Box Turtle Bulletin

Astonishingly stupid lawsuits from Florida Family Action

John Stemberger

As we discussed, last night the plaintiffs and the state of Florida filed briefs in response to Washington County Clerk Lora Bell’s inquiry as to whether Judge Hinkle’s ruling re same-sex marriage applied only to one couple or to all clerks in the state. The plaintiffs argued that the ruling is state-wide and the Attorney General did not disagree.

It is almost certain that Judge Hinkle will clarify that his ruling applies to all members of the state infrastructure in any role they play in issuing, processing, recording, or otherwise dealing with marriage licenses and the rights, obligations, and benefits which derive from them.

But Florida Family Action, an anti-gay advocacy group, is predicting otherwise. And they are now suing those mayors and county clerks which have affirmatively announced that they will issue licenses to same-sex couples or participate in their marriages.

Because they are idiots.

Florida Family Action (FFA) announced today the filing of two lawsuits against three elected officials in Central Florida who have made clear public statements of their intentions to defy Florida law and either issue same-sex marriage licenses or officiate over same-sex marriage ceremonies on or after January 6, 2015.
…
John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Action organization issued the following statement regarding the lawsuits:

“All three of these officials have shown great contempt and disrespect for the rule of law and are behaving irresponsibly and unprofessionally. The federal court decision is clear that it only applies narrowly to the two plaintiffs and only in Washington County. Elected officials must be held accountable to the law and to the constitution they have sworn to uphold. Part of the reason for the recent landslide mid-term election was the utter disregard and insolence shown by President Obama for the rule of law which is now infecting so many other politicians across America. Respect for law must be restored or else legitimacy in government as an institution will diminish at an even greater rate. Ultimately, if these local officials continue in this same reckless pattern of behavior, they could easily face the same fate as so many other politicians did who are now retired as a result of the last election.”

Stemberger seems to be unaware that you file lawsuits in real courts with real judges, not in the court of public opinion. Or, for that matter, that supporting equality is likely to be a political advantage for these elected officials.

He also seems unaware that judges are very very busy people with tight schedules and they hate it when you waste their time with frivolous lawsuits.

But he may soon learn that.

Florida: “Dunno, Judge, you tell me.”

The fate of same-sex marriage in Florida has been subjected to a bit of a circus. No so much as some states, such as Idaho, Kansas, or Missouri, but still Florida has had its fair share of confusion.

Part of the issue is that there are two courts in which the state’s ban was found, state court and federal court, both ruling on whether the marriage ban violates the US Constitution.

In July, Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia found that the ban violated the both the Due Process and the Equal Protections provisions of the US Constitution. The state had not put on a particularly stiff defense, merely arguing that the state had the right to set its own laws; Attorney General Pam Bondi did not attend, sending an assistant DA who spoke for about five minutes.

A week later, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel found the same thing. Both rulings were appealed to the Florida State Supreme Court.

In August, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle also found that the state’s ban violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the US Constitution. Attorney General Bondi appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

She then made a request of the state Supreme Court: that it not make a ruling until the Supreme Court of the United State took on one of the many marriage cases before it.

At that time it was a common expectation that SCOTUS would announce in October which case/s it would hear. But to pretty much everyone’s surprise, the court said that it would not be reconsidering any of the pro-gay rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits.

In response Attorney General Bondi asked the Florida State Supreme Court to not continue waiting but instead to decide the issue for the state in due haste. I’m not sure why it was that the Florida Court did not respond (this story is a bit convoluted), but it has not acted.

Which brings us to the federal case, the ruling by Judge Hinkle.

When Hinkle found that the ban violated the US Constitution, he placed a temporary stay on the ruling so that the state could appeal and so that higher courts could put in place a permanent stay, should they wish. That stay expires on January 5th.

Florida requested that the Eleventh Circuit extend the stay until the appeal was heard. It was denied. They requested that SCOTUS extend the stay. It was denied. So on January 6th, same-sex marriages will be allowable in Florida.

