Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Announcement from Why Marriage Matters Arizona: Why Marriage Matters Arizona, Open Community MeetingThursday, December 12, 6pm – 8pmHimmel Park Library1035 N. Treat Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85716(520) 594-5305 Why Marriage Matters Arizona (WMMAz) will host an open community meeting to discuss the campaign's progress in Arizona. WMMAz is a grassroots public education campaign to build support … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear religious challenges to the requirement that employers provide health insurance for their workers that includes birth control and related medical services. The Court said it would decide constitutional issues, as well as claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Court to rule on birth-control mandate (UPDATED):
The Court granted review of a government case (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores) and a private business case (Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius). Taking the Conestoga plea brought before the Court the claim that both religious owners of a business and the business itself have religious freedom rights, based on both the First Amendment and RFRA. The Hobby Lobby case was keyed to rights under RFRA.
* * *
The Court did not expedite the briefing schedules for the new cases, so presumably they will be heard in March. Moreover, the Court has already released its argument schedule for all sittings through the February session.
Under the orders the Court issued in the health care cases, the Justices are not being asked to strike down the requirement that employers provide a full range of pregnancy-related health care under their employees’ health insurance plans. In that sense, these cases are different from the Court’s first rulings on the ACA two years ago, when it upheld a penalty for an individual who refused to obtain health insurance at all and nullified a requirement that states must broadly expand their Medicare program of health care coverage for the poor.
This time, the Court will be focusing only on whether the pregnancy-related care coverage can be enforced against profit-making companies — or their individual owners, when that is a very small group — when the coverage contradicts privately held religious beliefs.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Denise Rose from Freedom to Marry has sent me this announcement: Dear friends, If you live in Oro Valley or have friends that do and you/they support same-sex marriage equality, please pass this on: Please join me in attending the next Oro Valley town council meeting on Wed. Dec. 4, arriving at … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The "Kochtopus"-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is considering model legislation to assault the 17th Amendment — the direct election of U.S. Senators — at its December meeting. Think Progress reports, ALEC Mulls Assault On Constitution’s 17th Amendment — The Direct Election Of Senators:
In an agenda for a December meeting posted on ALEC’s website, one of the items up for review is language for a bill, called the Equal State’s Enfranchisement Act, that would allow state legislatures to add a candidate’s name to the ballot for a U.S. senate seat, along with the names of those nominated by voters.
“A nomination petition stating that the United States Senate is the office to be filled, the name and residence of the candidate and other information required by this section shall be filed with each Presiding Officer of the legislature of the state of __________,” the model legislation states. “The petition shall be filed at the same time as primary nomination papers and petitions are required to be filed.” The language also adds that at least 20 percent of the “then-sitting members of the legislature” must sign onto the nomination.
If ALEC’s members decide to further pursue this act and manage to get it passed in any state, it would be an assault to the 17th Amendment of the Constitution.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Zach Roth at MSNBC reports With eye on 2014, GOP ramps up war on voting:
Working ballot by ballot, county by county, the Republican Party is attempting to alter voting laws in the biggest and most important swing states in the country in hopes of carving out a sweeping electoral advantage for years to come.
Changes already on the books or in bills before state legislatures would make voting harder, create longer lines, and threaten to disenfranchise millions of voters from Ohio to Florida, Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, Georgia to Arizona and Texas.
Efforts underway include moving election days, ending early voting and forcing strict new voter ID laws. The results could significantly cut voter turnout in states where, historically, low participation has benefited Republicans.
In the 10 months since President Obama created a bipartisan panel to address voting difficulties, 90 restrictive voting bills have been introduced in 33 states. So far, nine have become law, according to a recent comprehensive roundup by the Brennan Center for Justice – but others are moving quickly through statehouses.
“We are continuing to see laws that appear to be aimed at making it more difficult to vote—for no good reason,” Daniel Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, said in an interview.