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. Last week the trial of City of Tucson v. State of Arizona … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The trial resumed on Tuesday after a four day recess with the state calling Jonathan Marks, a high-ranking state election official. Things got interesting at the end of the day. Judge In Pa. Voter ID Trial Holds Private Hearing: In an 11th-hour move at the end of Tuesday’s session, the plaintiffs’ lawyers … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Last week the Arizona Supreme Court declined jursidiction over a direct special action filed by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Arizona Advocacy Network, Louis J. Hoffman and Rep. Victoria Steele to challenge HB 2539, which raised the campaign contribution limits for traditionally funded candidates, but did not similarly adjust the campaign contribution limits for Clean Elections candidates, in violation of the Citizens Clean Elections law formula.
It also violates the Voter Protection Act, Prop. 105 (1998), which requires a three-fourths super-majority vote of each chamber of the legislature to amend a voter approved measure, which must also be consistent with the purpose and intent of the measure. HB 2539 clearly is not.
The Arizona Supreme Court declining jurisdiction was not unexpected. The Arizona Supreme Court rarely accepts jursidiction of a direct special action. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission subsequently voted to authorize its counsel, Joe Kanefield, to refile the suit in Maricopa County Superior Court to challenge HB 2539.
On Tuesday, supporters of Citizens Clean Elections asked a judge to block new higher campaign contribution limits from taking effect as scheduled while their legality is litigated. The commission is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the court. Supporters ask judge to block higher campaign limits:
Attorneys for the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and their
allies contend the larger allowable donations were enacted illegally
earlier this year. They contend lawmakers cannot let privately funded
candidates take a lot more money without getting a three-fourths vote
for the measure, which it did not get.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Neo-Confederate "states' rights" GOP that still clings to its racially polarizing Southern strategy of appealing to the racism of white voters to win elections is going to prevent any fixes to the Voting Rights Act. I'm shocked! (not).
Sahil Kapur reports at Talking Points Memo, The GOP Won’t Let Congress Fix The Voting Rights Act:
Ever since the Supreme Court gutted
a centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act and threw it back in Congress’s
lap, lawmakers in both parties have engaged in happy talk about the
prospects of patching the provision used to proactively snuff out voter discrimination against minorities in the state and local governments where it’s most prevalent.
But it’s looking less and less likely that a fix will be agreed to
because Republicans have little to gain and a lot to lose politically if
they cooperate.
“Ain’t gonna happen,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said late last week, according to Roll Call.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Qualified Tucson electors Yolanda Parker, John Springer, Jr., and Chris Anderson have filed a challenge to the sufficiency of the initiative petition filed by the Committee for Sustainable Retirement, the local front group for ballot initiative activist Paul Jacob and the
Liberty Initiative Fund, with additional financial support from the National Taxpayers Union. Petitioners are represented by the law firm Coppersmith, Schermer & Brockelman, PLC.
A copy of the pleadings are
Here, excluding attached exhibits.
The complaint for injunctive and mandamus relief pursuant to A.R.S. §§19-122(C) challenges the petition signature sheets submitted by by the Committee for Sustainable Retirement and counted by the statutory defendants, including the City Clerk for the City of Tucson.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants illegally accepted petition signature sheets and counted the signatures thereon that:
(1) were circulated by persons who are not qualified to register as electors in the state of Arizona;
(2) were circulated by persons who have not registered as out-of-state circulators with the Arizona Secretary of State prior to circulating petition sheets as required by A.R.S. §19-122(C);
(3) petition signature sheets were improperly notarized and contained circulator affidavits that pre-dated the dates the electors signed the petitions;
(4) petition signatures lacked information required by statute, or were rendered void because the circulator filled in or supplemented information on the petition.