Courts & Law

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.

Tea-Publican Kansas asserts the long-discredited and rejected theory of nullification, interposition and secession over gun rights

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Those of you who remember your U.S. history will recall that Bleeding Kansas (1854-1861) was a proxy war between anti-slavery free-staters and pro-slavery "border ruffians" from the neighboring state of Missouri. It presaged the American Civil War, in which the Confederacy asserted the theory of nullification, interposition and secession.

While Kansas entered the Union as a free state in January 1861, 152 years later Neo-Confederate dead-enders are now in control of Kansas, and are once again asserting the long-discredited and rejected theory of nullification, interposition and secession — this time with respect to Senate Bill 102, also known as the Second Amendment Protection Act.

Eric Lach writes at Talking Points Memo, Holder Calls Gun Law Unconstitutional:

Remember all those gun nullification bills that cropped up
back in January? [Including one in the Arizona legislature.] Last month, Kansas went ahead and passed one. Senate
Bill 102, also known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, became
effective in Kansas on April 25. And it has led to a high-level back and
forth between Attorney General Eric Holder and Kansas Gov. Sam
Brownback (R).

Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act declares,
among other things, that firearms manufactured and owned in Kansas that
do not cross state lines are not subject to any federal laws. It also
makes it unlawful for government agents to try to enforce federal laws
on firearms made and kept within state lines.

States try to tackle ‘dark money’ groups

by

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

The Los Angeles Times reports, States try to tackle 'secret money' in politics:

Early last month, state lawyers and election officials around the
country dialed into a conference call to talk about how to deal with the
flood of secret money that played an unprecedented role in the 2012
election.

The discussion, which included officials from California,
New York, Alaska and Maine, was a first step toward a collaborative
effort to force tax-exempt advocacy organizations and trade associations
out of the shadows.

* * *

"There is no question that one of the reasons to have states working
together is because the federal government, in numerous arenas, has
failed to take action," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of California's Fair
Political Practices Commission, who organized the call with officials
from about 10 states. [The reporting does not disclose whether Arizona was one of the 10 states.]

The City of Bisbee wins (sorta) on civil unions

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago, Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne was threatening to sue the City of Bisbee over a newly enacted civil unions ordinance, at the prompting of Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP).

It looks like the Mullah will not get her lawsuit to call down hellfire on gay couples who want to make a public commitment to one another, and the City of Bisbee wins (sorta) on its civil unions ordinance. The city will just need to tweak its ordinance. Cities, AG strike deal on rights of partners:

Attorney General Tom Horne said Monday he won't challenge city ordinances, like the one passed in Bisbee, that detail the rights of those in civil unions.

Horne said there's nothing wrong with cities requiring hospitals to let partners visit or even those in registered unions getting family rates at the local swimming pool.

But he objected to a provision in the new Bisbee ordinance that mentioned seven specific rights, like community property and inheritance. Horne said that made it seem like those who register as partners get those rights despite specific state statutes reserving them to married couples.

Bisbee withdrew its new ordinance earlier this month after Horne threatened to sue the city.

After a closed-door meeting Monday with attorneys representing Bisbee and other cities, Horne acknowledged domestic partners do, in fact, have those rights. In fact, so does every other couple in Arizona, whether registered in a civil union or not.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of Alabama anti-immigrant law

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ALEC model legislation for the anti-immigrant crusade of Kris Kobach, legal counsel with the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the author of Arizona's SB 1070, is losing in court. Federal courts have made it clear that federal law preempts the field in immigration law. Only federal gov't, not states, can enforce immigration laws, Supreme Court says:

The Supreme Court made it clear Monday that enforcing immigration laws is reserved for the federal government, not the states.

By
an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected a request from Alabama to revive
part of a 2011 law designed to drive out illegal immigrants. That year
saw a wave of new laws in Republican-controlled states where lawmakers
decried perceived federal inaction. Alabama's was deemed the toughest.

State officials said if federal authorities were not going to arrest illegal immigrants, their police would take on the task.

But
the Obama administration went to court to challenge these laws, arguing
that federal immigration policy trumped state efforts. The
administration said it was targeting criminals, gang members and
smugglers, not the millions of otherwise law-abiding but undocumented
immigrants who live and work in this country.

The administration
won a major victory last year when the Supreme Court struck down most of
Arizona's immigration enforcement law, known as SB 1070. In a 6-3
decision, the justices agreed that Washington, not the states, gets to
decide how to enforce the immigration laws. The opinion rejected the
idea that states could make immigration violations a crime under state
law.