Civil & Human Rights

HCR2016 ERA Ratification Bill Languishes on Speaker Tobin’s Desk

by

Victoria STEELEby Pamela Powers Hannley

Tucson Rep. Victoria Steele has introduced two bipartisan bills to advance the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the Arizona Legislature. One has made it to committee, while the other is waiting on Speaker of the House Andy Tobin's desk.

HCR2016 is a bill to ratify the ERA. Although ERA ratification has 22 sponsors, including four Republicans, it hasn't made it "out of the gate" yet. According to an aid in Steele's office, HCR2016 hasn't had a "first read" yet. Bills are read first by Speaker Tobin, who determines committee assignments. If a bill is never assigned to a committee, it is dead in the water. (HB2016 text here.)

HCM2006 is a memorandum to the federal government asking that the ratification deadline be extended. HCM2006 has 19 sponsors, including two Republicans. The bill has been assigned to the Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility Committee (FFR) but hasn't made it on the committee's agenda… yet. (More about the committee here. HCM2006 text here.)

Bills can be killed in multiple ways: they can be voted down in committee, voted down by the Legislature, or just plain ignored by the Speaker or the committee chair. Although it's early in the session, it appears as if the ERA bills are being ignored– even though the ERA has bipartisan support in the Legislature and broad, popular support among the majority of Americans. (Sponsor list after the jump.)

Federal Court rules Kentucky must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal judge, who struck down part of the state ban. Huffington Post reports, Kentucky Ban On Recognizing Out-Of-State Gay Marriages Struck Down By Federal Judge:

EqualIn a 23-page Memorandum Opinion (.pdf) issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that the government may define marriage and attach benefits to it, but cannot "impose a traditional or faith-based limitation" without a sufficient justification for it."

"Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons," wrote Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

The decision in the socially conservative state comes against the backdrop of similar rulings or actions in states around the country where same-sex couples have long fought for the right to marry. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004 and included the out-of-state clause.

The decision came in lawsuits brought by four gay and lesbian couples seeking to force the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages.

Time for the restoration of ex-felon voting rights

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Bravo to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for calling for the restoration of ex-felon voting rights. Someone who has repaid their debt to society should not be forever banned from the franchise to vote. This holdover provision from Jim Crow laws should go. We are a better country than this. Holder Urges States to Lift Bans on Felons’ Voting:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called Tuesday for the repeal of laws that prohibit millions of felons from voting, underscoring the Obama administration’s determination to elevate issues of criminal justice and race in the president’s second term and create a lasting civil rights legacy.

In a speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Holder described today’s prohibitions — which in some cases bar those convicted from voting for life — as a vestige of the racist policies of the South after the Civil War, when states used the criminal justice system to keep blacks from fully participating in society.

“Those swept up in this system too often had their rights rescinded, their dignity diminished, and the full measure of their citizenship revoked for the rest of their lives,” Mr. Holder said. “They could not vote.”

Mr. Holder has no authority to enact the changes he called for, given that states establish the rules under which people can vote.

Nevada ends its defense of state’s same-sex marriage ban

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago I explained that Nevada's defense of same-sex marriage ban crumbles in Sevcik v. Sandoval.

State officials in Nevada, concluding that they can no longer successfully defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, have formally switched position to argue that the ban is unconstitutional. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Nevada ends defense of marriage ban:

Equal[State officials] did so on Monday, in a plea to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to withdraw their written legal brief defending the ban.

That request came at about the same time that the same-sex couples challenging the Nevada ban asked the Ninth Circuit Court to set an early date for a hearing as the case continues in that court.  The state’s withdrawal leaves only the original proponents of Nevada’s voter-approved ban to carry on a defense.

The Nevada case in the Ninth Circuit is one of the furthest along among cases unfolding in federal appeals courts in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June in U.S. v. Windsor striking down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal marital benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married.  Although the Court’s ruling did not settle whether states could constitutionally ban gay and lesbian marriages, a lengthening string of lower court rulings has interpreted the decision at least to seriously  imperil the validity of such bans, if not to doom them outright.

Nevada officials cited that recent trend on Monday, telling the Ninth Circuit that the Windsor decision “signifies that discrimination against same-sex couples is unconstitutional,” and thus the arguments that the state had made previously in support of their state’s ban “cannot withstand legal scrutiny.”

Update on Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voter registration form case

by

Posted by azBlueMeanie:

Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett are in U.S. District Court in Kansas, Kris W. Kobach et al. v. United States Election Assistance Commission (13-4095-EFM-DJW) suing the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and threatening to impose a two-tier system for voting in Arizona and Kansas based upon whether you registered to vote with the Arizona voter registration form or the federal motor-voter form (NVRA).

Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle reports on the latest breaking news in this case, Judge questions feds’ role in Kansas, Arizona voting laws:

A judge strongly questioned Tuesday whether a federal commission has the authority to prevent Kansas and Arizona from demanding proof-of-citizenship documents from people trying to register to vote using federal forms.

Judge Eric Melgren repeatedly pressed Department of Justice lawyer Bradley Heard to explain how a Supreme Court decision last year on Arizona's proof-of-citizenship law allows the federal Election Assistance Commission to reject requests from Arizona and Kansas to add state-law requirements to the instructions for filling out the voting form.

"The single pivotal question in this case is who gets to decide … what's necessary" to establish citizenship for voting, Melgren said.

Heard said that decision lies with the EAC under the federal National Voter Registration Act, also known as the motor-voter law. He said the law empowers the commission to decide what questions and proofs are necessary to include in the federal registration form.

While the law doesn't explicitly state the EAC can overrule states on proof of citizenship, Heard said the legislative history shows that requiring document proof was considered and rejected by Congress.

"I've read the legislative history, and I'm not very impressed by it," Melgren responded.