Courts & Law

(Update) Voter ID on trial in Pennsylvania

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Closing arguments were today in the Voter ID trial in Pennsylvania. the AP reports, Lawyers sum up their cases in Pa. voter ID trial:

The
12-day trial over Pennsylvania's tough voter-identification law ended
Thursday with the state contending that officials have provided
safeguards to ensure any registered voter can easily get the mandatory
photo ID and plaintiffs urging the judge to overturn the law because it
violates voters' constitutional rights.

"It is time to put an end to this and enjoin the law," Jennifer Clarke,
director of Philadelphia's Public Interest Law Center and a member of
the plaintiffs' legal team, told Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard
McGinley.

Philadelphia lawyer Alicia Hickok, arguing for the state, said the
plaintiffs failed to show that the law is unconstitutional.

‘Son of Citizens United’ coming in October

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Term of the U.S. Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. The 2013 Term begins October 7, 2013.

The very next day, Tuesday, October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in what portends to be the most momentous decision of the 2013 Term. Mark your calendars. It is the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (12-536), the "Son of Citizens United" monster that may unravel federal campaign contribution limits. The issues presented are:

(1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate
committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a
constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to
national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on
contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are
unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable
interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to
non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and
facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to
candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for
lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest.

h/t Scotusblog.com

Update on Special Action challenge to the consolidated elections bill

by

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

(Update) Voter ID on trial in Pennsylvania

by

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

Arizona’s campaign contribution limits challenged in court

by

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.