Civil & Human Rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the AIRC filed its Response to Platiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission. This is the case in which our Tea-Publican legislators want to overturn Proposition 106 (2000), the citizens initiative creating the AIRC enacted by the voters of Arizona, asserting that the citizens of Arizona have no authority to deprive the state legislature of the "exclusive" power to redistrict.

The Response cites the controlling case precedents demonstrating why the case filed by our Tea-Publican legislators is without merit, and they are not entitled to any relief.

It is important to remember that during the Progressive Era, a number of states enacted the reforms of citizens initiative, referendum and recall. The state of Arizona was admitted to the Union in 1912 with a progressive state constitution which expressly provided for citizens initiative, referendum and recall, reserving to the people the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution.

The controlling case precedent is Ohio ex rel Davis v. Hidebrant, 241 US 565, 569 (1916):

By an amendment to the Constitution of Ohio, adopted September 3d, 1912,
the legislative power was expressly declared to be vested not only in
the senate and house of representatives of the state, constituting the
general assembly, but in the people, in whom a right was reserved by way
of referendum to approve or disapprove by popular vote any law enacted
by the general assembly. And by other constitutional provisions the
machinery to carry out the referendum was created.

* * *

In May, 1915, the general assembly of Ohio passed an act redistricting the state for the purpose of congressional elections, by which act twenty-two congressional districts were created, in some
respects differing from the previously established districts, and this
act, after approval by the governor, was filed in the office of the
secretary of state. The requisite number of electors under the
referendum provision having petitioned for a submission of the law to a
popular vote, such vote was taken and the law was disapproved.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On the first day that same-sex couples can marry in New Jersey as a result of last week's state Supreme Court ruling, Governor Chirs Christie has decided to drop his appeal before the state's high court. The New York Times reports, Christie Drops Appeal of Gay Marriage Ruling in New Jersey:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey announced on Monday that he would drop his legal challenge to same-sex marriage, hours after gay couples started exchanging vows in midnight ceremonies across the state.

Mr. Christie’s withdrawal of his appeal to the court decision that
allowed the marriages came on the heels of a ruling by the State Supreme
Court on Friday that rejected his attempt to block the marriages until
the appeal was resolved. His decision effectively removed the last
hurdle to making same-sex marriage legal in New Jersey.

“Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting
its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a
vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view
of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the
law,” a spokesman for Mr. Christie said in a note to reporters on Monday
morning. “The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his
administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme
Court.”

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Yet another marriage equality case is heading to trial in the courts, this time in Michigan. Case Against Michigan Ban on Gay Unions Is Sent to Trial:

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a case contesting Michigan’s ban
on same-sex marriage would go to trial early next year, one among some 30 such challenges playing out in courthouses around the nation.

Here, advocates for same-sex marriage and even some opponents had speculated that the judge, Bernard A. Friedman, of the Eastern District of Michigan, might go further and overturn the state’s nine-year-old constitutional amendment on marriage as early as Wednesday.

[A] representative for Bill Schuette, the
Michigan attorney general, whose office has defended the state’s ban,
issued a directive to county clerks in the event that the judge ruled
against the state, advising them that they were forbidden to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples until appeals were completed.

In the end, Judge Friedman delayed an answer to the issue, instead
suggesting that a trial, set for Feb. 25, would examine a central legal
question surrounding the issue in Michigan, but also elsewhere: whether
the rationales for a ban on same-sex marriage serve a legitimate state
interest.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Breaking news today: New Jersey Supreme Court greenlights gay marriage starting Monday:

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Friday said gay marriages can begin taking place starting Monday, brushing aside a request from Gov. Chris Christie's (R) administration for a delay as it appeals.

"We conclude that the State has not made the necessary showing to
prevail … and that the public interest does not favor a stay," the judges wrote. "We therefore deny the State's motion for a stay."

The court ruled [unanimously] that the state has "not shown a reasonable
probability it will succeed on the merits," which will be argued in
January.

Christie's administration is appealing a lower-court ruling from
last month that legalized gay marriage, but his press secretary Michael
Drewniak said in a statement Friday the governor will comply with the
ruling.

"The Supreme Court has made its determination," Drewniak  said. "While
the Governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by
all the people of the State of New Jersey, he has instructed the
Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in
effectuating the order of the Superior Court under the applicable law."

The court scheduled oral arguments for early January.