CD 8 Special Election – Early Returns
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: CD 8 Special Election early returns from the Arizona Secretary of States' web site (click on box to enlarge image): Last Updated 8:13 p.m. Ron Barber (D) 52.90% 81,381 Jesse Kelly (R) 44.28% 68,093 Charlie Manokalis (GRN) 2.52% 3,879 These are typically the early mail-in ballots received prior to election day. UPDATE: … Read more
U.S. Department of Justice sues Florida over illegal voter purge
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the rogue state of Florida for Governor Lex Luthor Rick Scott's illegal voter purge. The Tampa Bay Times' The Buzz reports It's official: DOJ sues Florida over voter purge:
[H]ere's the press release and lawsuit:
WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida and the Florida Secretary of State in his official capacity alleging that the state has violated its obligations under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
The complaint, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleges that Florida has violated the NVRA by conducting a systematic program to purge voters from its voter registration rolls within the 90-day quiet period before an election for federal office established by the law. In addition, the complaint alleges that Florida’s use of inaccurate and unreliable voter verification procedures violates the requirement in Section 8 of the NVRA that any such program be uniform and nondiscriminatory.
“The Department of Justice has an overriding interest in protecting the rights of eligible citizens to register and vote free from unlawful burdens, while at the same time ensuring that ineligible persons do not register and vote in federal elections in violation of the law,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The department is committed to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act so that these objectives are met.”
The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring that the defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA, and enjoining Florida from taking any further steps in connection with this list purge program.
“Congress enacted the NVRA against a historical backdrop in this country in which purge programs initiated close to elections prevented and deterred eligible citizens from casting ballots,” said Assistant Attorney General Perez. “The 90-day quiet period in the NVRA protects eligible voters from being dropped from the rolls right before an election. It appears that Florida has undertaken a new program for voter removal within this 90-day period that has critical imperfections, which lead to errors that harm and confuse eligible voters.”
More information about the NVRA and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/. Complaints about discriminatory voting practices may be reported to the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.
Gabrielle Giffords casts her vote for Ron Barber
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords cast her ballot for her district manager, Ron Barber, this morning. Democratic candidate Ron Barber was joined by Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly as he voted at St. Cyril's of Alexandria church in midtown Tucson. h/t KVOA 4 News.
The economic disaster wrought by casino capitalism and ‘Bushonomics’
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Keep in mind that tax expert David Cay Johnston says "Romney's Tax Plan is George W. Bush on Steroids". If you liked the Bush Great Recession, you're going to love what Willard "Mittens" Romney has in store for you. Repost: The Bush Years Were a Lost Decade.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that Americans saw wealth plummet 40% from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says:
The recent recession wiped out nearly two decades of Americans’ wealth, according to government data [Federal Reserve Bulletin (.pdf)] released Monday, with middle-class families bearing the brunt of the decline.
The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.
The data represent one of the most detailed looks at how the economic downturn altered the landscape of family finance. Over a span of three years, Americans watched progress that took almost a generation to accumulate evaporate. The promise of retirement built on the inevitable rise of the stock market proved illusory for most. Homeownership, once heralded as a pathway to wealth, became an albatross.
The findings underscore the depth of the wounds of the financial crisis and how far many families remain from healing. If the recession set Americans back 20 years, economists say, the road forward is sure to be a long one. And so far, the country has seen only a halting recovery.
“It’s hard to overstate how serious the collapse in the economy was,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “We were in free fall.”
The recession caused the greatest upheaval among the middle class. Only roughly half of middle-class Americans remained on the same economic rung during the downturn, the Fed found. Their median net worth — the value of assets such as homes, automobiles and stocks minus any debt — suffered the biggest drops. By contrast, the wealthiest families’ median net worth rose slightly.
California’s experiment with the ‘top two’ primary was an epic failure
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I have been waiting for California to finish counting all of the votes in its primary election last Tuesday (some races were too close to call the last time I checked). The vote is still not yet certified as final.
This was California's first experiment with the "top two" primary system that California voters foolishly enacted in the last election. Arizona has a citizens intiative to enact the same system here that may be on the ballot in November.
As I have said before, the media villagers love this kind of thing, in particular, the Arizona Republic which has promoted this initiative in its pages.
Supporters of the "top two" primary system claim that: (1) it will lead to greater voter participation in primary elections, (2) it will lead to more independent candidates being elected (not synonomous with "moderate" as the media villagers would have you believe), and (3) it will reduce the partisan influence of the two major political parties.
California voters proved last week that all of these assumptions are WRONG. As I have said before, media villager "conventional wisdom" is always wrong.
Steve Singiser at Daily Kos has been following the California primary results more closely than I have. On Sunday he posted The California 'top two' open primary format: A postmortem:
Last Sunday, in advance of the June 6th primary elections, I posed three questions about Tuesday's California primaries.
The genesis of the piece was born in the new "top two" primary elections format that made its debut five days ago in the Golden State, which had aroused a fair amount of attention and scrutiny in the political arena in the run-up to the actual balloting.
Now that we have some actual data to deal with, what do we know now about the process? The elections created intrigue, to be sure, but also had some glaring flaws which were quickly exposed on Tuesday night.
* * *
[L]et's recap those three questions posed last week, and take a minute to analyze those questions.
* * *
Now, about those questions:
1. Will the new system embolden independent candidates, or kill them off?
The answer: By and large, kill them off.
Before this "top two" system was put in place, third-party candidates could participate in the general election, and could play a pivotal role in the outcome of the November elections, especially in races or districts that are closely contested.
Now, the only way for a third-party or independent candidate to be relevant is to crack that top two. Currently, [only] four golden tickets to November were punched by a candidate who was neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Three candidates aren't even worth mentioning, because they are running in uber-blue or uber-red districts. Those are the kind of districts where the incumbents are often unopposed, anyway.
