Civil & Human Rights

Bipartisan group of Arizona legislators support passage of the Equal Rights Amendment

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last July, I did a post about the 90th Anniversary of the Equal Rights Amendment:

You would never know it today by the religious zealots who have hijacked the GOP, but not that long ago the Republican Party had a very active Republican Women for Choice organization, and women for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which included First Lady Betty Ford. The ERA came up short of passage in 1982, under the deadline established by Congress.

BettyFord

First Ladies Rosalynn Carter and Betty Ford at a rally for ERA, 11/19/1977.

People have forgotten what was at stake in the fight over the ERA. Justice Antonin Scalia has a long history of expressing skepticism toward the Constitution’s shield against laws that discriminate against women. He he has repeatedly claimed that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” does not prevent gender discrimination:

“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.”

Justice Scalia is correct. The 14th Amendment was intended to eliminate the vestiges of slavery and racial discrimination in America (freed slaves and Chinese immigrants in California were the focus of the congressional debate). Equal rights for women was not debated by Congress.

This week in the Arizona GOP’s war on democracy

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This has been some week in the Arizona GOP's war on democracy, hasn't it?

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill, HB 2196 (.pdf), to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and to deny the citizens of Arizona their constitutional right to vote on a citizens referred referendum, was pulled after angry citizens and the media showed up at the hearing. More than 100,000 Arizonans signed the petitions for a "citizens veto" of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, exercising their constitutional right under the Arizona Constitution to vote to veto the legislature's anti-democratic measure. No matter.

The Arizona GOP's plan is to repeal HB 2305, and to pass the separate provisions for voter suppression in the bill as separate bills to make another citizens referendum virtually impossible, and to get their way by "skullduggery," as Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts called it. Are legislators plotting end run around voters in election-law referendum?" "Fast Eddie" promises to bring his bill back up for a hearing, possibly as early as this week.

On Friday, the Arizona GOP was in U.S. District Court arguing to a three judge panel of federal judges that you, the voters of Arizona, by enacting a citizens referred initiative to create the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), violated their federal constitutional right to gerrymander congressional districts in favor of GOP candidates. (Where are the Neo-Confederate "states' rights" federal "guvmint" haters now?) As I explained, their legal argument is entirely without merit. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. This is one of those frivolous "junk lawsuits" you hear about.

Sunshine Is Best Disinfectant: AZ Legislature Delays Voter Suppression Discussion

by

Wave05-sm72by Pamela Powers Hannley

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives was scheduled to discuss repealing last year’s omnibus voter suppression bill (HB2305). Since thousands of Arizona citizens had signed petitions to stop implementation of HB2305 and put voter suppression on the 2014 ballot, sneaky legislators had devised a plan to do an end-run around voters by repealing the destined-to-fail-at-the-polls bill and replace it with several individual voter suppression bills. (After all, we can’t let citizens decide issues as important as who gets to vote or how measures are put on the ballot.)

Thanks to a widely distributed press release from the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee, news of Republican legislators’ Voter Suppression Plan B flew out across the blogosphere on Wednesday, resulting in much citizen– and news media– interest.

Overnight, hundreds of concerned Arizona voters called and wrote to members of the committee urging them to respect the will of the voters and let them have their say on HB2305 in November. Dozens of people showed up to speak at the hearing as well as three television news crews. Judiciary Chairman Eddie Farnsworth then told the amassed crowd that he was holding his repeal bill (HB2196). He has since rescheduled the hearing on his bill for next week.

Proving once again that sunshine is the best disinfectant and voter suppression is a topic best discussed in the dead of night with no witnesses, Farnsworth decided not to open discussions with TV cameras rolling and citizens watching.

Government Watchdog: NSA spy program is illegal and should be shut down

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The big story today is that the independent federal privacy watchdog, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, has concluded that the National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal” benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down. No shit!

I said that back in 2005 when the New York Times first revealed the secret spy program of the Bush-Cheney regime. Congress, rather than impeach the Bush-Cheney regime for the most extensive violations of the U.S. Constitution ever, passed laws ex post facto to make the existing illegal spy program "legal" and to give it the imprimatur of congressional approval. The telecommunications companies that cooperated with the illegal spy program were given immunity from civil liability. "Nothing to see here, move along."

The New York Times reports today, Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End:

The findings are laid out in a 238-page report, scheduled for release Thursday and obtained by The New York Times, that represent the first major public statement by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress made an independent agency in 2007 and only recently became fully operational.

The report is likely to inject a significant new voice into the debate over surveillance, underscoring that the issue was not settled by a high-profile speech President Obama gave last week. Mr. Obama consulted with the board, along with a separate review group that last month delivered its own report about surveillance policies. But while he said in his speech that he was tightening access to the data and declared his intention to find a way to end government collection of the bulk records, he said the program’s capabilities should be preserved.

The Obama administration has portrayed the bulk collection program as useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential abuse. But in its report, the board lays out what may be the most detailed critique of the government’s once-secret legal theory behind the program: that a law known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation, can be legitimately interpreted as authorizing the N.S.A. to collect all calling records in the country.

The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.”

Virginia is for lovers: Virginia AG says state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, will ask a federal court to strike it down

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualThe other day I posted that "Media attention is about to turn to the state of Virginia, where a high profile case led by the Prop. 8 "Dream Team" of David Boise and Ted Olson is scheduled for a hearing on January 30."

That day is today.

The Washington Post reports that Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Mark Herring is taking a page out of California's Prop. 8 litigation playbook, and announced today that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. He said Virginia will join two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike it down. Virginia’s Herring files brief opposing same-sex marriage ban:

The action, which Herring (D) made with the support of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), marks a stunning reversal in the state’s legal position on same-sex marriage and is a result of November elections in which Democrats swept the state’s top offices.

Democrats cheered the move as a victory for civil rights while Republicans blasted it as dereliction of the attorney general’s duty to defend the state constitution.