Jackley Is Ready To Defend Amendment K

Attorney General Marty Jackley has now confirmed that his office has received a letter and press release from the National Labor Relations Board which states that they believe our recent constitutional amendment (which passed with over 79% support) is in violation of Federal labor law. This type of battle was anticipated with some groups threatening lawsuits before the election.

Jackley says he is ready for the fight and will “vigorously defend” our State’s Constitution.

Amendment K on the November ballot and guarantees the right to a secret ballot.  How can anyone be against that?
The Constitutional Amendment at issue states in total:

Article XI, § 28. Right to vote by secret ballot. The rights of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. If any state or federal law requires or permits an election for public office, for any initiative or referendum, or for any designation or authorization of employee representation, the right of any individual to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed

20 Replies to “Jackley Is Ready To Defend Amendment K”

  1. DDC

    Bring it on. I don’t see anything in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over state election or labor laws.

      1. DDC

        What about it? I don’t see the power to impose labor restrictions listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Do you?

  2. William

    I don’t think this is really a fight the Obama administration wants to have, in the court of public opinion, the Employee Free Choice Act is a big loser. If the NRLB really takes this to the courts, it will ensure that this will be a hot topic during the 2012 elections.

    The supremacy clause in the US constitution is clearly limited to the Federal government being supreme only in powers specified by the US constitution. Otherwise the feds could make any new law that ruled over every power and every event currently allowed to the states and the individual citizens. Union rules are clearly not outlined as an inherent area of control of the Federal government and therefor does not fall under the supremacy clause. The key words in the clause indicating limitations to supreme federal law are the words “pursuant to the constitution.” In other words, feds only have supreme power on powers delegated or listed “pursuant” to those listed in the constitution.

  3. springer

    That there is even a discussion and threat of or actual lawsuit on this subject shows just how far our country has strayed from our fundamental freedoms. The fact that the federal gov’t is even contemplating suing a state or a person or anything over a fundamental right such as this is very scary for our future and illustrates how power hungry the fed gov’t has become.

  4. Anon

    Not only is it scary that the feds intend to sue, but it’s also sad that the philosophy of the Obama Administration led to the need for this law in the first place.

    This is just one more example of the horrifying path this country is going down under Obama. 2013 can’t come fast enough for me.

  5. Bill Fleming

    Old guy, because this is a case of state law trying to trump federal, especially as it pertains to the way worker can choose to organize themselves for purposes of collective bargaining rights.

  6. Duh

    Huh uh. Bill put out reams of paper predicting that SHS would win, that the GOP would have modest gains and that Doogie Hauser wasn’t gay. Wrong on all counts.

  7. Duh

    Old Guy: The feds will lose on several grounds, one being because their union proposal violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that regulates economic activity between the states.