Courts & Law

AIRC Update: U.S. District Court wants briefing on Shelby County v. Holder

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a one-page order signed by Chief U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver on Monday, the three judge federal court panel considering the Arizona GOP's legal challenge to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) state legislative districts map has asked for additional briefing from the parties on the effect, if any, of the U.S. Supreme Court decsion on Shelby County v. Holder on this case.
Harris v. AIRC – Order dated 7-8-13 (.pdf).

The issue the federal court wants briefed in particular is the possibility of abstention in favor of state court adjudication.

Section 5 pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) provides two paths to pre-clearance: one is submission to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review — the path the AIRC followed — and the other is proceeding in U.S. District Court, the path the State of Texas chose to follow.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula for covered jurisdictions under Section 4 of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which had the intended consequence of suspending the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 of the VRA until such time that Congress acts to adopt a new covered jurisdiction formula under Section 4.

hanger

Anti-Choice ‘Onslaught’: GOP-Led State Legislatures Debate 300 Bills to Restrict Abortion Access (video)

by

Signs940-sig-sm72by Pamela Powers Hannley

Words like “onslaught,” “unprecedented,” “extremist,” “dangerous,” “unconstitutional,” “medically unnecessary,” “unscientific,” and “draconian” have been used to describe the Republican Party’s nationwide push to limit women’s healthcare, stop women from choosing to have safe, legal abortions, and close abortion clinics through over-regulation. In the first six months of this year, states have passed 106 provisions related to reproductive health, including 43 that specifically restrict abortion access.

In recent weeks, high-profile, anti-choice legislation in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina,  Wisconsin, and North Dakota has made the news.  Thanks to a one-woman filibuster by Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and hundreds of pro-choice protesters watching in the Legislative chambers, Texas is the only Republican-controlled state government in that list that didn’t pass and sign into law anti-choice legislation this spring. (Of course, Texas Governor Rick Perry– vowing to end abortion in Texas altogether– has called for another special session of the Republican-dominated State Legislature to fix that, and Democrats have little hope they will be able to stop the legislation a second time.)

These Republican-led states join others like Arizona and Virginia who passed anti-choice legislation in recent years. Nationwide, 13 states now have highly restrictive laws limiting women’s reproductive healthcare and access to legal abortions, resulting in half of American women of reproductive age living in states that are outwardly hostile to their health. Nationwide, 300 anti-choice bills are being debated. In addition, US Senator Marco Rubio and Arizona Congressman Trent Franks have introduced anti-choice bills in the Senate and House of Representatives; a ban on abortions after 20 weeks has already passed the Republican-controlled House. More details about the extent of this battle after the jump.

Latest on the New Jersey Special Election for U.S. Senate

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last month an appeal was pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging the October special election date for U.S. Senate. With all of the breaking news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of June, this story sorta got lost in reporting.

On June 20, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. N.J. Supreme Court allows special U.S. Senate elections | NJ.com:

The special October election to fill the seat of the late Sen. Frank
Lautenberg can go on as scheduled after the Supreme Court today said it
will not hear the case.

In a one-page notice, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner denied Somerset
Democratic chairwoman Peg Schaffer’s request for the state’s highest
court to take up her challenge.

That leaves the Oct. 16 special Senate election on the calendar.

* * *

Schaffer said she’s disappointed the court wouldn’t take up the case, even if simply to clarify voting laws in New Jersey

"I would have been much happier if they explained whether or not they
agreed with the Appellate Division decision," Schaffer said.

On the Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today marks the 49th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of civil rights legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

I guess the media is waiting for the 50th anniversary to take note of this historic achievement. The media may not want to wait after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last week, and interpreted provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in such a way as to make claims for workplace discrimination under the act harder to enforce. The Roberts Court is hostile to the civil rights acts.

I am in agreement with Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog, “Getting Over” Jim Crow:

[Chief Justice] John Roberts and so many others try to argue that discrimination
against black folks in the Deep South is some sort of ancient scandal
with no relevance today, you can’t much get around the fact that just 49
years ago Jim Crow was very much alive and as pervasive a feature of
southern life for both races as fried food or hot weather or going to
church on Sunday.

Research data proves the Supreme Court is wrong

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This reporting by Morgan Kousser at Reuters blows away the disingenuous sophistry of Chief Justice John Roberts in Shelby County v. Holder (and echoed by every pundit in the conservative media entertainment complex right-wing noise machine). Gutting the landmark civil rights legislation:

The Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision on Tuesday essentially cast aside the key component of the nation’s most important civil rights legislation.

The five “conservative” justices castigated Congress for putting too much emphasis on history by failing to update the “coverage formula” in Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 4 specifies which states and local jurisdictions must “pre-clear”
with the Justice Department or the Washington district court all
changes in election laws – anything from adding voter ID regulations to
redistricting. Areas now subject to this federal oversight have had a
substantial history of voter discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing for the 5-4 majority, conceded
that the Voting Rights Act is largely responsible for a decline in
blatant voting racial discrimination efforts. Yet he declared the
federal oversight program “unconstitutional”
on the grounds that it did not reflect “current conditions.” Instead,
he invited this most dysfunctional of Congresses to “draft another
formula.”

But the chief justice is wrong.

Read more