no recollection of any court documents being released preemptively during his 20 years as a justice.

The leak spurred protests over the weekend by demonstrators on either side of the issue, some of whom gathered at the homes of U.S. Supreme Court justices and outside of churches.

The draft opinion, which is expected to become official later this year, showed the majority of justices favor overturning Roe v. Wade. If the ruling remains unchanged prior to its final release, it will return authority over abortions to the states.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who called the leak “appalling,” has demanded an investigation into the source of the leak.

U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, an attorney who previously served in the state Legislature and as state Treasurer, also criticized the leak.

“Whoever leaked the draft opinion to the media has done the Supreme Court a great disservice,” she said. “They undermined decades of precedent and attempted to fundamentally alter the way our highest Court operates.”

Lichtenfels runs Chelsea’s Fund, an organization that provides money for women leaving the state to obtain abortions.

She said she was more concerned with the content of the draft and the tone and language used by Justice Samuel Alito on behalf of the conservative majority of the court than with its leak.

“He showed an unbelievable disdain he showed for previous Supreme Court decisions and justices,” she said.

A number of theories have been offered for the document’s leak involving both pro-choice and pro-life forces, but Hill said he has no guesses as to the leaker’s motivation.

The release of the draft hasn’t slowed the plans of Wellspring Health Access and its owner Julie Burkhart from planning to open a new abortion clinic in Casper, the state’s second, this summer.

Tim Lasseter, a member of Park County Right to Life, said his organization and Wyoming Right to Life plan to protest outside the facility on its opening day.

Wyoming is one of many states to have adopted a “trigger” law that would ban abortions within five days of an official reversal of Roe v. Wade.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By Jim Angell and Ellen Fike, Cowboy State Daily

A federal judge has ruled that the state cannot force a Second Amendment advocacy group to share the names of its donors.

Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled Monday in favor of the group Wyoming Gun Owners, finding that the Wyoming law requiring the the group to share a list of people who helped pay for a campaign ad is unconstitutional.

“This case demonstrates the delicate balance of the First Amendment right to engage in political speech verses the need to provide for an informed electorate during elections by requiring disclosure of those who are funding media and promoting certain candidates throughout election season,” Skavdahl wrote.

“However, while this is of critical importance, the state can only impose these disclosure and disclaimer requirements where it satisfies exacting scrutiny,” he wrote.

The lawsuit stems from a radio ad paid for by WyGO in 2020 comparing state Senate candidates Anthony Bouchard and Erin Johnson. The ad portrayed Bouchard as a Second Amendment champion and Johnson as a “self-described, country-club, chamber of commerce moderate.”

The Wyoming secretary of state’s office, acting on a complaint, said WyGO was required to file campaign finance reports, including a list of contributions and expenditures, because it had spent more than $500 on “political activity.”

The state cited a law which requires groups involved in such activity to list all contributions of more than $100 used for political activity.

But Skavdahl said it would be impossible for the organization to determine which contributions would be used specifically for political advertising and which would be used to pay for other activities, such as the group’s newsletters.

“WyGO does not only fund electioneering communications or focus on election issues, but rather offers several media formats to keep subscribers informed on Second Amendment rights,” the ruling said.

Skavdahl also said the statute is also unconstitutional because it calls for the reporting of expenditures which “relate to” campaign communications, a term he said was unconstitutionally vague.

As a result, the law is unconstitutional as it was applied to WyGO, Skavdahl wrote.

Bouchard said he tried to warn fellow legislators the language in the law was an unconstitutional obstacle to the First Amendment.

“During this year’s session, another bill to expand the same section of law was passed and signed by the Governor,” he told Cowboy State Daily. “Both times I argued against the legislation and tried to amend it. It fell on deaf ears. It makes the judge’s order ever so sweet. 

“Yes, free speech matters,” he continued. “I told you so.”

Secretary of State Ed Buchanan said his office would review the ruling and added he was glad the court had decided the issue.

“When there is disagreement about the meaning of a particular statutory provision, the appropriate place to seek clarification is with the judicial branch,” he said. “I am grateful that is what occurred in this case.

“I would like to thank the court for its well-reasoned decision,” he continued.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***