Courts & Law

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.

House Ways and Means Committee advances unconstitutional ’empowerment scholarship accounts’

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Snap quiz class. Tell me what is wrong with this headline from the Arizona Daily Star's creative headline writer: Expanding state aid to private and parochial schools on track. Congratulations class! You are all way smarter than the Star's creative headline writer.

Education_appleThis is a clear violation of the Arizona Constitution which prohibits state funding to private and parochial schools:

Article 2, Section 12: "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment."

Article 11, Section 7: "No sectarian instruction shall be imparted in any school or state educational institution that may be established under this Constitution, and no religious or political test or qualification shall ever be required as a condition of admission into any public educational institution of the state, as teacher, student, or pupil;"

Several years ago, the Goldwater institute convinced the Arizona Supreme Court to accept a sort of "straw man exchange" argument common in real estate transactions to uphold tax credits that supported private and parochial schools. The argument was that the money went to the parents, not directly from the state to the schools, and thus did not violate the constitutional provisions above. The legal fiction created by the Court was in error, but established a legal precedent that the Goldwater Institute has been trying to exploit ever since.

And this is exactly what our Tea-Publican controlled legislature is hoping to accomplish with these so-called "empowerment scholarship accounts." Howard Fischer reports:

A House panel agreed Monday to allow hundreds of thousands of children to attend private and parochial schools at public expense — a vote one legislator said is part of a radical agenda to destroy public schools.

Justice Department policy: equal protection to married same-sex couples

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a speech Saturday night at the Human Rights Campaign’s Greater New York Gala at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced a new Justice Department policy. Justice Dept. to give married gay couples equal protection (modified and updated):

EqualThe Justice Department on Monday instructed all of its employees across the country, for the first time, to give lawful same-sex marriages sweeping equal protection under the law in every program it administers, from courthouse proceedings to prison visits to the compensation of surviving spouses of public safety officers.

In a new Policy Memo (.pdf), the department spells out the rights of same-sex couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses, even if their marriages are not recognized in the state where the couple lives.