Civil & Human Rights

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals same-sex marriage opinion this week, once finalized next week, is binding precedent for other states within the Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona.

In recognition of this fact, U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has ordered the parties in the Arizona same-sex marriage cases before him in the U.S. District Court for Arizona to submit their briefs by next Thursday, October 16.

The order Judge Sedwick will issue is not in doubt. The only question is whether the state of Arizona will abandon its defense of state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples, as other states have done, or will it continue with a fruitless appeal at taxpayer expense solely for purposes of delay.

The Arizona Republic reports, Judge: Ariz. has 1 week to respond to gay-marriage ruling:

The fate of Arizona’s marriage law could be decided in a week.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick issued an order Thursday night stating that he believes this week’s appellate court ruling that declared Idaho and Nevada’s marriage restrictions unconstitutional applies to Arizona, as well.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that Idaho’s and Nevada’s laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Sedwick, an Alaska judge who often helps pick up Arizona cases, gave the parties in two lawsuits challenging Arizona’s law until next Thursday to file briefs arguing how the 9th Circuit decision does or does not apply. Arizona is part of the San Francisco-based circuit.

Read more

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, No delay on Idaho same-sex marriages :

Without explanation, the Supreme Court late Friday afternoon rejected a request by state officials in Idaho to postpone a lower court ruling that had nullified the ban on same-sex marriage there.  The two-sentence order also lifted an earlier order by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy temporarily delaying that decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

There were no noted dissents from the Court’s new order.  Although it gave no reasons, the Court’s action was a further indication that the Justices are unwilling to be drawn into the constitutional controversy at this point, leaving it to lower courts to continue to explore it.  Idaho officials had tried to convince the Court that their case was different from the ones that the Court had bypassed on Monday.

[T]he Ninth Circuit Court is expected to act shortly to put its decision back into full effect, clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples in Idaho to seek marriage licenses.

Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday evening enjoined the state of Wisconsin from implementing its new voter ID laws after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had given its approval, based upon what Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog calls the Purcell principle, i.e., not changing the rules just before the election, and not because it believes Wisconsin is likely to succeed on the merits. Early vote-by-mail ballots had already been mailed to voters and votes cast without any requirement for voter ID.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Wisconsin voter ID law blocked (UPDATED) :

[T]he Supreme Court on Thursday night barred Wisconsin from enforcing a requirement that voters must produce a photo identification before voting, by absentee ballot or in person.  The Court majority’s one-paragraph order gave no reason, but the fact that this year’s election is less than a month away may have been the key factor.

Read more

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) this week issued a report on “Issues Related to  State Voter Identification Laws.” You can read the report Here (.pdf).

Kaveh Waddell at the National Journal writes, Here’s How Much It Costs to Vote in States With Voter ID Laws:

Thirty-three states require all eligible voters to show ID at the polling station and, in doing so, add a hidden cost to voting: While casting a ballot is technically free, getting proper identification is not. Many voter-ID laws came about after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, which was intended to address concerns of voter fraud and irregularity in the 2000 presidential election. While concerns about fraud are widespread, research shows that it occurs very rarely.

The cost of obtaining an ID affects voter participation, and can disproportionately drive down turnout among African-American voters and 18-to-23-year-olds.

Read more