Civil & Human Rights

‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill advances in the Senate

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sausage makerIt has often been said that people do not want to see the "sausage making" process of legislation, and nowhere is that a truer statement than with the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill.

After multiple attempts by Tea Party senators to add "poison pill" amendments to kill the bill — all defeated — there was a death-defying friendly amendment offered yesterday by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to treat gay partners equally under federal law for immigration purposes. Tea-Publicans howled that this was a deal breaker, and Sen. Leahy eventually withdrew his amendment.

Of course, Advocates
were outraged at lack of LGBT protection in immigration bill. This is a timing problem. This bill needs to move forward in the Senate now. The U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until June. Should the Court strike down DOMA, as most court observers anticipate, it would remove the obstacle to treating gay partners equally under federal law. The immigration bill will still be going through the "sausage making" process, and may be amended to respond to any Supreme Court ruling. Patience and perseverance are virtues in the "sausage making" process.

So it is good news that the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved its final mark-up of the comprehensive immigration reform bill on a vote of 13 to 5. Senate
panel approves sweeping immigration reform bill:

After five days of debate over dozens of amendments, the Judiciary
Committee voted 13 to 5 in support of the bill, with three Republicans
joining the committee’s 10 Democrats. The legislation emerged with its
core provisions largely intact, including new visa programs for
high-tech and low-skilled workers and new investments in strengthening
border control.

“The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us
and it is long past time for reform. I hope that our history, our
values, and our decency can inspire us finally to take action,”
committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said. “We need an
immigration system that lives up to American values and helps write the
next great chapter in American history by reinvigorating our economy and
enriching our communities.”

9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks like the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), has a bit of a problem with his plan to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Arizona's 20-week abortion ban law today. Doh! Court Strikes Down Arizona 20-Week Abortion Ban:

TalibanThe 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violated a woman's
constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus
is able to survive outside the womb. "Viability" of a fetus is
generally considered to start at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about
40 weeks.

Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even
earlier. Several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or
struck down by other courts.

Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel on the
San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violate a
long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe
v. Wade decision in 1973.

The judge wrote that "a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable."

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012 after it was
approved by the Republican-led Legislature. Supporters said the law was
meant to protect the mother's health and prevent fetuses from feeling
pain. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional,
partly because of those concerns, but the 9th Circuit blocked the ban
from going into effect until it ruled.

Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn't technically a
law but rather a medical regulation because it allowed for doctors to
perform abortions in medical emergencies. Berzon rejected that reasoning
and deemed the legislation a law banning abortions before a fetus is
viable.

"The challenged Arizona statute's medical emergency exception does not
transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of
abortion procedure," Berzon wrote. "Allowing a physician to decide if
abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to
decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term."

Berzon was joined by judges Mary Schroeder and Andrew Kleinfeld.

The ‘Mayor’ of Washington, D.C. wants to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This guy, again . . . last month I posted about Rep. Trent Franks still fancies himself 'Mayor' of Washington, D.C.:

When Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is not channeling Joe McCarthy with his
Islamophobia conspiracy theories about how the Council on American
Islamic Relations tried to plant "spies" in the national security
apparatus, House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies, or claiming that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today (why? Because "abortion!"), or declaring that President Obama is one of the most dangerous enemies facing America today and "an enemy of humanity", or threatening to impeach President Obama
over his refusal to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act,
this Christian Right anti-gay, anti-abortion zealot fancies himself the
"Mayor" of Washington, D.C., proposing to outlaw the constitutional
right to a safe abortion in the District.

Apparently "Mayor" of Washington, D.C. is no longer good enough for Franks. Not content with attempting to impose his anti-abortion crusade upon the women who live in the nation’s capital, Rep. Trent Franks  now intends to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide with a bill to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks. Arizona Congressman Wants To Expand His DC Abortion Ban To Restrict Reproductive Rights Nationwide:

Franks, who invoked the illegal abortion provider Kermit Gosnell to justify his decision to re-introduce a 20-week abortion ban in DC, now says that Gosnell’s crimes have compelled him to amend his bill so it applies to women across the country.

The Arizona congressmember announced his decision to expand his bill on Friday.

SCOTUS watching down the final stretch

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

According to the stats kept by Scotusblog.com, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard 74 merit cases this term, and issued opinions in 39 of those cases.

This leaves 35 opinions to be announced over the next six weeks before the end of June. Mondays are orders and opinions days, with the exception of Tuesday, May 28, because of the Memorial Day holiday.

There are several cases I am following for decisions expected to be issued late in the term on June 17 or June 24, but one never knows.

There are two voting rights cases. The first is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., (12-71), which involves the question whether the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) that requires persons who are registering to vote to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The federal law requires only an attestation of citizenship, subject to prosecution for false attestation. This is a federal preemption issue.

The "big one" that everyone is waiting for is Shelby County v. Holder, (12-96), which involves the question whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority.

This is the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act with which covered states, such as Arizona, must comply because of past history of voter discrimination. Arizona has yet to qualify for the "bail out" provision of the Voting Rights Act because Arizona has not had a record of non-discrimination for more than 10 years.

If Section 5 is struck down, it will be a conservative activist court substituting its judgment for the judgment of Congress, which reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. That would set off a firestorm of protest, and justifiably so.

Making the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have posted about this topic from time to time whenever a member of Congress introduces a bill for a constitutional amendment that would make the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right. This is important, because fundamental constitutional rights are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review by the federal courts. Currently the right to vote, which is not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution, is generally reviewed under the rational basis standard of review.

Under the strict scrutiny standard of review, most of the attempts to restrict voting rights that we have seen in recent years would not pass constitutional muster.

John Nichols writes at The Nation, Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a point of emphasizing during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote
reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S.
Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and
procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies
regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter
registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our
electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and
approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that.

The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long
histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, on Monday unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.