Courts & Law

Governor Christie drops appeal on first day of Marriage Equality in New Jersey

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On the first day that same-sex couples can marry in New Jersey as a result of last week's state Supreme Court ruling, Governor Chirs Christie has decided to drop his appeal before the state's high court. The New York Times reports, Christie Drops Appeal of Gay Marriage Ruling in New Jersey:

EqualGov. Chris Christie of New Jersey announced on Monday that he would drop his legal challenge to same-sex marriage, hours after gay couples started exchanging vows in midnight ceremonies across the state.

Mr. Christie’s withdrawal of his appeal to the court decision that
allowed the marriages came on the heels of a ruling by the State Supreme
Court on Friday that rejected his attempt to block the marriages until
the appeal was resolved. His decision effectively removed the last
hurdle to making same-sex marriage legal in New Jersey.

“Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting
its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a
vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view
of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the
law,” a spokesman for Mr. Christie said in a note to reporters on Monday
morning. “The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his
administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme
Court.”

Marriage Equality case in Michigan goes to trial in February

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Yet another marriage equality case is heading to trial in the courts, this time in Michigan. Case Against Michigan Ban on Gay Unions Is Sent to Trial:

EqualA federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a case contesting Michigan’s ban
on same-sex marriage would go to trial early next year, one among some 30 such challenges playing out in courthouses around the nation.

Here, advocates for same-sex marriage and even some opponents had speculated that the judge, Bernard A. Friedman, of the Eastern District of Michigan, might go further and overturn the state’s nine-year-old constitutional amendment on marriage as early as Wednesday.

[A] representative for Bill Schuette, the
Michigan attorney general, whose office has defended the state’s ban,
issued a directive to county clerks in the event that the judge ruled
against the state, advising them that they were forbidden to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples until appeals were completed.

In the end, Judge Friedman delayed an answer to the issue, instead
suggesting that a trial, set for Feb. 25, would examine a central legal
question surrounding the issue in Michigan, but also elsewhere: whether
the rationales for a ban on same-sex marriage serve a legitimate state
interest.

New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of Marriage Equality

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Breaking news today: New Jersey Supreme Court greenlights gay marriage starting Monday:

EqualThe New Jersey Supreme Court on Friday said gay marriages can begin taking place starting Monday, brushing aside a request from Gov. Chris Christie's (R) administration for a delay as it appeals.

"We conclude that the State has not made the necessary showing to
prevail … and that the public interest does not favor a stay," the judges wrote. "We therefore deny the State's motion for a stay."

The court ruled [unanimously] that the state has "not shown a reasonable
probability it will succeed on the merits," which will be argued in
January.

 

Christie's administration is appealing a lower-court ruling from
last month that legalized gay marriage, but his press secretary Michael
Drewniak said in a statement Friday the governor will comply with the
ruling.

"The Supreme Court has made its determination," Drewniak  said. "While
the Governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by
all the people of the State of New Jersey, he has instructed the
Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in
effectuating the order of the Superior Court under the applicable law."

The court scheduled oral arguments for early January.

Tom ‘banned for life by the SEC’ Horne violated campaign finance laws

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After the tag team of Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery totally mucked up the initial investigation into Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and had their case dismissed for not following the law, a second investigation by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk has again concluded that Tommy Boy violated campaign finance laws. Arizona AG again found to have violated campaign law:

For the second time in a year, a county prosecutor has determined
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and his political-ally-turned-staffer
Kathleen Winn violated campaign-finance laws during Horne’s 2010 run
for office.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk on Thursday gave Horne 20 days to
return nearly $400,000 in donations to an independent-expenditure
committee, Business Leaders for Arizona, that Polk said illegally
coordinated its efforts with Horne’s campaign.

* * *

Polk, in her order, said several e-mails and the timing of phone
calls “provide convincing proof that Horne and Winn coordinated” on the
development of the anti-Rotellini ad and on raising money to pay for the
ad.

Therefore, Polk said, the cost of the ad must be counted as in-kind
contributions to Horne’s campaign and not to the independent-expenditure
committee.

Campaign laws forbid coordination between candidates and certain activities with independent-expenditure committees.

Pair of court decisions to cause confusion in campaign finances

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It has been an interesting week in the courts for campaign finance, and the picture is clear as mud.

GavelThe Arizona Court of Appeals this week overturned the new campaign spending limits in a bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Pierce, who announced this week that he is running for Secretary of State. An ignomious beginning to his campaign, dontcha think? His bill is unconstitutional, but that is not unusual for our lawless legislature.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported Court of Appeals blocks new contribution limits:

The Arizona Court of Appeals blocked
Arizona’s new campaign contribution limits, reversing a trial judge’s
ruling and putting a halt to a month of fundraising under the higher
limits.

The court issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593
on Tuesday, about two hours after a three-judge panel finished hearing
an appeal of a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling that allowed the
new limits to take effect. The court did not explain its reasoning,
saying only that Secretary of State Ken Bennett is barred from enforcing
the new limits pending further order from the court.

Attorney Joe Kanefield, who represents the Citizens Clean Elections Commission in its challenge to the law, said he was thrilled with the decision.

“We have always believed that this law was unconstitutional. We’ve
said that from day one. We said the while it was being debated in
legislative proceedings,” said Kanefield, of the firm Ballard Spahr.

He argued in court that the Legislature violated the Voter Protection Act when it approved the new limits. Opponents have long claimed that because the Citizens Clean Elections Act,
which has always been considered a voter-protected law, reduces the
state’s contribution limits by 20 percent, the limits are subject to the
Voter Protection Act.     It only allows the Legislature to amend
voter-protected statutes with a three-fourths vote, and then only in a
way that furthers the intent of the voters.

* * *

[T]he appellate judges appear to have sided
with Kanefield, who said voters intended to regulate the limits as they
existed in 1998, when the Clean Elections Act was passed.