Courts & Law

The Voting Rights Act and the Section 3 ‘opt in’ provision

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A frequently made argument by GOP apologists, like Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic, is that Arizona should not be a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act.

Arizona failed to meet certain criteria in 1972 to get federal approval for any state legislation or procedural changes that could impact voting, which included having low voter turnout and not offering election materials in other languages.

Arizona in 1974 implemented bilingual voting, but Congress never removed Arizona from the Section 4 covered jurisdiction formula in subsequent renewals of the Act. "We're being punished for the past!"

This argument requires one to ignore the fact that Arizona has always had the opportunity to "opt out" of the covered jurisdiction formula if it could adequately demonstrate a clean bill of health for a period of 10 years without any violations for discrimination against voters. A number of jurisdictions have successfully "opted out' over the years.

This argument also requires one to ignore the history of discrimination that occurred after Arizona was added to the list of covered jurisdictions — the Department of Justice filed formal objections
to racially discriminatory changes to Arizona law 22 times since 1973,
including each decennial redistricting — except for the most recent
redistricting in 2012.

This is the reason why Arizona has never been able to qualify for the "opt out" provision. Arizona cannot demonstrate a clean bill of health for a period of 10 years without any violations for discrimination against voters. Funny how the GOP apologists never mention this. They would have you believe it was just a one-off event over bilingual ballots in 1972. Hardly.

AIRC Update: U.S. District Court wants briefing on Shelby County v. Holder

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a one-page order signed by Chief U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver on Monday, the three judge federal court panel considering the Arizona GOP's legal challenge to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) state legislative districts map has asked for additional briefing from the parties on the effect, if any, of the U.S. Supreme Court decsion on Shelby County v. Holder on this case.
Harris v. AIRC – Order dated 7-8-13 (.pdf).

The issue the federal court wants briefed in particular is the possibility of abstention in favor of state court adjudication.

Section 5 pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) provides two paths to pre-clearance: one is submission to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review — the path the AIRC followed — and the other is proceeding in U.S. District Court, the path the State of Texas chose to follow.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula for covered jurisdictions under Section 4 of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which had the intended consequence of suspending the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 of the VRA until such time that Congress acts to adopt a new covered jurisdiction formula under Section 4.

hanger

Anti-Choice ‘Onslaught’: GOP-Led State Legislatures Debate 300 Bills to Restrict Abortion Access (video)

by

Signs940-sig-sm72by Pamela Powers Hannley

Words like “onslaught,” “unprecedented,” “extremist,” “dangerous,” “unconstitutional,” “medically unnecessary,” “unscientific,” and “draconian” have been used to describe the Republican Party’s nationwide push to limit women’s healthcare, stop women from choosing to have safe, legal abortions, and close abortion clinics through over-regulation. In the first six months of this year, states have passed 106 provisions related to reproductive health, including 43 that specifically restrict abortion access.

In recent weeks, high-profile, anti-choice legislation in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina,  Wisconsin, and North Dakota has made the news.  Thanks to a one-woman filibuster by Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and hundreds of pro-choice protesters watching in the Legislative chambers, Texas is the only Republican-controlled state government in that list that didn’t pass and sign into law anti-choice legislation this spring. (Of course, Texas Governor Rick Perry– vowing to end abortion in Texas altogether– has called for another special session of the Republican-dominated State Legislature to fix that, and Democrats have little hope they will be able to stop the legislation a second time.)

These Republican-led states join others like Arizona and Virginia who passed anti-choice legislation in recent years. Nationwide, 13 states now have highly restrictive laws limiting women’s reproductive healthcare and access to legal abortions, resulting in half of American women of reproductive age living in states that are outwardly hostile to their health. Nationwide, 300 anti-choice bills are being debated. In addition, US Senator Marco Rubio and Arizona Congressman Trent Franks have introduced anti-choice bills in the Senate and House of Representatives; a ban on abortions after 20 weeks has already passed the Republican-controlled House. More details about the extent of this battle after the jump.

Latest on the New Jersey Special Election for U.S. Senate

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last month an appeal was pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging the October special election date for U.S. Senate. With all of the breaking news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of June, this story sorta got lost in reporting.

On June 20, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. N.J. Supreme Court allows special U.S. Senate elections | NJ.com:

The special October election to fill the seat of the late Sen. Frank
Lautenberg can go on as scheduled after the Supreme Court today said it
will not hear the case.

In a one-page notice, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner denied Somerset
Democratic chairwoman Peg Schaffer’s request for the state’s highest
court to take up her challenge.

That leaves the Oct. 16 special Senate election on the calendar.

* * *

Schaffer said she’s disappointed the court wouldn’t take up the case, even if simply to clarify voting laws in New Jersey

"I would have been much happier if they explained whether or not they
agreed with the Appellate Division decision," Schaffer said.

On the Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today marks the 49th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of civil rights legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

I guess the media is waiting for the 50th anniversary to take note of this historic achievement. The media may not want to wait after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last week, and interpreted provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in such a way as to make claims for workplace discrimination under the act harder to enforce. The Roberts Court is hostile to the civil rights acts.

I am in agreement with Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog, “Getting Over” Jim Crow:

[Chief Justice] John Roberts and so many others try to argue that discrimination
against black folks in the Deep South is some sort of ancient scandal
with no relevance today, you can’t much get around the fact that just 49
years ago Jim Crow was very much alive and as pervasive a feature of
southern life for both races as fried food or hot weather or going to
church on Sunday.