Courts & Law

Wisconsin voter I.D. trial in court this week

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Now that the election is over, it is time to catch up on matters not receiving media attention this week, like this federal court trial in Wisconsin challenging that state's voter I.D. requirement. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported earlier this week, Federal trial challenging Wisconsin's voter ID law underway:

Minorities and senior citizens testified Monday about costly and
time-consuming difficulties they faced in getting photo identification
as they pressed their case to permanently invalidate Wisconsin's voter
ID law.

The federal trial that kicked off Monday involves two cases and is
expected to last two weeks. A Dane County judge in a different case has
already blocked the law, but opponents of voter ID are pursuing the
federal litigation in an attempt to ensure the requirement never goes
back into effect.

* * *

The trial began with a string of people describing the problems they
had in trying to secure IDs for themselves or family members. Some of
them have yet to be successful.

"I cannot express the amount of time, energy and frustration it
required" to get a license for her mother, Debra Crawford testified.

Crawford's mother, Bettye Jones, was the lead plaintiff in one of the cases before the court Monday. Jones died in October 2012.

Jones was born in Tennessee and lived much of her life in Cleveland,
Ohio. She moved to Brookfield in 2011 to be closer to family after her
husband died.

She had to make multiple trips to a Wisconsin Division of Motor
Vehicles office before she could get a driver's license last year
because she did not have a birth certificate. Getting the license cost
her more than $100 and took about 40 hours over several months, Crawford
testified.

Crawford and others who testified Monday were questioned only briefly
during cross examination by attorneys for the state. But in opening
statements, Kawski stressed state officials have made exceptions in
unique circumstances to accommodate voters who had difficulty acquiring
IDs.

U.S. Supreme Court declines identical case to Arizona campaign finance case

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It would appear the U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ with U.S. District Court Judge James Teilborg's ruling in an Arizona campaign finance case. Portion of campaign finance law overturned:

In 2011, Galassini sent an e-mail to 23 Fountain Hills residents
making them aware of the road-bond proposal, asking them to write
letters to a local newspaper and naming two street-corner protests where
recipients were encouraged to show up with signs to make passers-by
aware of their opposition.

Galassini then received a letter from Town Clerk Bev Bender saying
Galassini needed to file a statement of organization in the Town Clerk’s
Office before any electioneering takes place “if any additional person
or persons join the effort.” After receiving the letter, Galassini told
Bender she would stop all e-mails and not hold a rally.

Galassini asked the court to declare unconstitutional the portion of
state campaign-finance law that requires groups that speak about ballot
issues and accept or expend less than $500 to file as political
committees.

In his order, [U.S. District Court Judge James] Teilborg said the definition of political committee is
“overbroad because it sweeps in a substantial amount of protected speech
that the state does not have an important interest in regulating.”

CREW files complaint against a ‘Kochtopus’ dark money organization

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint today against the "Kochtopus" dark money organization Freedom Partners Chambers of Commerce, Inc. Press release from Crew:

CREW Calls on IRS to Clarify Rules for 501(c)(6) Groups and Investigate Freedom

Washington, D.C. — Following up on a
lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for its failure to
properly regulate groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax
code, today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington (CREW) filed a
rulemaking petition (.pdf) asking the agency to
clarify regulations and rein in abuses by 501(c)(6) organizations.

Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code provides tax-exempt status for
organizations such as business leagues, chambers of commerce, and boards
of trade.  Recognizing “business league” to be an ambiguous phrase, in
1919, the IRS defined it as an “association of persons” with a “common
business interest, whose purpose is to promote the common business
interest.”  Taking advantage of the fact that the IRS has never provided
guidance as to what activities serve the common business interests,
501(c)(6)s increasingly are serving as vehicles for wealthy groups and
individuals to funnel anonymous or “dark” money to other tax-exempt
organizations to influence elections.  Section 501(c)(6) groups reported
spending more than $46 million on federal campaigns in 2010, and more
than $55 million in 2012.

“If there’s a loophole in the tax code, it’s a sure thing that
someone will take advantage of it,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie
Sloan.  “If the IRS fails to act, Americans should expect to see an
increase in the number of so-called ‘business leagues’ created to funnel
money into our elections while cloaking the identities of their
donors.”

Our lawless legislature wants its higher campaign finance limits now!

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593 (new higher campaign contribution limits) in a ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain, and real parties in interest (.pdf).

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature never tires of pissing away taxpaper dollars on litigation to defend its unconstituional acts, so naturally our Tea-Publican legislature has filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court challenging the preliminary injunction (the Court of Appeals sent the case in chief back to the trial court for a decision on the merits). The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Lawmakers ask state Supreme Court to reinstate new contribution limits:


Senate President Andy Biggs and House
Speaker Andy Tobin asked the Arizona Supreme Court to lift an injunction
against new campaign contribution limits passed by the Legislature.

Attorney Mike Liburdi, who represents Biggs and Tobin, argued that
the Arizona Court of Appeals erred when it determined that voters
intended to fix campaign contribution limits permanently when they
approved the Citizens Clean Elections Act in 1998. He also told the high
court that it should reinstate the higher new contribution limits
contained in HB2593 because the old limits are unconstitutionally low.

The crux of the dispute over HB2593 is a provision in the Clean
Elections Act that reduces the contribution limits from a separate
statute by 20 percent. Opponents of the new limits argue that the voters
intended that reduction to set new contribution limits in perpetuity.

* * *


The Court of Appeals sent part of the
case back to the trial court, where it instructed Maricopa County
Superior Court Judge Mark Brain to hear arguments on whether Arizona’s
contribution limits are unconstitutionally low. Liburdi asked the
Arizona Supreme Court to determine whether the plaintiffs or the
defendants have the burden of proof in those arguments.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Oklahoma abortion case, wants response from Texas

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Supreme Court took off of its docket, and thus will not decide, a plea by the state of Oklahoma to revive a law that restricts doctors’ use of drugs rather than surgery to perform an abortion with the medication RU-486 and others. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Court won’t rule on RU-486 abortions:

Uterus-stateIn a one-sentence order, the Court dismissed as “improvidently granted” the case of Cline  v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice (docket 12-1094).   In issuing other orders, the Court granted no new cases for review.

Meanwhile, a group of women’s health clinics and doctors in Texas asked that the Court at least temporarily a new Texas law that forbids doctors to perform
abortions at a clinic unless those physicians have professional privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of that site.  The Fifth Circuit Court on Thursday allowed that requirement to go into effect, resulting in closing a number of abortion clinics across the state. The application to set aside that order was filed initially with Justice Antonin Scalia, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Texas. He has the authority to decide the issue himself, or share it with his colleagues.

The application is Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott (13A452). Justice Scalia immediately asked for the state to respond by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12. The new Texas law also involved a broad restriction on doctors’ option of performing medical abortions with the drug RU-486 and other medications, and that, too, has been allowed to take effect at least in part. The abortion providers’ request to the Supreme Court on Monday, however, did not ask the Justices to take any action on that provision.