The question is, however, to what extent.

The legal counsel for the county clerks association sent a letter telling the clerks that the ruling only applied to the county in which the plaintiffs in that case live. Anti-gay activists demanded that not only was it just one county, but that it was also only just for the one couple.

So the county clerk in Washington County, a small sparsely populated county on the Florida panhandle, asked the judge, “what do I do?”. Judge Hinkle gave the various parties until midnight last night to file their views on the matter.

The judge’s opinion on the scope of his ruling was pretty clear in his order requesting input. He didn’t exactly call the clerk an idiot in so many words, but it was implied.

The counsel for the couples filed a brief yesterday in which they argued that Hinkle’s ruling applied to all the state.

Attorney General Bondi’s brief was a bit more circumspect. Bondi didn’t give an opinion about what the scope of the ruling should be, choosing instead to let the judge do that. She noted that the wording of the original order may not explicitly include all of the state’s county clerks but requested that the judge just tell her what he meant.

This Court is best situated to determine the reach of its own order.
…
If the Court intends the injunction to have effects beyond those that appear on its face, or beyond the interpretation of the Brenner plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court may wish provide appropriate clarification.

In other words, ‘Judge, I don’t think your order says what you want it to say, so please give me some language that tells me what to do’.

I don’t think the judge’s position is going to change. So we should expect ‘clarifying language’ to be released shortly and that same-sex marriages will be legal throughout the state a week from today.

Florida marriage stay denied by SCOTUS

In July, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel found that Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the US Constitution. That ruling was put on hold until January 5, 2015, in order to give the state time to appeal.

The state has appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to have the stay extended. The request was denied.

Then the state appealed to the Supreme Court. Which has now denied the stay. So same-sex marriages will begin in Florida in 17 days.

Interestingly, the order states that Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia would have granted the extension of stay. But the justice who handles stays for the Eleventh Circuit is Clarence Thomas. He could have simply extended the stay under his own authority. However, Thomas deferred to the full court, which chose not to extend.

I’m not exactly sure how to translate that move, but it sounds a bit to me like Thomas is saying, “I oppose same-sex marriages, but not quite enough to actually stop any of them”.

Marriage in Florida in January?

Florida couples, set your calendars.

In July, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel found that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the US Constitution. That ruling was put on hold until July January 5, 2015, in order to give the state time to appeal.

The state appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and also asked that the circuit court extend the stay on the ruling until such time as the appeal could be heard and determined.

Equality Florida is now reporting:

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the state’s motion to extend the stay, which means Judge Hinkle’s stay expires end of day on January 5th and marriages begin!

The state may now request an extension of the stay from the Supreme Court. Barring that unlikely event, marriages will begin in the first week on the new year in the Sunshine State.

FL’s AG Bondi asks state supremes to rule

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) has been defending her state’s ban on same-sex marriage in a way that has infuriated anti-gay activists. She simply refuses to make wild claims about how evil gays are going to destroy society or how states have really really good reasons – totally not bigoted reasons – for keeping Teh Ghays away from marriage.

Instead, she argues that the state has the right to set marriage laws for themselves.

In July, Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia found that argument lacking. He further found that the wacky amicus briefs arguing that gay marriage would just ruin everything for everyone were evidence that anti-gay laws are based in animus. In July, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel found the same.

This was followed by Federal Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle who found the ban unconstitutional in Federal Court.

Here’s where things get a bit interesting.

Bondi appealed the federal decision to the Third Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She also appealed the state decisions at the Florida Supreme Court. The plaintiffs were urging the Florida State Supreme Court to hear the case expeditiously, but Bondi requested that they hold off on ruling until the US Supreme Court took up one of the appeals that were before it, either the Fourth, the Seventh or the Tenth.

But SCOTUS chose not to hear any of those appeals. And today Bondi took a surprising step. (Miami Herald)

In a startling move Monday night, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide once-and-for-all whether same-sex couples can marry in the Sunshine State.

