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

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

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.

Update on the Referendum (‘citizens veto’) of HB 2305, Voter Suppression Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State's Office completed its review of the petitions for the referendum ("citizens veto") of HB 2305, the Voter Suppression Act. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported, Secretary of State knocks 2,300 signatures from HB2305 referendum effort:

2305hb11The coalition fighting the election law approved by the Legislature this year filed 139,161 signatures that passed the first round of verification from the Secretary of State’s Office.

The office tossed 237 petition sheets
containing more than 2,300 signatures for technical reasons. An
unreported number of individual signatures were also thrown out for
technical reasons, said Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Secretary of State
Ken Bennett.

* * *

The remaining signatures must have an
overall validity rate of roughly 62 percent in order to force a
referendum against the law. Referendum backers like Robbie Sherwood,
spokesman for the Protect Your Right to Vote Campaign, are confident enough of the signatures will be validated to make it happen.

“To lose less than 5 percent (on the first review) we thought was
very good, and we were very happy with that. Certainly it’s not over,
and we’re not counting our chickens before they hatch, but we’re
confident we’ll have the signatures,” he said.

The Secretary of State’s Office announced Monday that it is sending a
random 5 percent sample of the 139,161 signatures to each of the
state’s 15 county recorders, who will check the validity of signatures
from their counties.


Within 15 days of receiving the 5 percent
sample, each county must calculate the percentage of valid signatures
from registered voters in the county and return the petition sheets,
along with the total validity rate, back to the Secretary of State’s
Office.

Arizona GOP voter suppression efforts follow the lead of Kris Kobach

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Nativist anti-immigrant lawyer Kris Kobach, the athor of Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) and SB 1070 (despite disgraced former Sen. Russell Pearce's claims of authorship to the contrary), has a plan to get around the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June striking down the proof of citizenship requirement to register to vote in Arizona's Prop. 200 and a similar law in Kansas, where Kobach unbelievably is now Secretary of State. Kris Kobach's Bold New Plan to Keep People From Voting:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has become a national figure by advising other states on how to implement anti-immigrant and voter suppression measures,
has come up with a new creative way to make it harder for Kansans to
vote: barring those who register to vote with a federal form from
casting ballots in state elections.

Back in June, the Supreme Court struck down
an Arizona elections law that required those registering to vote to
show proof of citizenship beyond what is required by federal voter
registration forms. In Kansas, Kobach has been struggling to deal with
the implementation of a similar proof-of-citizenship law, which has left
the voting status of at least 12,000 Kansans in limbo.

These voters, many of whom registered with the federal “motor voter”
form at the DMV, were supposed to have their citizenship information
automatically updated, a process that was delayed by a computer glitch. Kobach then suggested that these 12,000 voters be forced to cast provisional ballots – a suggestion that the state elections board rejected.

Now, the Lawrence Journal-World reports, Kobach has a new idea to deal with the problem that he created.
The paper reports that Kobach is considering a plan to circumvent the
Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case by creating two classes of
voters
. Under this plan, those who register with a federal form would be
allowed to vote only in federal elections until they produced the
state-required citizenship documents. Those who meet the state
registration requirements would then be allowed to vote in state-level
elections.

First Monday in October: SCOTUS preview

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are a number of controversial cases already on the U.S. Supreme Court docket for its 2013-2014 term, none more so than "Son of Citizens United," the McCutcheon v. FEC case to be argued tomorrow. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.com has a preview:

GavelToday is the first Monday in October, which means that this morning the
Justices will return to the bench for the first time since they issued a
series of historic rulings at the end of June.  In the Los Angeles Times,
David Savage looks ahead at the new Term, which he characterizes as one
that “gives the court’s conservative bloc a clear opportunity to shift
the law to the right on touchstone social issues such as abortioncontraception and religion, as well as the political controversy over campaign funding”; at BuzzFeed, Chris Geidner lists his eleven cases “that could change the U.S. in the coming year.”

The editorial board of The New York Times
weighs in on the new Term as well, emphasizing that, although “[n]o
case yet promises the high-profile splash of rulings on national health
care, voting rights or same-sex marriage, . . . in many of them,
long-established Supreme Court precedents may be at risk.”  And in the ABA Journal,
Erwin Chemerinsky focuses on the Court’s October sitting, concluding
that there is “every reason to believe that October Term 2013 will again
involve decisions that affect not only the law and legal system, but
each of us, often in the most important and intimate aspects of our
lives.”

Tomorrow the Court will hear oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which it will consider the constitutionality of aggregate limits on campaign contributions.  Lyle previewed the case for us last week, while Carolyn Shapiro has a video preview at ISCOTUSnow.  The case is also the focus of the Room for Debate page of The New York Times, where debaters include Richard Hasen (who also has extensive links to coverage of the case at his Election Law Blog), Ilya Shapiro, Bradley Smith, Ciara Torres-Spellicsy, and Elizabeth Wydra; other coverage comes from Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice, who observes that the Court in Citizens United “made
clear it has no qualms about setting corporations free to spend freely
on political campaigns,” and contends that “[a]ll signs suggest those
five justices are likely to have no qualms about unleashing McCutcheon
and other well-heeled contributors as well.”  And at the Constitutional
Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog,
Elizabeth Wydra describes McCutcheon as a case that “could make it even
harder for Congress to address one particular issue: the corrupting
influence of money in politics.”  Finally, in anticipation of the oral
argument in McCutcheon, the latest installment in C-SPAN Radio’s series on historic oral arguments looks back at the oral argument in Colorado GOP Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC.