Courts & Law

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

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week, Judge James E. Marner ruled in the case of Yolanda Parker et al. v. City of Tucson et. al. (C20134029), the lawsuit to challenge the sufficiency of the initiative petitions filed by the
Committee for Sustainable Retirement, the local front group for ballot
initiative activist Paul Jacob and the
Liberty Initiative Fund.

Judge Marner struck a number of the petitions submitted as invalid
for the reasons stated in his ruling. The Tucson City Clerk was ordered
to remove these invalid petition sheets and to recalculate the number of
signatures eligible for verification and submit the appropriate number
of signatures in the form of random sample to the Pima County Recorder's
Office for determination of an error rate as mandated by A.R.S.
§19-121.01. The Tucson City Clerk was to accomplish this by no later than
August 23, 2013 (today).

Counsel for the
Committee for Sustainable Retirement, Lisa Hauser, who never much cares for what a Judge has to say, filed a Motion For Stay and Motion For Reconsideration on August 22, 2013 — which is her way of saying "sorry Judge, but you are wrong and I am right, as always." You can read the motion Here.

The Court has set a time for hearing of the motion on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. You can read the Ruling
Here.

U.S. Department of Justice sues Texas over Voter ID

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Department of Justice has previously filed a Section 3 claim under the Voting Rights Act against the State of Texas for its discriminatory redistricting maps.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice dropped the other shoe, as anticipated, suing the State of Texas for its Voter ID law. You can read the DOJ complaint
Here.

The Washington Post reports Justice Department sues Texas over voter ID law:

The Justice Department on Thursday redoubled its efforts to challenge
state voting laws, suing Texas over its new voter ID measure as part of
a growing political showdown over electoral rights.

The move marked the latest bid by the Obama administration to
counter a Supreme Court ruling that officials have said threatens the
voting rights of minorities. It also signaled that the administration
will probably take legal action in voting rights cases in other states,
including North Carolina, where the governor signed a voter ID law this
month.

Arizona follows Justice Antonin Scalia’s advice

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona struck down part of Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) — the part which required proof of citizenship to register to vote, even when using the federal voter registration form which only requires an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury — on the grounds of federal preemption of state law.

You may recall that Justice Antonin Scalia in his opinion was helpful in providing a roadmap to the state of Arizona on how to proceed further with litigation in a manner that would meet with his approval. Scalia practically invited Arizona to try again.

Arizona has been following Justice Antonin Scalia's advice, and is now ready to file yet another lawsuit at taxpayer expense. Attorney General Tom Horne, Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the actual author of Prop. 200 and SB 1070 (not Russell Pearce), are set to file the suit today in U.S. District Court.

The REAL IRS scandal finally goes to court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Just in time for this Tea-Publican dog and pony show on Thursday:

Reps. Gosar, Salmon, Schweikert and Franks to Host Congressional Field Hearing

Thursday, August 22, 2013

CONGRESSIONAL FIELD HEARING – THE I.R.S. AND THE E.P.A. – BUREAUCRATS OUT OF CONTROL?

TIME:  3:30PM- 7:30PM (Doors will open at 2:00PM)
LOCATION: Mesa Arts Center
Virginia G. Piper Repertory Theater
1 E. Main Street
Mesa, AZ 85211

The Washington Post reports today that Congressman Chris Van Hollen will file a lawsuit today over the REAL IRS Scandal — that any of these 501(c)(4) organizations engaged in politics ever received tax exempt status in the first place. Pay attention Doug MacEachern, you GOP agitprop hack. High-ranking
Democrat to sue IRS over tax-exemption rules:

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Budget
Committee, said Tuesday that he will serve as lead plaintiff in the
case, which addresses one of the main concerns that surfaced with the
recent IRS targeting controversy: differences between federal law and the IRS rules on eligibility for 501(c)(4) candidates.

Current law says the organizations must engage “exclusively” in social welfare activities, but IRS tax code
requires only that they are “primarily engaged” in such purposes. That
discrepancy has led to confusion for application processors, who have
struggled to determine what constitutes political activity and how much
should disqualify groups from tax-exemption, according to agency
officials.

“I don’t think the IRS should be in the business of
determining whether the primary purpose of an organization is political
or educational,” Van Hollen said in an interview Tuesday. “The statute
is very clear they should not be in that business.”

‘North Carolina’s new voter suppression law shows why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary’

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Professor Richard L.
Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the
University of California, Irvine. Hasen is a nationally recognized
expert in election law and campaign finance regulation, and is co-author
of a leading casebook on election law. He is editor of the Election Law Blog.

Hasen writes at Slate today that "North Carolina’s new voter suppression law shows why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary." Supreme Error:

Usually it takes years to judge when the Supreme Court gets something very wrong. Think of Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the court in the 2010 campaign-finance case, Citizens United,
freeing corporations to spend money on elections. He wrote that the
“appearance of [corporate] influence or access will not cause the
electorate to lose faith in our democracy,” a point that remains hotly
debated even as the amount of money in federal elections skyrockets.

But the conservative justices’ decision this past June in Shelby County v. Holder, striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, has already unleashed in North Carolina the most restrictive voting law we’ve seen since the 1965 enactment of the VRA. Texas is restoring its voter ID law
which had been blocked (pursuant to the VRA) by the federal government.
And more is to come in other states dominated by Republican
legislatures.