“That is unquestionably an important issue, and the Plaintiffs, the State, and all citizens deserve a definitive answer,” Bondi’s office wrote in a 6 p.m. filing to the Florida Supreme Court. “Until recently, the issue was squarely before the United States Supreme Court, and it appeared that a definitive answer was coming. … Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court decided not to answer the question.”

Bondi’s “once and for all” language suggests that she expects an outcome that would withhold further review. In other words, it appears that Bondi thinks that the decisions will be upheld and the ban will be found unconstitutional. And it also appears that the state court is the quickest way for this to be accomplished.

The decision requires approval by the US Circuit Court. But it now seems ever more likely that marriage equality will come for Florida sooner rather than later.

Florida marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

In the first of a pair of marriage lawsuits, Huntsman v. Heavilin, a Florida county court has found that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the US Constitution. The ruling applies only to Monroe County. (Miami Herald)

Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia overturned Florida’s 2008 constitutional gay-marriage ban on Thursday, and ordered that two Key West bartenders be allowed to wed but not before Tuesday.

Aaron Huntsman and William Lee Jones, who met at a gay pride celebration and have been a couple for 11 years, sued Monroe County Clerk Amy Heavilin in April for a marriage license. Their case mirrors a similar suit in Miami-Dade County, in which six same-sex couples and LGBT advocacy group Equality Florida Institute sued County Clerk Harvey Ruvin for the right to marry.

Judge Garcia found the law in violation of both the Due Process and the Equal Protections provisions of the US Constitution. Additionally, noting that “Where a court suspects animus towards a disadvantaged group a more meaningful level of review is warranted”, Garcia illustrated the animus present in this case.

Fascinatingly, the judge turned to the amicus briefs provided by those opposing equality, specifically to Dr. Judith Reisman, to illustrate their own animus. (Ruling)

The court finds that despite the Amici Curiae assertion that there is no evidence of animus towards homosexuals by the proponents of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment (FMPA), there is ample evidence not only historically but within the very memorandum of law filed by the Amici Curiae. For example, the affidavits of Dr. Reisman, filed by the Amici Curiae, for the proposition that, “a law encouraging homosexual behaviors appears to increase HIV risk and negative health outcomes and thus creates a danger both to the individual engaging in these behaviors as well as society as a whole.” The Amici Curiae also claims that homosexuality is not the result of biology, genetics or nature, but that in fact it is a choice that is naturally subject to change and within the control of the individual. (See page 20-21 of Amici Curiae memorandum.) The Amici Curiae’s memorandum paints a picture of homosexuals as HIV infected, alcohol and drug abusers, who are promiscuous and psychologically damaged and incapable of long term relationships or of raising children. (Pages 29-39). They contend, “the personal, social and financial costs of these homosexual-specific health problems concern not just those who engage in homosexual activity, but also the larger community of citizens who help provide services and who must bear part of the burden imposed by the health challenges. It is eminently rational for the voters of Florida to seek to minimize the deleterious effect of these conditions on public health, safety and welfare by affirming that marriage in Florida remains the union of one man and one woman.” (Page 39). The court finds that animus has been established by the plaintiffs and that the heightened rational basis test is appropriate.

Also, following an amusing trend, Garcia quoted Scalia on the matter.

Justice Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas stated, “Preserving the traditional institution of marriage … is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples,” which is obviously not a legitimate purpose for the unequal treatment.

One of the more interesting side observations in this case is that while Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed her intent to defend the law – and received considerable criticism for doing so – her defense has been so minimal as to infuriate the supporters of inequality.

After the hearing, [Liberty Counsel’s Matt] Staver seemed outraged that Tanenbaum spoke for about five minutes at each of the South Florida hearings, and never actually argued in favor of the gay marriage ban.

Staver said [Florida Assistant Attorney General Adam] Tanenbaum’s boss, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, “is giving only window dressing to the Florida Marriage Amendment.”

It appears that the State’s sole argument was that states have the right to set marriage law for themselves.

