Courts & Law

Department of Justice aggressively pursues voting rights cases against GOP voter suppression

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports that GOP-led states are moving aggressively on voting rules:

Emboldened by the Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the
Voting Rights Act, a growing number of Republican-led states are moving
aggressively to tighten voting rules. Lawsuits by the Obama
administration and voting rights activists say those efforts
disproportionately affect minorities.

Last week, a three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled 2-1 to allow the Department of Justice to intervene in the Texas redistricting lawsuit. The Court ruled (.pdf) that "after Shelby County, circumstances changed significantly, since §3(c) became an issue for the first
time."

"The parties recognize the importance of the §3(c) claims. Certain Plaintiffs “posit that this particular VRA claim will be critical in resolving the issues in this litigation.” Docket no. 788 at 2. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ briefing on §3(c) illustrates the fact that issues concerning the proper construction and application of §3(c) are unsettled and highly disputed. And the parties recognize that “there is limited judicial guidance available on the application of Section 3(c).” Docket no. 788 at 9. The United States has a direct interest in the construction and application of §3(c) that was not present until after the Shelby County ruling. Therefore, the interest that the United States seeks to protect is not the same interest that was present from the inception of the litigation."

Today, the Department of Justice sued the state of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina over "the worst voter suppression law" in the nation. Read the complaint Here (,pdf).

New Jersey court rules in favor of marriage equality

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualA New Jersey state court judge ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marry under the state constitution, ordering
marriage equality will take effect on October 21, 2013 — assuming the
decision is not stayed on appeal. New Jersey Judge: Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry:

The decision is expected to be appealed, first to an intermediate court, and then to the state Supreme Court.

* * *

The decision
does not overturn the civil unions law, but asserts that same-sex
couples must also have the right to marriage, including all the federal
benefits now associated with it post-Defense of Marriage Act:

The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal
benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide
range of contexts: civil union partners who are federal
employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with
regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are
employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave
Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and
civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married
couples enjoy.

And if the trend of federal agencies deeming civil union partners
ineligible for benefits continues, plaintiffs will suffer even more,
while their opposite-sex New Jersey counterparts continue to receive
federal marital benefits for no reason other than the label placed upon
their relationships by the State. This unequal treatment
requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to
satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution
as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis. Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution.

‘Son of Citizens United’ in the Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The first Monday in October marks the opening of the 2013-2014 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court. We are a week away from the Court hearing oral arguments in "Son of Citizens United," McCutcheon v. FEC, a challenge to the overall contribution
limits for individual donors to candidates and parties.

Political scientist Norm Ornstein writes at The Atlantic, If You Thought Citizens United Was Bad, Wait for This Supreme Court Case:

On October 8, the Court is going to take up the next big campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC,
a challenge to the overall contribution limits for individual donors to
candidates and parties, limits that were institutionalized in the Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976 that undergirds Court jurisprudence on campaign finance.

McCutcheon refers to Shaun McCutcheon, who has given a lot of money
to Republicans and joined with the Republican National Committee to
bring the suit. Their argument starts with the idea that Citizens United’s
reasoning — that limits on independent spending by corporations
violated the First Amendment — should also apply to limits on what
individuals can contribute, in the aggregate, to candidates and parties.
Undergirding the argument is the idea that since the Citizens United
ruling, parties and candidates have been put at a disadvantage compared
with corporations, other groups, and individuals who are allowed to
flood political campaigns with money through independent expenditures.
Now, the argument goes, we need to compensate by freeing up the parties
and candidates to raise more money.

AIRC Update: Arizona Daily Star op-ed condemns Arizona Legislature’s lawsuit

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about the filing of the latest GOP lawsuit assault on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) back in August, AIRC Update: Tea-Publican deadbeats sue the AIRC with your tax dollars to overturn Prop. 106 that created the AIRC.

Last Friday, the Arizona Legislature filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and requested consolidation of the hearing with a trial on the merits. Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog posted a good summary. More GOP Legislative Contempt for Arizona Voters…:

Last Friday, attorneys acting on behalf of majority Republicans in the Arizona Legislature filed a brief asking a federal court to essentially immediately and permanently nullify the Congressional district map currently in use.

…Arizona State Legislature hereby moves this Court to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of Article VI, part 2, section 1
of the Arizona Constitution insofar as it takes the power to establish
congressional districts away from the Legislature and conveys it to the
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission; as well as the use of any
federal redistricting maps created by the Commission; and additionally
moves to consolidate the hearing on this motion with the trial on the
merits.

* * *

In explaining their rationale (as irrational as it may be), the GOP counsel states:

In 2000, a voter-generated referendum, Proposition 106 (hereinafter
“Prop. 106”), removed the Legislature’s constitutional role in that
process and granted it instead to the Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission (hereinafter “IRC”), an unelected, nonrepresentative body.

"Voter-generated referendum" is the code they want to use to hide — or at least minimize — the fact that it was really an actual legislative act** conducted by citizen initiative.
Technically, yes, the citizens acting in a legislative capacity DID
relieve the Legislature of its role in redistricting. I've been over
that issue hundreds of times. Case law as cited in the AIRC briefs in this lawsuit makes it crystal clear.

I explained at length in my post above why the case of the Tea-Publican legislators seeking to overturn Prop. 106 in their contempt for the will of the voters is not supported by case precedent and is lacking in merit.

(Update) Lawsuit to challenge the initiative to bankrupt the City of Tucson – stick a fork in it, it’s done

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: You can stick a fork in it, it's done. State high court rejects pension initiative appeal: The Arizona Supreme Court declined to make an expedited ruling on the Committee for Sustainable Retirement Benefits appeal to overturn an appellate court decision that booted the initiative from the November ballot. The Supreme Court said … Read more