Courts & Law

(Update) The Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) has been struck by the Court of Appeals

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Baseball sage Yogi Berra was right! "It ain't over 'til it's over."

The Plaintiffs challenging the petitions of the Initiative to
Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) filed an appeal from Pima County
Superior Court Judge James Marner's order on September 3, 2013. (2 CA-CV 2013-0120).

On September 12, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs/appellants, rejected the cross-appeal by counsel for the initiative committee, and remanded the case back to Pima County
Superior Court Judge James Marner with instructions to grant the injunctive relief requested by plaintiffs to prevent Prop. 201 from being printed on ballots:

Having considered the briefs filed by the parties and the oral arguments
before this court in this expedited election appeal, see Ariz. R. Civ.
App. P. 8.1, this court has determined that the trial court erred in
rejecting the plaintiffs/appellants/cross-appellees’ challenge as to the
validity of certain signatures obtained by circulators of City of
Tucson Initiative Petition 2013-1004. We further conclude the
cross-appeal raises no issues warranting relief. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is
remanded to the trial court which is directed by 2:00 p.m., September
12, 2013, to enter judgment in favor of
plaintiffs/appellants/cross-appellees and to enter an injunction
pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C). A written opinion will follow. 

That mandate for injunction does not yet appear on the Pima County Superior Court docket for this case.

Hawaii special session in October to approve same-sex marriage

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualThe state of Hawaii may be the next state to authorize same sex-sex marriages — if the New Mexico Supreme Court doesn't beat them to it. the Washington Post reports, Hawaii likely next to legalize same-sex marriage:

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has called the state legislature
back into special session to vote on legalizing same-sex marriage, a
step that likely means he’s corralled the necessary votes to pass a
bill.

Democrats have overwhelming majorities in both the state House and
Senate, but some Democratic legislators weren’t on board with a same-sex
marriage bill. Party leaders met in late August to count the votes;
Abercrombie said he would call a special session if legislators could
agree on language that would withstand a court challenge.

“The merits of holding a special session include the opportunity for
the Legislature to focus squarely on this important issue, without
having to divert attention to the hundreds of other bills introduced
during a regular session,” Abercrombie said in a statement.

(Update) Marriage Equality breaks out in New Mexico – State Supreme Court to decide

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualThe New Mexico Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide once and for all
whether same-sex marriage should be legal statewide after several
counties recently began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian
couples, prompting a legal challenge. NM high court to hear gay marriage case next month:

The five-member state Supreme Court issued an order setting an Oct. 23 hearing in a case that finally could decide whether marriage licenses can be issued to gay and lesbian couples.

The
court took the step a day after New Mexico's 33 counties and county
clerks statewide filed a petition asking justices to determine whether a
state district judge in Albuquerque was correct last week in declaring
it's unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

More
than 900 marriage licenses have been issued in New Mexico since Aug.
21, when the Dona Ana County clerk decided independently that gay
marriage was allowed. Seven other counties have followed in granting
licenses to same-sex couples or planning to do so, several in response
to court orders.

"This is excellent news because county clerks will now know what the law is, and they'll know how to not just administer their offices but how to serve their constituents," said Daniel Ivey-Soto, a lawyer for clerks and a Democratic state senator from Albuquerque.

The quick hearing "indicates the Supreme Court is interested in clarifying the law," he said.

The
high court could issue a decision immediately after hearing arguments
from lawyers in the case or it could take longer to make a ruling.

The justices asked parties in the case to submit written arguments by Sept. 23.

(Update) Lawsuit to challenge the initiative to bankrupt the City of Tucson – appeal filed

by

Posted by azblueMeanie:

As the great baseball sage Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

The Plaintiffs challenging the petitions of the Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) filed an appeal from Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner's order on September 3, 2013. (2 CA-CV 2013-0120).

Pursuant to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ Notice of Filing Appeal and Notice of
Expedited Election Matter Pursuant to ARCAP Rule 8.1(c ) and Request
for Scheduling Conference Pursuant to ARCAP 8.1(f),a scheduling conference was held on September 4, 2013. Order below the fold:

Same-sex couples to receive veterans benefits

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A ruling by a federal court judge in California last week has convinced the U.S. Department of Justice to no longer enforce the sections of U.S. Code Title 38 that prohibit same-sex couples from receiving veterans benefits. DOJ Won’t Enforce Law Banning Same-Sex Couples From Receiving Veterans Benefits:

EqualThe Department of Justice announced Wednesday
that it would no longer enforce the sections of U.S. Code Title 38 that
prohibit same-sex couples from receiving veterans benefits. The law
exists separately from the Defense of Marriage Act and was thus
continuing to block veterans from accessing benefits for their partners,
although a federal court overturned the law last week.

In a letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and first obtained by the Washington Blade,
Attorney General Eric Holder explained that even though “Decisions by
the Executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare,” the
DOMA ruling and subsequent decision last week provide ample
justification for no longer enforcing this restriction. This is
especially true, he pointed out, since the House Republicans are no
longer defending Title 38 through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
(BLAG):

In light of these developments, continued enforcement of
the Title 38 provisions pending further judicial review is unwarranted.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Windsor reinforces the
Executive’s conclusion that the Title 38 provisions are
unconstitutional, and another Article III court now has so determined.
Moreover, as I explained in my earlier letter, one of the primary
interests underlying the earlier decision to continue enforcement of the
Title 38 provisions was to allow representatives of Congress to present
a defense of those provisions to the judicial branch. BLAG’s decision
to withdraw from the Title 38 litigation in light of Windsor,
and therefore to cease its defense of the provisions at issue, means
that continued enforcement would no longer serve that interest. In
the meantime, continued enforcement would likely have a tangible
adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances,
active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival,
health care, home loan, and other benefits.