Friday, July 10, 2026

Guest Opinion | Denise Robb, Ph.D.: PUSD Board President Takes a Page From the Donald Trump Playbook

By DENISE ROBB, Ph.D.

“The chilling effect doctrine is the concept of government unduly deterring free speech and association rights through laws, regulations or actions that appear to target activities protected by the First Amendment.” Free Speech Center

Whenever Donald Trump is backed into a corner, when judges rule against him or felony charges are filed against him – he denies the behavior. But further, he seeks punishment against the people who investigated him, the judges who ruled against him and even civil service (protected) employees who carried out their job in a legal manner.

This is what I thought about when I read in this morning’s news from Pasadena Now and ColoradoBlvd.net that Board President Tina Fredericks was filing what appears to be a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against those who sought to recall her.

The recall petition contends that Fredericks violated the Brown Act by coordinating school consolidation plans through private meetings, serial communications, and undisclosed discussions outside public scrutiny. Fredericks claims this assertion is false because an attorney for PUSD made a legal argument denying those allegations.

After being threatened with a first lawsuit to require the Board to rescind Board Resolution 2852 based on alleged Brown Act violations, the PUSD Board voluntarily rescinded that resolution, preventing that lawsuit from being filed.  After being threatened with a second Brown Act lawsuit demanding that they cease and desist their allegedly unlawful conduct, on July 2, 2026, without admitting liability, the Board unconditionally committed to “cease, desist from, and not repeat the challenged past actions” to avoid that lawsuit.

Why is Fredericks now filing a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and everyone involved in the recall process (listed as Does 1-124)? Because she believes this petition is claiming information that is not true. The biggest problem with this SLAPP suit is that political advocacy has broad Constitutional protection.

In her petition, Fredericks cites to a California Court of Appeals decision, San Francisco Forty-Niners v. Nishioka 75 Cal. App. 4th 637 (1999), but this is not a recall case, but a ballot initiative case. The Court made clear that it generally steers away from the political process, and only will intervene in the most extreme cases of actual fraud, where a ballot measure “contains undisputed, objective untruths calculated to mislead and misinform a reasonable voter.”  The Court explained that “when confronted with assertions of fact which are subject to dispute” the Court “ordinarily cannot substitute its judgment or opinion for the judgment of the electorate to listen and decide. Inherent in a democracy with a constitutional initiative right is the right of the demos, the people, to choose between competing positions affecting their community.”   “[T]ypical hyperbole and opinionated comments” are common to political debate and are not subject to judicial review.

The recall proponents here contend that Fredericks violated the Brown Act. Fredericks denies the allegation.  These are assertions of fact that are subject to dispute, not a “fraud” on the electorate.  In our democracy, recall proponents have First Amendment rights to seek to recall public officials and public officials have First Amendment rights to defend their actions. We hold elections to allow the public to make their own decisions and vote accordingly.

Fredericks’ legal maneuvers are intended to undermine democracy by deterring her constituents from exercising their Constitutional rights to recall Fredericks, and by causing recall proponents to incur substantial legal fees to defend against Fredericks’ questionable legal petition. In simpler terms, she is trying to chill free and protected speech of people who don’t support her. A very Trumpian move.

It is telling that Fredericks filed the document in pro per – meaning she is representing herself.  This leads one to wonder if perhaps she was not able to convince her attorney to attach his name to her legal theories.

It seems like one could add a new complaint to the recall petition which is: Fredericks is undermining our democracy and trying to block First Amendment protected democratic activities.

Whatever side you are regarding the pending recall of PUSD President Tina Fredericks, we should all support our Constitutional rights to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” whether at the national, state or local level. The Constitution must prevail.

Dr. Robb teaches American Government and the Constitution at Pierce College*

*for information purposes only