Courts & Law

Pair of court decisions to cause confusion in campaign finances

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It has been an interesting week in the courts for campaign finance, and the picture is clear as mud.

GavelThe Arizona Court of Appeals this week overturned the new campaign spending limits in a bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Pierce, who announced this week that he is running for Secretary of State. An ignomious beginning to his campaign, dontcha think? His bill is unconstitutional, but that is not unusual for our lawless legislature.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported Court of Appeals blocks new contribution limits:

The Arizona Court of Appeals blocked
Arizona’s new campaign contribution limits, reversing a trial judge’s
ruling and putting a halt to a month of fundraising under the higher
limits.

The court issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593
on Tuesday, about two hours after a three-judge panel finished hearing
an appeal of a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling that allowed the
new limits to take effect. The court did not explain its reasoning,
saying only that Secretary of State Ken Bennett is barred from enforcing
the new limits pending further order from the court.

Attorney Joe Kanefield, who represents the Citizens Clean Elections Commission in its challenge to the law, said he was thrilled with the decision.

“We have always believed that this law was unconstitutional. We’ve
said that from day one. We said the while it was being debated in
legislative proceedings,” said Kanefield, of the firm Ballard Spahr.

He argued in court that the Legislature violated the Voter Protection Act when it approved the new limits. Opponents have long claimed that because the Citizens Clean Elections Act,
which has always been considered a voter-protected law, reduces the
state’s contribution limits by 20 percent, the limits are subject to the
Voter Protection Act.     It only allows the Legislature to amend
voter-protected statutes with a three-fourths vote, and then only in a
way that furthers the intent of the voters.

* * *

[T]he appellate judges appear to have sided
with Kanefield, who said voters intended to regulate the limits as they
existed in 1998, when the Clean Elections Act was passed.

Immigration Reform NOW: Protestors Blockade Entrance to Eloy Detention Center

by
From the arrest of Congressman Raul Grijalva and other progressive representatives last week at an immigration reform rally to protesters chaining themselves to immigration detention center buses to the blockade of the Eloy Detention Center today, immigration reform advocates are turning up the pressure.

The Eloy blockade began this morning. For background information go here and for dramatic photos go here.

From the National Day Laborer Organizing Network…

Just now, protestors chained themselves in front of the Eloy Detention Center. Their action calls on the President to stop deportations and the criminalization of immigrants. Through civil disobedience they say they’re exposing the inhumane imprisonment at the center of current immigration policy and the needless warehousing of the undocumented who could benefit from reform.

Many of those inside Eloy have committed no major offense and instead are victims of Congress’ 34,000 minimum detention bed mandate and the profiling of Sheriffs like Arpaio and Border Patrol required to fulfill the arbitrary quota.

 

Judge Richard Posner admits he was wrong about voter I.D. – implications for McCutcheon v. FEC

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the leading intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. He is a sought after speaker at conservative events.

Judge Posmer wrote the majority opinion for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Indiana voter I.D. case, and his majority opinion was the foundation for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008).

Rick Hasen at electionlawblog.com reports Breaking: Judge Posner Admits He Was Wrong in Crawford Voter ID Case:

Wow.

My transcription from HuffPostLive:

In response to Mike Sacks’s questions about whether Judge Posner and
the 7th circuit got it wrong in Crawford case, the one upholding
Indiana’s tough voter id law against constitutional challenge:

“Yes. Absolutely. And the problem is that there hadn’t been that much
activity with voter identification. And … maybe we should have been
more imaginative… we…. weren’t really given strong indications that
requiring additional voter identification would actually disfranchise
people entitled to vote. There was a dissenting judge, Judge Evans,
since deceased, and I think he is right. But at the time I thought what
we were doing was right. It is interesting that the majority opinion was
written by Justice Stevens, who is very liberal, more liberal than I
was or am….  But I think we did not have enough information. And of
course it illustrates the basic problem that I emphasize in book.  We
judges and lawyers, we don’t know enough about the subject matters that
we regulate, right? And that if the lawyers had provided us with a lot
of information about the abuse of voter identification laws, this case
would have been decided differently.”

New York Times on Arizona’s ‘two-tier’ voter registration

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

AZConfederacyArizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett have conspired with nativist anti-immigrant activist and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to devise a "two-tier" voter registration system in their Neo-Confederate temper tantrum for "states' rights!" against the federal government. Creating two separate classes of voters based solely upon the registration form used violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and is an overt act of voter suppression.

Today the New York Times takes notice, After
Court Ruling, 2 States Plan 2-Tier Voting System:

Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for
federal elections, Arizona is complying — but setting up a separate
registration system for local and state elections that will demand such
proof.

The
state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting
system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state
and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top
posts in both states will be on the ballot.

The
states are using an opening left in June by the United States Supreme
Court when it said that the power of Congress over federal elections was
paramount but did not rule on proof of citizenship in state elections.
Such proof was required under Arizona’s Proposition 200, which passed in
2004 and is one of the weapons in the border state’s arsenal of laws
enacted in its battle against illegal immigration.

The
two states are also jointly suing the federal Election Assistance
Commission, arguing that it should change the federal voter registration
form for their states to include state citizenship requirements. While
the agency has previously denied such requests, the justices said the
states could try again and seek judicial review of those decisions.

(Update) New Jersey Court rules in favor of marriage equality

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualJudge Mary Jacobson, who last month ordered the state
to allow same sex marriages because she said gay couples are being
denied equal rights "every day," Thursday wrote that delaying the start
date would prolong "violations of their constitutional rights." Christie to appeal judge's ruling allowing same-sex marriage:

[Judge Mary Jacobson] refused to delay the Oct. 21 start date she set to begin same-sex
marriages in New Jersey, rejecting the Christie administration’s
contention that no gay weddings should be peformed while the case is
still being fought in the courts.

* * *

It’s possible the Oct. 21 start date could still be put on hold. The
Christie administration quickly responded Thursday by requesting the
state Appellate Division grant the delay instead. The appeals court
could consider the motion as soon as next week, according to filing
deadlines it set for both sides to make their case.

Gay rights advocates applauded Jacobson’s decision.