Only one candidate has the capacity to make things even marginally interesting. That candidate is little-known, but very well-heeled, independent candidate Bill Bloomfield in CA-33. Bloomfield is the wealthy owner of a real estate firm who dumped over $1.1 million in self contributions to his campaign, and earned 26 percent of the vote on primary day.
Election law challenges in SCOTUS this week
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Election law attorneys and election integrity advocates all have their eyes focused on the Thursday Conference of SCOTUS at which the Justices will take up the petition in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock – the Citizens United sequel, seeking review of a Montana state law that restricts the political spending options of corporations.
Matthew Bush at SCOTUSblog provides the relevant pleadings, Petitions to watch | Conference of June 14, 2012:
American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
Docket: 11-1179
Issue(s): Whether Montana is bound by the holding of Citizens United, that a ban on corporate independent political expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment, when the ban applies to state, rather than federal, elections.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (Mont. S. Ct.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of Free Speech for People et al.
- Amicus brief of Citizens United
- Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- Amicus brief of Senator Mitch McConnell
- Amicus brief of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of neither party
- Amicus brief of Retired Montana Supreme Court Justices
- Amicus brief of United States Representatives Robert Brady et al.
- Amicus brief of United States Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and John McCain
- Amicus brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials et al.
- Amicus brief of the AARP
- Amicus brief of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association et al.
- Amicus brief of the Brennan Center for Justice
- Amicus brief of Walter Dellinger and James Sample
- Amicus brief of New York et al.
- Amicus brief of The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM)
- Amicus brief of Essential Information
- Reply of petitioners
If the Court grants the corporate petitioners' motion to summarily overturn the Montana Supreme Court decision as not in compliance with Citizens United without ordering briefing or oral argument, it will be a clear signal that the Court is committed to one of the worst wrongly-decided decisions in the history of the Court.
The chattering class of Court observers, however, have suggested that some Justices may be ready to reconsider their opinion in Citizens United. Should the Court order this case set for briefing and oral argument on its calendar for next term, this will be a clear signal that at least one of the five Justices responsible for one of the worst wrongly-decided decisions in the history of the Court is ready to reconsider his opinion. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the ill effects of Citizens United through this November's election.
Citizens Clean Elections Primary Debate Schedule
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
There are fewer Citizens Clean Elections candidates this year due to the loss of matching funds in this post-Citizens United era. Most candidates are running traditional. Nevertheless, where there are Citizens Clean Elections candidates running in the primary, there will be Citizens Clean Elections debates.
Here is the current schedule of Candidate Debates for state legislative races (subject to change):
District 9
June 25, 2012
House of Representatives Democrats
6:00 p.m.
Pima Community College Downtown Campus
1255 N. Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85709
District 16
June 26, 2012
Senate Republicans
House of Representatives Republicans
6:30 p.m.
Arizona State University East Campus
Cooley Ballroom B
7001 E. Williams Field Road
Mesa, AZ 85212
District 15
June 27, 2012
House of Representatives Republicans
6:00 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn
1940 W. Pinnacle Peak (at 19th Avenue)
Phoenix, AZ
District 24
June 27, 2012
Senate Republicans
House of Representatives Democrats
6:30 p.m.
Arizona State University Downtown Campus
AE England Building @ Civic Space Park
424 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 58004
District 12
June 28, 2012
House of Representatives Republicans
6:00 p.m.
Hyatt Place Phoenix/Gilbert
3275 S. Market Street
Gilbert, AZ 85297
Tucson City Council meeting: Amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. FEC
June 12, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Today at 5:30 p.m., The Tucson City Council will consider a memorial resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would reverse Citizens United v. FEC by declaring that corporations are not people and that money is not speech, permitting Congress and the states to regulate political campaign spending. More than 200 cities and towns have already passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment. Please express your support to the Mayor & Council, and then attend this meeting. Item #9 on the AGENDA.
Here is a backgrounder on the legal fiction of "corporate personhood" that I posted at the time of the Citizens United decision:
Justice Stevens dissent is critical to understanding why this case is wrongly decided. What none of the superficial press reporting I have seen has reported, but what was critical to the majority's opinion to treat corporate entities the same as persons is the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), in which the court is purported to have recognized the legal fiction of "corporate personhood" under the 14th Amendment.
The Santa Clara case is perhaps the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in U.S. history. It's consequences have been far-reaching and destructive. For a detailed analysis see the primer The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus Democracy by William Meyers (2000). (Some of you may also have a copy of Thom Hartmann's excellent book on this subject, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights.")
In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886)], at the lower court levels the question of whether corporations were persons had been argued, and these arguments were submitted in writing to the Court. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
It is not half as strange that the Supreme Court judges would render such an opinion, given their allegiance to the propertied class, as the way that they rendered it. These guys loved to write long-winded, complex opinions; look at any Supreme Court opinion of the time (or any time) and you'll see that. This question had never been covered in a Supreme Court decision; it had been avoided. Here was the perfect chance for any of nine Supreme Court judges to make his place in history. All declined. No one wanted to explain how an amendment about ex-slaves had converted artificial entities into the legal equivalent of natural persons.
This opinion without explanation, given before argument had even been heard, became the law of the United States of America. No state or federal legislature passed it or even discussed; no Amendment to the Constitution was deemed necessary; the citizens were simply informed that they had a mistaken view about corporations, if they were informed at all. Future Supreme Courts refused to even consider the question, preferring to build on it, though occasionally future justices would try to raise the question again.
Thom Hartmann adds further explanation in this article The Railroad Barons Are Back – And This Time They'll Finish the Job (2002) (some paragraphs are taken out of sequence):
