Read Blog for Arizona | Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint for more about Courts & Law

U.S. District Court for Oregon strikes down state’s same-sex marriage ban

May 19, 2014May 19, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane for the U.S. District Court for Oregon struck down that state’s sane-sex marriage ban today. Same-sex marriages were allowed to proceed immediately this afternoon.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban nullified:

In a ruling that might never be tested in an appeal, a federal judge in Oregon at midday Monday ruled (.pdf) that the state’s ten-year-old ban on same-sex marriage is invalid under the federal Constitution. U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane of Eugene did so by applying the most relaxed constitutional test.

The judge put his ruling into effect immediately, thus allowing county officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, unless a higher court steps in to block it. It is not clear at this point that anyone has the legal right to pursue an appeal; state officials refused to defend the ban and, in fact, added their support to the challenge by four same-sex couples.

The only other entity that has come forward to provide a defense — the National Organization for Marriage, a strong opponent of same-sex marriage — was denied a role in the case by Judge McShane last Wednesday. It is now seeking to appeal that denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but — before Judge McShane issued his decision — the Ninth Circuit on Monday morning refused to postpone his denial of that group’s entry into the case.

‘With all deliberate speed’: 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, schools are still segregated by race

May 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

Saturday is the 60th Anniversary of the most important U.S. Supreme Court decision of the 20th Century, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The decision overturned Plessy v. Feguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state-sanctioned racial segregation under the racist doctrine of “Separate but equal.” The U.S. Supreme Court gave its blessing to Jim Crow laws and black codes.

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Brown held that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Brown II (1955), the Supreme Court ordered the lower federal courts to require desegregation “with all deliberate speed.”

Give ’em hell Harry! Reid to schedule hearing on campaign finance constitutional amendment

May 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The Washington Post reports, Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment (h/t DonkeyHotey):

Congressional Democrats escalated their fight against the Koch Brothers and other megadonors to political campaigns on Thursday, calling anew for a constitutional amendment to reverse recent Supreme Court campaign-finance decisions and setting a date for a hearing.

Majority Leader Harry Reid announced plans Thursday to hold floor votes on legislation that would “grant Congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns.”

The amendment idea was first introduced by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico. After Reid’s announcement, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced there would be a hearing on the legislation on June 3. [Leahy Announces June 3 Hearing On Constitutional Amendment To Rein In Massive Campaign Spending]

Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill to regulate the ‘Kochtopus’ dark money laundering operations of Sean Noble

May 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

You will recall the Pro Publica investigative report from earlier this year into The Dark Money Man: How Sean Noble Moved the Kochs Cash into Politics and Made Millions. I have posted frequently about the bag man for the “Kochtopus” money laundering operations in the state of Maricopa, who was at the center of California’s Biggest “Campaign Money Laundering” Scheme.

Governor Jerry Brown has now signed legislation strengthening California’s campaign finance laws. The Sacramento Bee reports, Jerry Brown signs law requiring political nonprofits identify donors:

Nonprofit organizations that make political contributions in California will have to disclose more information about the source of their money under a law Gov. Jerry Brown signed Wednesday.

Senate Bill 27 was inspired by the 2012 ballot measure wars in California, when two out-of-state nonprofit groups poured $15 million into fighting Proposition 30 and supporting Proposition 32. Because of the groups’ nonprofit status, they were not required to report where their donations originally came from, leading some to describe the contributions as “dark money.”

7th Circuit strikes down transparency and public disclosure in campaign finance

May 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The repercussions from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC earlier this year continues to unravel any remaining transparency and public disclosure in campaign finance.

The latest decision is from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the “Koch Industries’ midwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin,” as Charles Piece calls it. The Wisconsin State Journal reports, Court: Wisconsin campaign finance laws went too far:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday declared major portions of Wisconsin’s campaign finance law unconstitutional in a decision that experts said would have little immediate effect but would make it clear that the rules must be rewritten.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that objected to rules governing so-called issue advocacy, in which groups express political opinions but don’t advocate for or against specific candidates. The lawsuit, however, also challenged a host of other rules governing how outside groups spend during elections.

[Read the decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland Here.]

The strongly worded decision from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Wisconsin regulators had overstepped their bounds in banning spending by corporations, setting limits on how much they could raise for affiliated political committees and establishing burdensome rules for groups that merely mentioned candidates’ names in ads.