Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Albuqurque Journal reports on today's arguments before the New Mexico Supreme Court. NM Supreme Court: No immediate ruling on same-sex marriage, but plenty of tough questions:

The New Mexico Supreme Court has wrapped up a landmark two-hour
hearing on whether gay marriage should be legalized in the state.

Nearly 170 people crammed into the court’s chambers and several
overflow rooms for the hearing, while others had to be turned away due
to a lack of space.

While the state’s highest court did not issue an immediate
ruling on the issue, same-sex marriage advocates said after the hearing
they like their chances.

“I thought it went very well,” said Monica Leaming of
Farmington, who attended the proceedings with her wife, Cecilia Taulbee.
“I’m optimistic about the outcome, because there’s a strong indication
that most New Mexicans support same-sex marriage.”

Meanwhile, gay marriage opponents suggested they would
pursue a statewide election — via a constitutional amendment — on the
issue of gay marriage if the Supreme Court rules to sanction it.

“I think the most important thing here is no matter what
their decision is, the issue will not be settled until the people
speak,” said Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I flagged this story yesterday, but now we have a real-life example of a woman being disenfranchised of her vote by Texas' voter I.D. law solely because of how her name appears on photo I.D. And she is a judge.

Steve Benen reports When the war on voting meets the war on women:

Rick Hasen flagged a remarkable story
out of Corpus Christi, Texas, where the state’s new voter-ID law –
imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act – is
causing problems for women who use maiden names or hyphenated names. A
local district court judge experienced the problem first hand.

“What I have used for voter registration and for
identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I
went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.

Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The
name on her driver’s license has remained the same for 52 years, and the
address on her voter registration card or driver’s license hasn’t
changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was
told by voting officials that she would have to sign a “voters
affidavit” affirming she was who she said she was.

“Someone looked at that and said, ‘Well, they’re not the same,’” Watts said.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Voter I.D. laws have a disparate impact on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and college students by requiring a state-issued photo I.D. many do not possess, and requiring original documents, typically a birth certificate, in order to obtain the appropriate state-issued photo ID. The cost of obtaining original vital records document(s) is often prohibitively expensive to someone who cannot afford it. This works as an unconstitutional poll tax in my opinion, but our illustrious U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

Another bloc of voters for whom voter I.D. laws have a disparate impact are women who have married or divorced, but who have not updated their state-issued photo I.D. to reflect their name change. This is about to become an issue in Texas. Alex Palombo writes at the Huffington Post, What 19th Amendment?

It's a trend lately, that if a party is afraid of losing an election,
they pass legislation barring key groups in their opponents' base from
voting. And clearly, it's something Texas has taken to heart. Right
after Wendy Davis declared that she was running for governor, Texas
Republicans set out to disenfranchise women from voting, 19th Amendment be damned.

And the way they're keeping ladies out of the voting booth it is a doozy.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the AIRC filed its Response to Platiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission. This is the case in which our Tea-Publican legislators want to overturn Proposition 106 (2000), the citizens initiative creating the AIRC enacted by the voters of Arizona, asserting that the citizens of Arizona have no authority to deprive the state legislature of the "exclusive" power to redistrict.

The Response cites the controlling case precedents demonstrating why the case filed by our Tea-Publican legislators is without merit, and they are not entitled to any relief.

It is important to remember that during the Progressive Era, a number of states enacted the reforms of citizens initiative, referendum and recall. The state of Arizona was admitted to the Union in 1912 with a progressive state constitution which expressly provided for citizens initiative, referendum and recall, reserving to the people the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution.

The controlling case precedent is Ohio ex rel Davis v. Hidebrant, 241 US 565, 569 (1916):

By an amendment to the Constitution of Ohio, adopted September 3d, 1912,
the legislative power was expressly declared to be vested not only in
the senate and house of representatives of the state, constituting the
general assembly, but in the people, in whom a right was reserved by way
of referendum to approve or disapprove by popular vote any law enacted
by the general assembly. And by other constitutional provisions the
machinery to carry out the referendum was created.

* * *

In May, 1915, the general assembly of Ohio passed an act redistricting the state for the purpose of congressional elections, by which act twenty-two congressional districts were created, in some
respects differing from the previously established districts, and this
act, after approval by the governor, was filed in the office of the
secretary of state. The requisite number of electors under the
referendum provision having petitioned for a submission of the law to a
popular vote, such vote was taken and the law was disapproved.