Liberal Values Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Taylor Marsh has repeatedly been posting Clinton talking points against Obama for months, and does it yet again today. The Clinton campaign held a conference call with bloggers earlier in the week to push their latest line of attack against Obama based upon his “present” votes in the Illinois legislature. Today Marsh brings up a case where Obama voted present on a measure allowing victims of sexual abuse to have court records sealed to protect their privacy. She ignores the fact that Obama has explained that he voted present because there were questions as to whether the measure was Constitutional. It must be kept in mind that, as a former professor of Constitutional law, Obama would be more likely to recognize such Constitutional issues. Such devotion to the Constitution would be a welcome change.

HB 854 — OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims’ Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown. Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state’s attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, “But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they’re found not guilty. And there’s no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn’t pass constitutional muster, although he said it’s not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve.” [91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99]

3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill. In committee, Senators Shadid and Silverstein joined Obama in voting Present on HB 854. [91st GA, HB 854, Jud Committee, 7-0-3, 4/28/99]

When Similar Measures Were Passed In Other States Following A Scandal, The Press Raised Similar Constitutional Objections. The AP reported, “News executives in both states said the legislation was unnecessary and would hinder freedom of the press. ‘It’s another case where in order to achieve some possible good, legislatures are often willing to run right over basic constitutional rights,’ said J. Randolph Murray, editor of The Anchorage Times in Alaska. ‘We are against the thing because of the blanket restrictions it would impose,’ said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. ‘Once a restriction such as this is made, where is the line drawn and where does it stop in the area of law enforcement records?'” [AP, 4/30/91]

You may agree or disagree with Obama voting present on this specific vote but it is hardly a matter of substance to question Obama’s qualifications to be president, as Marsh presents this. This is simply a repetition of a current Clinton talking point which as, The American Prospect has noted, is really a recycled Republican talking point.

Update: “We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes.” More at Political Radar.

Update II: The New York Times describes the use of voting present in the Illinois Legislature. The Chicago Tribune writes “Disparagement of Obama votes doesn’t hold up.”