Courts & Law

Coalition files lawsuit to overturn Rosemont groundwater permit

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Press release from the Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Association:

Local Coalition Goes to Court to Protect Southern Arizona Water

Lawsuit
filed to overturn Rosemont Groundwater Permit

(Tucson,
Ariz.) A diverse coalition of southern Arizonans filed a lawsuit on Friday to
overturn state approval of a key water permit for the proposed Rosemont Mine in
the Santa Rita Mountains, south of Tucson.

Despite
its name, the “aquifer
protection permit”
would allow a Canadian mining company to pollute Tucson’s groundwater supplies with
mercury, arsenic, lead and other dangerous contaminants.

The suit
seeks to overturn the Arizona Water Quality Appeals Board's (WQAB) decision to
approve Rosemont Copper Company’s Aquifer Protection Permit. The suit asserts that the WQAB
acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rubber-stamped the
Administrative Law Judge’s rejection of administrative appeals of the permit.

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

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On August 16, 2013, 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.

You can read the 13 page ruling
Here (.pdf).

Long story short, Judge Marner is striking a number of the petitions submitted as invalid for the reasons stated in his ruling. The Tucson City Clerk is 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 shall accomplish this by no later than August 23, 2013.

The GOP war on voting in North Carolina

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post editorial board, which in no way can be mistaken for liberal, condemned North Carolina's "draconian" new voter suppression law today in a damning editorial opinion. North Carolina law takes war on voting rights to a new low:

IN THE wake of the Supreme Court’s
Shelby v. Holder
 decision, which gutted significant portions
of the Voting Rights Act, it’s difficult to say which of the many
recently passed voter-suppression bills constitutes the greatest threat
to that most sacred of American freedoms: the right to vote. The contest
has several leading contenders, but the winner just might be North
Carolina’s especially draconian bill, signed into law on Monday.

The bill includes the usual provisions that have come to
characterize the quiet assault on the franchise: a shortened
early-voting period, the elimination of the state’s successful same-day
registration program and, of course, a strict photo identification
requirement despite any evidence of voter fraud in the state.

What makes this law unique is how much further it goes. It includes no fewer than 12 extra provisions
that prohibit such things as counties extending polling hours by one
hour in the event of unusual circumstances (such as, say, long lines);
provisional voting should someone, say, mistakenly go to the wrong
precinct; and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who could
previously register to vote before they turned 18.

(Update) Voter ID on trial in Pennsylvania

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: We have an injunction issued by the court today, Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Barred From Enforcement In November Election By Judge: A state judge on Friday barred enforcement of Pennsylvania's strict voter-identification law in the Nov. 5 general election. The state also cannot require local elections officials to verbally tell voters at … Read more

Tucson defeats the Arizona Legislature in Special Action challenge to the consolidated elections bill

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law will apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

On Monday, Judge James E. Marner of the Pima County Superior Court entered his ruling after trial of this matter to the court in
City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No.
C20126272). Judge Marner ruled in favor of the Cities of Tucson and Phoenix, and against the Arizona legislature. The 10 page ruling is
Here.

Highlights from the Ruling as to Conclusions of Law:

A.R.S. § 16-204, as amended, conflicts with the city charters of Tucson and Phoenix by requiring the Cities to hold their candidate elections on even-numbered years rather than on odd-numbered years . . .

The Cities' decision of when to schedule candidate elections for mayor and Council elections is a matter of local concern. This includes the decision of whether to align with Federal/State/County elections on even-numbered years or to hold elections on odd-numbered years.