Month: February 2013

The biggest threat to the Voting Rights Act is the U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelOn Wednesday, February 27, The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a constitutional challenge to Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended). Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic has a beautifully written history of the Voting Rights Act and the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. After 50 Years, the Voting Rights Act's Biggest Threat: The Supreme Court (excerpts):

At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, the justices of the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case styled Shelby County v. Holder, one
of the most anticipated of the current Term. Agreeing to review an
argument made by an Alabama county that it ought finally to be free from
one of the key requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the
justices will have an opportunity both to lead and to follow the nation
as it roils anew in political and legal battle over the rights of the
poor, the ill, the young, the car-less, the black, the Hispanic, and the
Native American to vote.

Nearing its 50th birthday, the act has become a part of our national lore. One of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement (and of the Johnson Administration),
it was designed by its creators to finally give meaningful legal
remedies to minority citizens — blacks, mostly, but not exclusively —
who for generations had been precluded from voting (or from having their
votes fairly counted) by a dizzying flurry of discriminatory state
practices. The act didn't just expand the scope of existing federal
civil rights laws. It completely changed the dynamic between voters and
state and local governments. And the results are indisputable: There is
far less discrimination in voting today than there was half a century
ago — and many millions more minority voters.

The GOP war on the unemployed in the Arizona Lege

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Unemployment benefits are provided by state unemployment insurance programs within guidelines established by Federal law. Eligibility for unemployment insurance, benefit amounts and the length of time benefits are available are determined by state law (approved under federal guidelines).

Arizona's unemployment law is based on the public policy that involuntary employment "is a serious menace to health, morals and welfare of the people of this state." A.R.S. §23-601. The law has always contained a public policy preference that workers are entitled to receive unemployment insurance compensation unless otherwise disqualified.

Disqualification from benefits typically involves (a) a voluntary resignation (there are exceptions for justifiable resignations for compelling personal reaons), and (b) discharge for misconduct in connection with the work (this is a legal term of art defined by regulations and case law).

Under Arizona law, the burden of proof has always been on the employer to establish disqualification from unemployment insurance benefits. The public policy reason for this is that the employer enjoys control over employment records (proprietary information). Employees are not entitled to records in their employee file (several bills to give employees a right to documents in their employee file have failed in the Arizona legislature).

Gun violence discussed at Foothills Democratic Forum

by

by David Safier

Pam_simonThursday evening, the Foothills Democratic Forum held its second session discussing gun violence. The speakers were Pam Simon, former Community Outreach Coordinator for Gabby Giffords who was injured in the January 8 shooting, City Council member Steve Kozachik and State Representative Victoria Steele.

Since Simon was shot, she has retired and is now working full time as an advocate for sensible gun legislation. She spoke briefly about the shooting but mostly talked about her experiences meeting with elected officials from the White House to the local level as well as other people who were shooting victims or family members of people who were shot. She spoke about the committed network of people and organizations pushing for education and legislation to curb gun violence. Her passionate activism has a kind, caring tone to it, echoing her years as a teacher.

KozachikSteve Kozachik brought a harder edge to his talk than Simon, as we have come to expect from Steve, but his genuine passion for the issue was clear. He began by holding up one of the gun locks his office is giving out free of charge. Here in Tucson, we usually think of the modest gun buyback event he created as a local issue, but Kozachik said it's gotten national and international coverage, including a Japanese news team that followed him around to get a story. Google "Tucson + gun + buyback," and you get 153,000 results. Tucson as a progressive city in right wing Arizona and the site of one of the prominent recent shootings has a more important place in the gun violence controversy than we locals sometimes realize.

Victoria_steeleVictoria Steele, a first-time state rep, spoke of her attempts to get a hearing for her bills relating to gun violence. Her attempt to create a Home Rule bill that would allow cities and counties to pass their own gun laws went nowhere, of course. But another bill, HB2570, is still alive, though just barely. It would allocate more funding for Mental Health First Aid training. This is a non-controversial proposal to hold trainings for people across the state that would help them recognize mental health problems and educate them about ways they, as non-professionals, can offer help. The bill is short enough, I can quote it in full:

 

(Update) Arizona’s Neo-Confederate dead-enders and secession

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this previously, Arizona's Neo-Confederate dead-enders and secession:

AZConfederacyRemember the "Checks and Balances in Government" citizens initiative aka the "nullification" initiative from a nutty Scottsdale millionaire businessman, Jack Biltis, that failed to qualify for the ballot due to an insufficient number of signatures last year? Businessman spends $1.2 million to put nullification measure on ballot.

Biltis has decided to bypass the expense of another initiative effort and to take the easy route of getting his fellow Neo-Confederate dead-enders in the legislature to repackage his "nullification" initiative as a constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by the Arizona legislature. SCR1016 is sponsored by the usual suspects, Sen. Rich Crandell (R-Heber), Sen. Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), and cosponsors Sen. Cap'n Al Melvin (R-Saddlebrooke), and Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson).

The ballot measure would amend the state Constitution to allow the state to reject any federal action the public deems to be a violation of the US Constitution by passing an initiative, referendum or bill, or by using any other legal remedy. The proposal also prohibits the state from using its employees or resources to enforce or cooperate with a federal action that’s rejected by the people.

It turns out that Jack Biltis has a lobbyist buddy who helped him out in getting these yahoos to sponsor SCR1016: the wannabe tinhorn dictator of Tucson, Jonathan "Payday" Paton. If there is a bad idea, you can bet this tool is behind it.