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

A stunning absolutist ‘money=speech’ ruling from Wisconsin

May 9, 2014May 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

I had to double check several news sources when I first saw this because I could not believe my eyes. But it’s for reals, folks.

Judge Rudolph Randa from the U.S. District Court for Wisconsin in Milwaukee has issued a stunning absolutist “money=speech” ruling that is the most sweeping overreach by a federal judge in a prosecution I believe I have ever seen. (Randa was appointed to the bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush). It takes a lot to shock me, but this did it.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, Federal judge halts John Doe probe into Walker recall:

A federal judge ordered a halt Tuesday to the John Doe investigation into campaign spending and fundraising by Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign and conservative groups, saying the effort appeared to violate one of the group’s free speech rights.

In his 26-page decision (.pdf), U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa in Milwaukee told prosecutors to immediately stop the long-running, five-county probe into possible illegal coordination between Walker’s campaign, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and a host of others during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections.

“The (Wisconsin Club for Growth and its treasurer) have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws, and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted. Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech, an activity that is ‘ingrained in our culture,'” Randa wrote, quoting from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

He ordered an immediate halt to the investigation, the return of all property seized during it, and the destruction of any information and materials gained in the investigation. He told the Wisconsin Club for Growth it did not need to cooperate with prosecutors in any way.

Special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, who was leading the investigation, said late Tuesday he expects to challenge the decision by appealing to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

GOP seeks to destroy what remains of McCain-Feingold

May 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The one remaining restriction of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is the restriction on “soft money” contributions collected by political parties.

The law “has succeeded in profoundly altering the state of American politics by severely weakening American political parties to the benefit of outside spending groups who may raise and spend unlimited funds in connection with federal elections,” testified election lawyers Neil Reiff, a Democrat, and Donald McGahn, a Republican, before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee last week. Did Soft Money Ban Kill Political Parties? | Rules of the Game.

Jim Bopp, the constitutional lawyer behind the legal strategy which gutted McCain-Feingold in the Supreme Court with Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, is behind the GOP’s latest attempt to destroy what remains of McCain-Feingold. The ~~Washington~~ Moonie Times reports, RNC set to join landmark suit taking on campaign limits:

Members of the Republican National Committee gathering in Memphis, Tennessee, for their spring meeting are set to join a lawsuit seeking to strike down campaign finance limits and free the GOP to spend unlimited money on get-out-the-vote efforts.

WaPo editorial: Fix the Voting Rights Act

May 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The op-ed page of our sad small town newspaper the Arizona Daily Star is essentially a copy and paste job from the Washington Post, so it is an interesting exercise of editorial discretion that the Star did not copy and paste this WaPo editorial calling on Congress to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act this year. Voting Rights Act fixes should get a vote in the House and Senate:

Last year, the Supreme Court hollowed out one of the most powerful parts of the law, a formula prescribing which states and localities had to get before-the-fact federal approval of any changes they wanted to make to their voting rules. Without the formula, which had been based on historical records of discrimination, the federal government had to stop its automatic review of alterations to voting-district boundaries and other election-related guidelines. The ruling hobbled a law that for decades has offered meaningful political representation to minority Americans by preventing discriminatory tricks from limiting their access to the franchise. The decision was also an insult to Congress, which in 2006 overwhelmingly determined that the act’s provisions — all of them — remain necessary.

The only consolation is that the court did not bar lawmakers from creating a new pre-clearance coverage formula. All Congress has to do, in other words, is get its act together and fill the gap the court tore in the law. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has been trying. In the House, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), who oversaw the 2006 reauthorization of the act, has led the effort, helping to draft a sensible compromise. The proposal, which has a score of co-sponsors, would require federal supervision of any place with five voting rights violations of various sorts over a rolling time frame of 15 years.

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

May 7, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

I attended a recent presentation by Pima County Recorder F.Ann Rodriguez and the staff of the Pima County Elections Division discussing how they are addressing changes in Arizona law for the upcoming election.

I learned that Arizona Secretary of State Ken “Birther” Bennett is going forward with his Tenther “states rights” plan to bifurcate ballots between those voters who registered to vote using the state of Arizona’s voter registration form which requires proof of citizenship, and those who registered to vote using the federal National Voter Registration form which does not require the state proof of citizenship. Such a system would limit those who registered to vote using the federal form to only being allowed to vote for members of Congress this year — you would not be allowed to vote for any other office.

You may recall that the federal District Court for Kansas ordered back in March that the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) immediately modify the National Voter Registration form to add special instructions for Arizona and Kansas residents about those states’ proof-of-citizenship requirements.

SCOTUS again denies NRA appeal seeking to extend the right to carry handguns outside of the home for self-defense

May 5, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie

The U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) (.pdf) held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to have a handgun in the home to protect life and property. This is colloquially referred to as the castle doctrine. But the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review cases backed by the NRA seeking to extend that Second Amendment right to carry handguns outside of the home for self-defense.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in two such cases backed by the NRA. Justices deny review of gun-rights appeals – CNN.com:

The Justices declined to review two cases brought by the National Rifle Association that deal with whether those age 18-20 can buy and then carry handguns in public for self-defense.