Judge Garcia was appointed in 2000 by former Governor Jeb Bush.

Hearing on Florida marriage lawsuit today

New Times

Eleventh Judicial Court Judge Sarah Zabel will preside over the case of Pareto v. Ruvin in a hearing scheduled for 4 Wednesday afternoon.

The suit looks to overturn Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, which was added to the state constitution in 2008. According to Equality Florida, the six couples’ motion asserts that Florida’s marriage ban cannot stand in light of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” violates the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Florida Equality is livetweeting

Is Arizona a Turning Point?

It would appear that the outcry over Arizona’s license-to-discriminate bill that was finally vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer last night may have reached something of a high water mark. Major companies, business group, professional organizations, and major league sports all came out with strong statements denouncing the bill in the moments leading up to Brewer’s veto. Typical was this one from Yelp’s CEO Jeremy Stoppelman:

SB 1062 would serve to create an environment where consumers would not know how they would be treated – or whether they would even be served – when they patronize a business. This bill goes against the rule that every great business subscribes to, which is that the customer is always right. It will not only be bad for customers, but also bad for local business in the state. I also believe that it would be in consumers’ interests to be made aware of businesses within the state that did engage in discriminatory behavior. Since early 2010, Yelp has hired over 650 employees in Arizona. Over the next few years, we hope to hire hundreds more. It would be unconscionable for the state to encourage discrimination against any of them.

Arizona joins three other states in putting an end to their license-to-discriminate bills in just the past twenty-four hours:

• Sponsors of Ohio’s license-to-discriminate bill withdrew their support yesterday. Moments later, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee announced that the bill was dead.

•  The Mississippi House of Representatives Civil Subcommittee late yesterday voted to strike almost all of the provisions of their license-to-discriminate bill, leaving only a provision adding “In God We Trust” to the state seal. This move came after the state Senate gave its unanimous approval in January.

• Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced yesterday that he will veto a proposed license-to-discriminate bill if it reaches his desk. Earlier that day, he had refused to address the question during an interview on MSNBC.

Over the past several weeks, license-to-discriminate bills have been defeated or withdrawn in Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Tennessee, and Utah. But we’re not out of the woods yet. Similar bills are still working their way through Idaho, Missouri, South Dakota, and Georgia, where Atlanta-based Delta Airlines has announced its opposition. The Idaho bill was returned to a House committee last week, with the sponsor saying he wants to “find the right language.” In addition, there’s a push to put a similar measure on the ballot in Oregon in November.

States Defy Pentagon Order Requiring Equal Treatment for Guard Members

Several GOP-led states have vowed to resist Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s order requiring National Guard to issue ID cards to spouses of Guard members who are in same-sex marriages. Those ID cards are critical for accessing spousal benefits. According to Reuters:

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, the Republican head of the National Governors Association, called on President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to “stop using the National Guard as a pawn in a larger social agenda,” her spokesman, Alex Weintz, said in a statement on Friday.

“The president has made it clear he supports gay marriage. He has the legal authority to order federal agencies to recognize gay marriages. He does not have the legal authority to force state agencies to do so, or to unilaterally rewrite state laws or state constitutions,” Weintz said.

Josh Havens, a spokesman for Texas Governor Rick Perry, said, “Texas Military Forces is a state agency, and as such is obligated to adhere to the Texas Constitution and the laws of this state which clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Nine states were initially identified as refusing to issue identity cards to same-sex spouses: Indiana, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and West Virginia. Reuters reports, “Indiana notified the Pentagon on Friday it had begun issuing the cards after a month-long review, a move defense officials said they welcomed.”

Louisiana has also confirmed that they will also defy Sec. Hagel’s order, while Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said she is exploring her legal options. Georgia’s National Guard has said it will ignore Hagel’s order.

