Courts & Law

Nightmare scenario: no campaign finance limits

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott posted about the Court of Appeals ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain, and real parties in interest (.pdf) earlier in State appeals court blocks higher campaign contribution limits.

Howard Fischer from Capitol Media Services has a report in the Arizona Daily Star this morning (the online link is not working) captioned "Appellate court orders new review for campaign-finance limits," which lays out a nightmare scenario for anyone concerned about the corrupting influence of unlimited money in political campaigns:

Screenshot from 2013-10-25 06:22:06In a formal opinion, the judges reaffirmed their earlier order keeping the current limits in place, saying there is evidence legislation pushed through by Republican lawmakers earlier this year increasing campaign donation limits violates a constituional provision.

But the court also sent the case back to the trial judge, directing Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain to consider claims by lawyers for Republican legislative leaders that the old limits — the ones the appellate court just restored — are so low as to violate the First Amendment rights of candidates annd donors. [A favorite argument of the Goldwater Institute.]

That raises the possibility the old limits could be declared unconstitutional. And if the new limits were improperly enacted, there might be absolutely no cap on how much individuals and political action committees could give, or how much candidates could accept.

State appeals court blocks higher campaign contribution limits

by

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

…At least until the inevitable appeal by the Republican political leadership…

In a curiously-worded ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals blocked the hugely increased campaign contribution limits passed by the legislature in HB2593. 

At least, they're blocked for state-level candidates.

Under the provisions of HB2593, limits on individual contributions to a political candidate were raised from $450 (local and county races), $440 (legislative races), and $912 (statewide races) to $5000,
and aggregate limits, the total that an individual may give to
candidates and political committees that give to candidates went from
$6390 to no limit.

The ruling from the Court is more than 30 pages long, but the "money" line (so to speak 🙂 ) is the last one –

Ken ‘Birther’ Bennett wants the non-existent EAC to modify federal voter registration form

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this week, the Pew Data Dispatch examined The Cost of a Two-Tiered Election in Arizona.

I am guessing that Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett also read this report, because he has changed his mind about maintaining a dual voter registration system in Arizona. Bennett wants court to mandate modification to federal election forms:

Not willing to maintain a dual registration
system, Secretary of State Ken Bennett wants a court to order the
federal Election Assistance Commission to modify its voter registration
forms to demand proof of citizenship.

In legal filings Wednesday, Bennett said he needs an immediate
order to ensure that Arizona — and Kansas, which is seeking the same
relief — are not denied “their sovereign and constitutional right to
establish and enforce voter qualifications.” Without the order, Bennett
said the state will forced to register "unqualified" voters. [Those who do not submit proof of citizenship under Arizona law.]

* * *

Bennett contends that [a dual voter registration system] will be “unduly burdensome.” So he wants a
federal judge in Kansas who is hearing the case to order the Election
Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement for the
voter-registration forms it has for Arizona.

And Bennett and Kris Kobach, his Kansas
counterpart, want that to happen soon, seeking a hearing on Nov. 12 or
shortly thereafter.

New Mexico Supreme Court hears arguments in Marriage Equality case

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Albuqurque Journal reports on today's arguments before the New Mexico Supreme Court. NM Supreme Court: No immediate ruling on same-sex marriage, but plenty of tough questions:

EqualThe New Mexico Supreme Court has wrapped up a landmark two-hour
hearing on whether gay marriage should be legalized in the state.

Nearly 170 people crammed into the court’s chambers and several
overflow rooms for the hearing, while others had to be turned away due
to a lack of space.

While the state’s highest court did not issue an immediate
ruling on the issue, same-sex marriage advocates said after the hearing
they like their chances.

“I thought it went very well,” said Monica Leaming of
Farmington, who attended the proceedings with her wife, Cecilia Taulbee.
“I’m optimistic about the outcome, because there’s a strong indication
that most New Mexicans support same-sex marriage.”

Meanwhile, gay marriage opponents suggested they would
pursue a statewide election — via a constitutional amendment — on the
issue of gay marriage if the Supreme Court rules to sanction it.

“I think the most important thing here is no matter what
their decision is, the issue will not be settled until the people
speak,” said Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington.

(Update) The GOP war on voting – women are the next bloc of voters targeted

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I flagged this story yesterday, but now we have a real-life example of a woman being disenfranchised of her vote by Texas' voter I.D. law solely because of how her name appears on photo I.D. And she is a judge.

Steve Benen reports When the war on voting meets the war on women:

Rick Hasen flagged a remarkable story
out of Corpus Christi, Texas, where the state’s new voter-ID law –
imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act – is
causing problems for women who use maiden names or hyphenated names. A
local district court judge experienced the problem first hand.

“What I have used for voter registration and for
identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I
went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.

Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The
name on her driver’s license has remained the same for 52 years, and the
address on her voter registration card or driver’s license hasn’t
changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was
told by voting officials that she would have to sign a “voters
affidavit” affirming she was who she said she was.

“Someone looked at that and said, ‘Well, they’re not the same,’” Watts said.