Courts & Law

Making the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have posted about this topic from time to time whenever a member of Congress introduces a bill for a constitutional amendment that would make the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right. This is important, because fundamental constitutional rights are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review by the federal courts. Currently the right to vote, which is not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution, is generally reviewed under the rational basis standard of review.

Under the strict scrutiny standard of review, most of the attempts to restrict voting rights that we have seen in recent years would not pass constitutional muster.

John Nichols writes at The Nation, Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a point of emphasizing during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote
reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S.
Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and
procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies
regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter
registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our
electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and
approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that.

The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long
histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, on Monday unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.

Neo-Confederate dead-enders put the long discredited and unconstitutional theories of ‘nullification, interposition and secession’ on the 2014 ballot

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this previously, Arizona's Neo-Confederate dead-enders and secession:

AZConfederacyRemember the "Checks and Balances in Government" citizens initiative aka
the "nullification" initiative from a nutty Scottsdale millionaire
businessman, Jack Biltis, that failed to qualify for the ballot due to
an insufficient number of signatures last year? Businessman spends $1.2 million to put nullification measure on ballot.

Biltis has decided to bypass the expense
of another initiative effort and to take the easy route of getting his
fellow Neo-Confederate dead-enders in the legislature to repackage his
"nullification" initiative as a constitutional amendment referred to the
ballot by the Arizona legislature. SCR1016
is sponsored by the usual suspects, Sen. Rich Crandell (R-Heber), Sen.
Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), and cosponsors Sen. Cap'n Al Melvin
(R-Saddlebrooke), and Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson).

The ballot measure would amend the state
Constitution to allow the state to reject any federal action the public
deems to be a violation of the US Constitution by passing an initiative,
referendum or bill, or by using any other legal remedy. The proposal
also prohibits the state from using its employees or resources to
enforce or cooperate with a federal action that’s rejected by the
people.

It turns out that Jack Biltis has a lobbyist buddy who helped him out
in getting these yahoos to sponsor SCR1016: the wannabe tinhorn
dictator of Tucson, Jonathan "Payday" Paton. If there is a bad idea,
you can bet this tool is behind it.

Minnesota makes it a ‘baker’s dozen’ approving same-sex marriages

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

My home state of Minnesota just became the 12th state, plus the District of Columbia, to approve same-sex marriages . . . a "baker's dozen."

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports, In historic vote, Minnesota Senate approves same-sex marriage bill:

With deafening cheers and overwhelming emotion, the Minnesota Senate voted 37-30 to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Today, love wins,” said Sen. Tony Lourey, DFL-Kerrick.

The vote, on the heels of a vote last week in the House, brings to a
close a decade of debate over marriage that has echoed through the
Capitol, bringing thousands of friends and foes of gay marriage to its
marbled dome to express their deeply held feelings.

The measure next moves to Gov. Mark Dayton, who will welcome it with his signature in a celebratory ceremony at 5 p.m. Tuesday on the south steps of the Capitol.

Once it is signed, Minnesota will become the twelfth state to legalize same sex-marriage.
"It's historic and I can never be so proud of this body and of Minnesotans," said Sen. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis.
On the Senate floor, Hayden said that his wife is white and noted that
just 50 years ago, his loving relationship would have been barred.

Repeal Citizens United movement gaining momentum

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Maybe the Arizona legislature would like to jump on the bandwagon? Oh right, they do the bidding of the Goldwater Institute, a charter member of the "Kochtopus," and a big supporter of its dark money organizations and Citizens United v. FEC, and also gutting Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections. "Power to the Plutocrats!"

John Nichols at The Nation reports that Maine, a pioneer of publicly financed campaigns, has become the thirteenth state to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. As Maine Goes… a Bipartisan Call to Overturn 'Citizens United':

When the Maine State House voted 111-33 this week to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
the support for this bold gesture was notably bipartisan. Twenty-five
Republicans joined four independents and all eighty-two Democrats to
back the call.

Similarly, when the Maine State Senate voted 25-9
for the resolution, five Republicans joined with nineteen Democrats and
independent Senator Richard Woodbury to “call upon each Member of the
Maine Congressional Delegation to actively support and promote in
Congress an amendment to the United States Constitution on campaign finance.”

What happened in Maine this week was a big deal for several reasons:

1. Maine became the thirteenth state
to urge Congress to develop an amendment to address the
money-in-politics crisis that is unfolding as a result of Supreme Court
rulings that that have effectively struck down campaign-finance
regulations and ushered in a new era of unlimited spending by wealthy
individuals and corporate interests. Maine joins West Virginia,
Colorado, Montana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California,
Rhode Island, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Hawaii in calling for an
amendment. Washington, DC, has also backed the drive.

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.

The City of Tucson filed its special action for declaratory and
injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court,
City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No.
C20126272). The City of Phoenix Intervened as a
plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner.

Last Monday, the Court heard pending motions in this special action. I am not sure why it took a week for the Minute Entry for that hearing to be posted, but here it is.
Minute Entry dated April 29, 2013.

The posture of this case is as follows:

There being no objections,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona’s Motion for Leave to
File Consolidated Response to Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Plaintiff City of Tucson and Intervenor-Plaintiff City of Phoenix is GRANTED.

* * *

As to the Goldwater Institute's Request to file Amicus Brief,

The Court did not find a rule, either cited or un-cited, statute, case law or law review article that would have supported the notion that an Amicus Brief could be filed at the trial court level. Further, there was not a rule that was directly on point or even tangentially.

IT IS ORDERED that Goldwater’s Request for Amicus Briefing is DENIED.

And these high-priced suits call themselves constitutional law experts. They just make up their own rules as they go along. Such arrogance.