Courts & Law

Senate Judiciary Committee to begin hearings to amend the Voting Rights Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Talking Points Memo reports that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is following through on his promise to begin hearings to amend the Voting Rights Act. Senate Dems Set July 17 Hearing On Voting Rights Act:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has scheduled a
hearing on Wednesday, July 17 to consider a congressional response to
the Supreme Court's ruling striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

The witness list so far includes Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a civil
rights icon, and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), a key Republican
supporter of the Voting Rights Act.

"The Voting Rights Act has been a central pillar of the civil rights
laws that have helped bring America’s ideals closer to reality for all
Americans," Leahy said. "Congress reauthorized this law with
overwhelming bipartisan support, and we again must work together to
ensure that no Americans are discriminated against when exercising their
fundamental right to vote. I look forward to hearing next week from
Congressman Lewis and Congressman Sensenbrenner, two lawmakers who were
instrumental in the 2006 reauthorization and who I hope to work closely
with again this year."

The hearing will be livestreamed at this link.

Pro-Choice Advocates Fight Back in Wis, NC, & Texas

by

by Pamela Powers Hannley Pro-choice advocates are fighting the Republican Party's anti-woman laws in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Texas. In Wisconsin, a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the anti-abortion legislation signed in secret by Governor Scott Walker on July 5. From the Huffington Post… U.S. District Judge William Conley … Read more

The Voting Rights Act and the Section 3 ‘opt in’ provision

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A frequently made argument by GOP apologists, like Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic, is that Arizona should not be a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act.

Arizona failed to meet certain criteria in 1972 to get federal approval for any state legislation or procedural changes that could impact voting, which included having low voter turnout and not offering election materials in other languages.

Arizona in 1974 implemented bilingual voting, but Congress never removed Arizona from the Section 4 covered jurisdiction formula in subsequent renewals of the Act. "We're being punished for the past!"

This argument requires one to ignore the fact that Arizona has always had the opportunity to "opt out" of the covered jurisdiction formula if it could adequately demonstrate a clean bill of health for a period of 10 years without any violations for discrimination against voters. A number of jurisdictions have successfully "opted out' over the years.

This argument also requires one to ignore the history of discrimination that occurred after Arizona was added to the list of covered jurisdictions — the Department of Justice filed formal objections
to racially discriminatory changes to Arizona law 22 times since 1973,
including each decennial redistricting — except for the most recent
redistricting in 2012.

This is the reason why Arizona has never been able to qualify for the "opt out" provision. Arizona cannot demonstrate a clean bill of health for a period of 10 years without any violations for discrimination against voters. Funny how the GOP apologists never mention this. They would have you believe it was just a one-off event over bilingual ballots in 1972. Hardly.

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.