Defense Secretary Orders State National Guards To Treat Gay Couples Equally

Since the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act last June, the Defense Department has been rushing to implement policies designed to treat legally wedded same-sex couples equally with married couples generally. But several states have refused to issue Defense Department ID cards to same-sex spouses of National Guard members. Those states include Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, has announced that he is putting a stop to such discriminatory practices:

“Today, I directed the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Gen. Frank Grass, to take immediate action to remedy this situation. At my direction, he will meet with the Adjutants General from the states where these ID cards are being denied. The Adjutants General will be expected to comply with both lawful direction and DoD policy, in line with the practices of 45 other states and jurisdictions.”

A senior defense official told the Washington Blade that the Pentagon has some critical leverage to deploy against recalcitrant states:

“These are federal ID cards paid for with federal funding to provide federally mandated benefits,” the official said. “I’m not going to speculate on our legal options.”

The opposition goes silent

Polls indicate that a majority of Americans now support marriage equality. This is a wonderful achievement that bodes well for our future rights.

However, I think that a shift has occurred that is not well measured by polls. I believe that the nation has changed its views on who bears the burden of proof. This is, in many ways, a more important shift than merely those who favor or oppose same-sex marriage; it’s a shift in how the debate is conducted.

Until recently, there has been an understanding that many Americans opposed same-sex marriage, and that their objections would be voiced with conviction. Whether one agreed or disagreed, it was not considered to be outside of reasonable debate that a politician would hold their head high and declare that they “support traditional marriage” with more than a hint of “and you should too”.

And those who championed equality didn’t get off so lightly. We were expected to defend our position, to explain just why it is that our demands were justified or our ‘change in the rules’ is needed. We had the burden of proof. We started from a defensive position.

But now it is those who oppose equality that must explain themselves. Where once “I support the traditional definition of marriage” was sufficient, now even those who also fear including same-sex couples are not content with such a limited explanation. Now the trite phrase is issued – if at all – with more of an air of defensiveness than with a presumption that surely all reasonable people agree.

Other issues which divide the nation are strongly debated. And the public doesn’t think any less about those who strongly support or oppose positions on immigration, gun legislation, tax policy, or even Obamacare. You may disagree, but while your opponent is “wrong”, they are not “vile”.

But it seems to me that we have entered a phase in which one can be “not ready” or “not convinced” or “not yet evolved” on the issue of marriage equality. That’s simply opinion. But to be actively opposed suggests a character flaw, something with a whiff of nastiness and maybe even vile. The public – right and left – seem to have decided that you can support gay marriage or you can not support gay marriage, but you can’t oppose gay marriage any longer.

So more and more, those who can safely be assumed to favor heterosexual superiority simply choose to say nothing. Instead of defending their God-given moral view, they announce their support for states’ rights, defer to the wisdom of the courts, or just change the subject.

Politician after politician, those most skilled at detecting the currents of the populace, have suddenly found that they just aren’t all that worked up about the issue. Even George W. Bush, the man most tied to the campaign against equality, decided that he just doesn’t have an opinion anymore.

And today we have another good example.

The Palm Beach Post has an article about activists in Florida beginning a campaign to change minds in that state towards an eventual referendum to reverse their constitutional ban on marriage equality. It’s a nice article, but the most interesting paragraph is this:

Republican Gov. Rick Scott is staying out of the argument, however. Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz noted that voters put the ban in the constitution before he was governor and that he is focused on other issues.

Translated out of politician speak, Scott said, “My view on marriage is… ummm… look a squirrel.”

Hillsborough County (Tampa) Repeals Gay Pride Ban

In a unanimous 7-0 vote, County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, repealed an eight-year-old ban on recognizing gay pride events:

Earlier Wednesday, the speakers included Terry Kemple, head of the Hillsborough-based Community Issues Council. Prior to the vote, he spent time rallying opposition to what he called Commissioner Kevin Beckner’s “crusade to push for county government recognition of homosexual behavior.

Before Wednesday’s vote, no other group of residents had its activities similarly deemed unrecognizable by county government.

