Civil & Human Rights

Jim Nintzel breaks down the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

2305hb11The Tucson Weekly cover story last week was all about the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305. Jim Nintzel provides the best breakdown of any media reporting on this awful bill to date. Ballot Boxing.

Jim Nintzel is also the host of the Political Roundtable on Arizona Illustrated, and on Friday he hosted a panel discussion on the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, with guests Jeff Rogers, former chairman of the Pima County Democratic Party;
Barrett Marson, CEO of Marson Media and a Republican strategist; and Ann-Eve
Pedersen, president of the Arizona Education Parent Network.

Video below the fold (segment begins at 3:30 mark).

In Light of Local Poverty, Tucson Needs Creative Direction & Progressive Economic Ideas

by

Development33-sig-sm72by Pamlea Powers Hannley

Business friendly? Tucson’s been there, done that, … and got the t-shirt at Goodwill. As former City Councilwoman Molly McKasson said, we put all of our eggs in the development basket and look where it got us.

Twenty percent of Tucsonans are living in poverty.

Thirty percent of Tucson children are living in poverty.

Fifty-two percent of Tucson children live in a one-parent household.

Seventy-one percent of Tucson Unified School District students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. (Statistics from the Arizona Daily Star.)

How did we get here?

The Back Story on Tucson’s Poverty Rate

In a November 2011 “What If?” article published just a few days before the last mayoral election, former Arizona Daily Star reporter Josh Brodesky interviewed activist, writer, and artist McKasson and mused about how Tucson would be different today if she had beaten former Mayor Bob Walkup back in their 1999 match-up.

I remember that election well. Walkup– a former Hughes Aircraft executive and former head of the Greater Tucson Economic Council– was the quintessential business candidate. Bankrolled by Tucson’s business community, Walkup’s campaign successfully painted McKasson as a flighty hippie artist whose no-growth, tree-hugging, water-conserving policies would be bad for Tucson (ie, bad for business and bad for growth). Meanwhile, Walkup was championed as a business savvy savior who successfully ran a business, and, therefore, (of course!) could successfully run a city.

As mayor, the glad-handing, ribbon-cutting Walkup promoted business development, Rio Nuevo, and ill-conceived, taxpayer-funded private projects like the downtown hotel (which went down in flames, thank goodness). Except for his pro-business, pro-growth cheerleading, Walkup was a do-nothing mayor who depended upon defense funding, the occasional TREO call center moving to Tucson, and housing boom construction jobs to bolster Tucson’s chronically low-wage tourist economy. The Tucson Weekly’s endorsement of McKasson (here) eerily  predicts what happened to Tucson under three terms of Walkup. Read it and more background and new ideas after the jump.

‘Tenther’ Tea-Publican Senators want to repeal the 20th Century

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lewis-hine-child-labor-happy-birthday-shorpy-1910A century ago this country permitted child labor and sweatshop labor, and did not regulate the hours and conditions of employment because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Kidd v. Pearson (1888) (intra-state commerce), Locher v. New York (1905) (economic liberty and private contract rights), Adair v. U.S. (1908) (labor unions), and Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) (child labor). The Reel Foto: Lewis Hine: The Littlest Laborers (h/t photo).

"Tentherism" is a dormant and long-discredited legal theory today, but tenthers dominated the
Supreme Court from the late 1800s until 1937, when a majority of the
Court finally recognized that national leaders must be empowered to
solve a national economic crisis like the Great Depression.

Now our "Tenther" Tea-Publican Senators want to repeal the advances of the 20th Century. Think Progress reports, 36 Senators Introduce Bill Prohibiting Virtually Any New Law Helping Workers:

More than three-quarters of the Senate Republican caucus signed onto
legislation introduced Wednesday by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rand
Paul (R-KY) that could render it virtually impossible for Congress to enact any legislation intended to improve working conditions
or otherwise regulate the workplace. Had their bill been in effect
during the Twentieth Century, for example, there would likely be no
nationwide minimum wage, no national ban on workplace discrimination, no
national labor law and no overtime in most industries.

(Update) Voter ID on trial in Pennsylvania

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Closing arguments were today in the Voter ID trial in Pennsylvania. the AP reports, Lawyers sum up their cases in Pa. voter ID trial:

The
12-day trial over Pennsylvania's tough voter-identification law ended
Thursday with the state contending that officials have provided
safeguards to ensure any registered voter can easily get the mandatory
photo ID and plaintiffs urging the judge to overturn the law because it
violates voters' constitutional rights.

"It is time to put an end to this and enjoin the law," Jennifer Clarke,
director of Philadelphia's Public Interest Law Center and a member of
the plaintiffs' legal team, told Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard
McGinley.

Philadelphia lawyer Alicia Hickok, arguing for the state, said the
plaintiffs failed to show that the law is unconstitutional.

‘Son of Citizens United’ coming in October

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Term of the U.S. Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. The 2013 Term begins October 7, 2013.

The very next day, Tuesday, October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in what portends to be the most momentous decision of the 2013 Term. Mark your calendars. It is the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (12-536), the "Son of Citizens United" monster that may unravel federal campaign contribution limits. The issues presented are:

(1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate
committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a
constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to
national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on
contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are
unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable
interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to
non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and
facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to
candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for
lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest.

h/t Scotusblog.com