Courts & Law

The case for aggressive litigation in the AIRC redistricting cases

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is the reason why I believe the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) should have been aggressive and filed a counter-claim against the secretive GOP redistricting organization FAIR Trust and its lawyer/lobbyists who tried to influence the AIRC on behalf of the Arizona GOP delegation. It would have allowed for litigation discovery and testimony under oath from everyone involved in FAIR Trust, and it would have conflicted out the lawyer/lobbyists who are currently representing the GOP in the redistricting lawsuits before the courts.

The Orlando Sentinel reports, Florida Supreme Court rules lawmakers can be forced to testify in redistricting court fight:

The Florida Supreme Court ruled Friday that state lawmakers can be forced to testify and turn over documents related to whether they intentionally redrew political maps for partisan gain last year.

The fight between voting-rights groups such as the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Legislature stems from 2010 constitutional amendments adopted by voters that specify lawmakers couldn’t base their decisions when re-drawing congressional and legislative districts on the desire for political gain.

Specifically, the Fair Districts amendments outlawed drawing new lines with the intent to favor or disfavor incumbents or political parties.

AZ Supreme Court to hear arguments re: injunction against campaign finance limits on Tuesday

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593 (new higher campaign contribution limits) in a ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain (CV13-0341-PR) and real parties in interest (.pdf). The Arizona Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, … Read more

National Guard units now compliant with DoD regulations for same-sex partner benefits

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualBack in early November, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered National Guard units in nine mostly Southern GOP governor controlled states to comply with the new Department of Defense same-sex marriage benefits regulations for military spouses and veterans. Secretary Hagel orders national guard units to comply with DoD regulations re: same-sex partner benefits.

After some resistance, particularly from the governors of Oklahoma and Texas, Secretary Hagel announced on Friday that Holdout states now compliant with Pentagon’s same-sex benefits policy:

All states are now processing benefits for same-sex National Guard spouses after several holdouts found ways to implement the policy without violating their constitutional bans on the recognition of gay marriage.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in an announcement Friday that same-sex spouses in every state can now obtain the military ID cards required to receive benefits for wives and husbands of service members.

“All of [the Department of Defense] is committed to pursuing equal opportunities for all who serve this nation, and I will continue to work to ensure our men and women in uniform as well as their families have full and equal access to the benefits they deserve,” Hagel said.

A handful of states, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia, refused to process ID applications for gay spouses after the Pentagon issued a directive requiring the military to treat all legally married couples equally for purposes of federal benefits. The states told same-sex couples they could only apply at federal installations, though heterosexual spouses could submit their paperwork at state facilities.

Hagel directed the chief of the National Guard Bureau in late October to work with state officials to reach compliance with the Defense Department’s new policy. The policy came in response to a landmark Supreme Court decision in June overturning a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Slowly, the holdout states and the National Guard Bureau found workarounds to ensure equal treatment of service members without allowing their employees to process same-sex benefits.

(Update) Judge sends Arizona Prop. 200 voter registration case back to the EAC

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Wichita Eagle reports today, Judge sends voter citizenship suit back:

A federal judge has sent back to federal elections officials a request by Kansas and Arizona to force modifications in a national voter registration form so the states can fully enforce proof-of-citizenship requirements.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren on Friday sent the states' lawsuit back to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, with instructions that the commission has to have a final decision by Jan. 17.

The states want the federal form to include instructions requiring Kansas and Arizona residents to provide a birth certificate, passport or other proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.

The Justice Department says such a change places an additional obstacle for eligible voters and would affect nationwide policy by setting a precedent.

Well Judge, here's the problem with your order. The EAC has no commissioners to comply with your order.

Senate Tea-Publicans have used obstruction of presidential appointments to the EAC to "nullify" the agency out of existence without ever enacting legislation to terminate the agency. This unprecedented form of "nullification" is being remedied with executive and judicial nominees now that Democrats exercised the constitutional option to eliminate the Senate filibuster rule, but the confirmation process has not yet made it down to presidential appointments to the EAC.

Motion to Dismiss in AZ AHCCCS expansion case to be heard today

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic reports, Medicaid battle heads to court:

The battle over Medicaid expansion in Arizona moves to the courtroom today[.]

* * *

Led by Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, and House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, all but two of the lawmakers who were on the losing side of the June vote sued to challenge one of the biggest public-policy changes in Arizona in decades.

They are joined by two residents and the director of the Arizona branch of the limited-government advocacy ["Kochtopus"] group Americans for Prosperity. [The "Kochtopus" Goldwater Institute is providing the lawyers.]

The case revolves around whether the Legislature had the authority to approve the funding plan that would be used to pay the state’s share of expanded Medicaid coverage.

* * *

The GOP lawmakers and allies argue that because the tax vote fell short of the two-thirds supermajority needed to approve a tax, the move was unconstitutional.

They also argue that Brewer’s plan violates the separation of powers because it allows an executive-branch agency, AHCCCS, to set that rate, rather than the Legislature.

* * *

Brewer, along with her supporters, is asking Judge Katherine Cooper to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that none of the plaintiffs have proper legal standing to challenge the policy move.