Civil & Human Rights

Abortion politics in the U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as “improvidently granted” the case of Cline  v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice (docket 12-1094), an appeal from the state of Oklahoma to  revive a law that restricts doctors’ use of drugs rather than surgery to perform an abortion with the medication RU-486 and others, struck down by the federal courts.

Uterus-stateAround the same time, Planned Parenthood of Texas applied for an order setting aside the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order permitting the Texas law requiring abortion practitioners to have admitting privilieges at a nearby hospital before they may perform abortions at a clinic or in a doctor’s office. Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott (13A452).

In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, the Court declined on Tuesday to set aside the Fifth Circuit Court order. Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog.com reports, Texas abortion law left in effect:

Splitting five to four, the Supreme Court late Tuesday afternoon refused to block a Texas abortion law that critics say is forcing the closing of one-third of all clinics in the state.  The Court had been studying the issue for the past week.  The majority said that the challengers had not met the requirement for setting aside a federal appeals court’s order permitting the law to take effect on October 31.

The majority specifically included Justices Antonin Scalia, who wrote separately in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas.  But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy presumably voted with those three, because it would have taken five votes to act definitively on the plea by doctors and clinics when there were four Justices who wanted to block the law.

The specific order denying the application (13A452) was unsigned.  Both Justice Scalia’s opinion and that of the dissenters referred to the result as the action of “the Court.”

Update on status of marriage equality cases befor the Ninth Circuit

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Now that the state of Hawaii has enacted marriage equality, there is a change of status in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cases from Hawaii (Jackson v. Abercrombie) and Nevada (Sevcik v. Sandoval), which the court had scheduled on a parallel track for briefing. Time extensions sought at Ninth Circuit for filing briefs in Nevada, Hawaii marriage equality cases:

EqualThe challenge to Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban (Jackson v. Abercrombie) was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals around the same time as the similar challenge in Nevada (Sevcik v. Sandoval). In both cases, the district court judges issued rulings against same-sex couples, and the Ninth Circuit initially put the cases on a parallel track, with similar briefing schedules. With Hawaii’s state legislature taking up a marriage equality bill, the plaintiffs in Jackson asked the appeals court for an extension of time. Governor Abercrombie filed his opening brief last month.

The plaintiffs in the Hawaii case have filed a new request for an extension of time to file their opening brief: from November 22 to December 22. The new unopposed request comes because, as the filing states, “the new [marriage equality] law will take effect on December 2, 2013,” and unless the law is somehow not put into effect, “the current appeal will likely be rendered moot.”

(Update) Wisconsin voter I.D. trial concluded, decision pending

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week the voter I.D. trial in Wisconsin federal district court concluded. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, Trial of two challenges to Wisconsin's voter ID law concludes:

The plaintiffs showed that tens to hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin residents lack one of the qualifying IDs, and many also lack the documents required to get the free ID the state supplies for voting — usually a birth certificate.

The witnesses detailed how they sometimes had to travel to other states to try to get certificates. Some voters, born in the South decades ago, never had formal birth certificates. In Wisconsin, the Vital Records division sometimes required a photo ID to get a birth certificate, a kind of Catch 22.

As evidence that the law was providing ways for everyone to vote, [Assistant Attorney General Clayton] Kawski noted that since Wisconsin began offering its free ID service, more than 217,000 have been issued, and in Milwaukee County mostly to minorities.

But plaintiffs' counsel argued that the numbers prove the disparity, that far fewer minorities have driver's licenses, passports or the other limited forms of ID that would allow someone to vote.

[John] Ulin compared the process to so-called grandfather clauses in the Jim Crow South that spared most white voters from onerous requirements meant to keep blacks from polls. Residents who have had driver's licenses probably got them, and continually renew them, without ever having to show a birth certificate, Ulin said, while minorities seeking photo ID for the first time must present one.

Mythbusters: No, ‘illegal immigrants’ are not voting in Arizona elections (but you already knew that)

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In the reality-based community where facts matter, this is old news. But in the conservative media entertainment complex world of conspiracy theories, where Tea-Publicans routinely demonize Mexican immigrants and falsely claim that they are voting in elections to support voter I.D. requirements that have a disparate impact on the elderly, the poor, minorities and college students — a form of voter suppression — this is "new" news. The Arizona Republic today reports, Illegal immigrant vote-fraud cases rare in Arizona:

Arizona has spent enormous amounts of time and money waging war against voter fraud, citing the specter of illegal immigrants’ casting ballots.

State officials from Gov. Jan Brewer to Attorney General Tom Horne to Secretary of State Ken Bennett swear it’s a problem.

At an August news conference, Horne and Bennett cited voter-fraud concerns as justification for continuing a federal-court fight over state voter-ID requirements. And some Republican lawmakers have used the same argument to defend a package of controversial new election laws slated to go before voters in November 2014.

But when state officials are pushed for details, the numbers of actual cases and convictions vary and the descriptions of the alleged fraud become foggy or based on third-hand accounts.

An examination of voter-fraud cases in Maricopa County shows those involving illegal immigrants are nearly non-existent, and have been since before the changes to voter-ID requirements were enacted in 2004.

In response to an Arizona Republic records request, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office provided a list of 21 criminal cases since January 2005 in which the suspect was charged with a felony related to voter fraud. A search of court records found 13 other cases.

Of the 34 Maricopa County cases, two of the suspects were in the country illegally and 12 were not citizens but living in the U.S. legally, court records showed. One of the suspect’s legal-residency status was unclear from the records.

Questions for Martha McSally: Jim Nintzel doesn’t get an answer either

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics — I am not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.

ChickenbunkerJim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly and host of the Arizona Illustrated political roundtable tried to get Martha McSally to take a position on the current hot topic of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and – suprise! – McSally is still hiding in the bunker with no ready answer to substantive questions. This is one incredibly ill-informed and ill-prepared candidate for someone who has been running for office since 2010. From

Republican Martha McSally, who hopes to unseat Barber next year, declined to take a position on ENDA.

"I haven't read the law, so I'd have to read it before I make a comment," she told the Weekly last week.

When she ran in 2010, McSally was opposed to "adding 'sexual orientation,' 'gender identity,' or 'gender expression' to the protected classes of race, religion, age, sex, and ancestory in anti-discrimination law," according to a survey she filled out for the Center for Arizona Policy, a religious-right organization.

McSally said last week she filled the survey out early in her political career, so she would have to go back and review how the question was phrased before she could say whether she still stood by it. The questionnaire, she said, only let her say whether she supported or opposed various positions, and she felt she should have instead been given an opportunity to write longer answers.

[Note: This is B.S. Candidates frequently attach detailed responses to questionnaires when they have a nuanced or detailed position on an issue. I have to read these questionnaires all the time. A candidate does not need to ask permission to attach their response. Where is that proactive, take charge leadership skills McSally wants us to believe? She was intimidated by a "check the box" questionnaire from CAP?]