Courts & Law

New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of Marriage Equality

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Breaking news today: New Jersey Supreme Court greenlights gay marriage starting Monday:

EqualThe New Jersey Supreme Court on Friday said gay marriages can begin taking place starting Monday, brushing aside a request from Gov. Chris Christie's (R) administration for a delay as it appeals.

"We conclude that the State has not made the necessary showing to
prevail … and that the public interest does not favor a stay," the judges wrote. "We therefore deny the State's motion for a stay."

The court ruled [unanimously] that the state has "not shown a reasonable
probability it will succeed on the merits," which will be argued in
January.

 

Christie's administration is appealing a lower-court ruling from
last month that legalized gay marriage, but his press secretary Michael
Drewniak said in a statement Friday the governor will comply with the
ruling.

"The Supreme Court has made its determination," Drewniak  said. "While
the Governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by
all the people of the State of New Jersey, he has instructed the
Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in
effectuating the order of the Superior Court under the applicable law."

The court scheduled oral arguments for early January.

Tom ‘banned for life by the SEC’ Horne violated campaign finance laws

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After the tag team of Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery totally mucked up the initial investigation into Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and had their case dismissed for not following the law, a second investigation by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk has again concluded that Tommy Boy violated campaign finance laws. Arizona AG again found to have violated campaign law:

For the second time in a year, a county prosecutor has determined
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and his political-ally-turned-staffer
Kathleen Winn violated campaign-finance laws during Horne’s 2010 run
for office.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk on Thursday gave Horne 20 days to
return nearly $400,000 in donations to an independent-expenditure
committee, Business Leaders for Arizona, that Polk said illegally
coordinated its efforts with Horne’s campaign.

* * *

Polk, in her order, said several e-mails and the timing of phone
calls “provide convincing proof that Horne and Winn coordinated” on the
development of the anti-Rotellini ad and on raising money to pay for the
ad.

Therefore, Polk said, the cost of the ad must be counted as in-kind
contributions to Horne’s campaign and not to the independent-expenditure
committee.

Campaign laws forbid coordination between candidates and certain activities with independent-expenditure committees.

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.”