Tampa’s pride celebration appears to be defunct, near as I can tell. But neighboring St. Petersburg will hold theirs at the end of June. BTB Daily Agenda readers may recall our post about a month-long campaign of “morals raids” that were staged in Tampa and surrounding Hillsborough County in 1961. Those raids resulted in hundreds of arrests and the destruction of a number of careers.

Marriage in the non-battle states

Back in September, the Washington Post polled swing states Ohio, Florida, and Virginia about the upcoming presidential election. A number of other issues were polled, including this question:

31. (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) Do you think it should be LEGAL or ILLEGAL for gay and lesbian couples to get married?

Florida
Legal (strongly) 35%
Legal (somewhat) 19%
Illegal (somewhat) 7%
Illegal (strongly) 26%
No Opinion 13%

Ohio
Legal (strongly) 36%
Legal (somewhat) 17%
Illegal (somewhat) 7%
Illegal (strongly) 30%
No Opinion 10%

Virginia
Legal (strongly) 33%
Legal (somewhat) 16%
Illegal (somewhat) 8%
Illegal (strongly) 32%
No Opinion 12%

Because these (and other) states already have anti-gay marriage bans in their constitution, they can shift away from the center of our attention. But with numbers like these, it will not be long before we will again be looking at Florida and Ohio and even Virginia. But (assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t beat us to it) the next time will be our own efforts to have those constitutional blights removed.

[NOTE: revised to correct for formatting restrictions]

Florida quietly begins protecting gay couples

green = 2012, pink = prior

Florida is not known for its support and recognition of same-sex couples. On June 7, 1977, Anita Bryant led a campaign to repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County, beginning a culture war that still is raging today. In 2008, it joined the wave of anti-gay ballot measures prohibiting both marriage and civil unions by a 62% vote.

But, without a lot of media or fanfare, cities and counties within the state have been rapidly stepping up to offer such protections as can be granted at a local level. And while some of the progress has been over the past couple of years, there are six cities and two counties that begin offering domestic partner registration during the first half of this year alone.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this change is that it is entirely unexciting altogether. In today’s rapidly accepting world, where the question is whether Great Britain or Australia* will be the next nation to enact marriage equality (or if US courts will beat them to it), it hardly seems worth noticing that Gulfport or Volusia County now offer registries. But to the citizens of those cities and counties it is very very important.

And as a cultural marker, it is astounding. Today, Anita Bryant is a symbol of discrimination and bigotry, and 44% of Florida residents live in a city or county that recognizes the relationships of their gay citizens.

* – Yes Australia is a long shot and the Brits are the odds on favorites, but there is a lot of buzz going on down under and my instinct has me hedging my bet.

Gingrich Defeats Romney!

That’s Gingrich’s takeaway anyway, vowing to keep on campaigning in the 46 remaining states (even though he failed to make Virginia’s ballot). And he did trounce Romney among those who identified as Tea Party supporters, Evangelicals, and the “very conservative.” Gingrich’s geographical strength also was revealing. Romney carried central and southern Florida, home to a lot of people who moved there from the north, while Gingrich carried northern Florida and the panhandle, which is more representative of the type of voters found in the rest of the South.

But after trouncing Romney in South Carolina, Gingrich couldn’t hold up against Romney’s improved debate performance and overwhelming financial advantages.Romney won with 46%, taking all 50 delegates up for grabs, while Gingrich came in a very second with 32%. The real story in the next few weeks will be how that affects Gingrish’s ability to raise money between now and Super Tuesday. As for the rest of the lineup, Santorum trailed the Box of Rocks with 13% of the vote, and Paul pulled up the rear with 7%. It should be noted however that Paul wasn’t really contesting Florida. While the other three are campaigning for votes and momentum, Paul is in it for the delegates. With Florida’s winner-take-all contest and the impossibility that Paul could come in first, the ability to rack up any delegates in this contest was nill. So he wisely decided not to spend much time and money campaigning there. And if there’s one thing we know about Paul, it’s that he may not be rich, but he certainly knows how to deal with money.