Courts & Law

Thoughts on the election consolidation bill now in court

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.

This legislation purportedly is the first of its kind enacted in the
nation – a strong indication that it is an ALEC drafted bill, as it was
also supported by other "Kochtopus" funded groups such as Americans
for Prosperity, the Goldwater Institute, and the Tea Party. (In fact, the Goldwater Institute moved to file an amicus curiae brief in the case below).

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.

I was not able to attend the motion hearing scheduled for yesterday, April 29, 2013, because I have a job. I have not seen any reporting on this hearing, despite the fact that I posted the details about this hearing so that reporters could put it on their calendar and cover the hearing.

What is wrong with America in one photo

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a guest of Bill O'Rielly at the FAUX News Fraudcasting table, at the 2013 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. For those of us who have to actually read the transcripts of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, Scalia asks questions based upon willfully ignorant information he obviously learned from watching FAUX News, with a disturbing regularity.

Screenshot from 2013-04-28 13:43:14

And why is this important?

Gary May writes at the Washington Post, Scalia’s limited understanding of the Voting Rights Act:

In the debate over the future
of the Voting Rights Act, it sometimes becomes apparent that certain members of the
Supreme Court are either oblivious to our nation’s recent history or
willfully ignore it. Justice Antonin Scalia
made this abundantly clear in his comments during the Feb. 27 oral argument in
Shelby County v. Holder, statements that he repeated in a speech on April 15.

To Scalia, the Voting Rights Act — especially Section 5,
which requires covered states to submit any changes in voting practices
to the Justice Department or a Washington court for approval — is a
“racial entitlement” and a violation of state sovereignty. In his view,
it unfairly and unnecessarily treats seven Southern states, plus Alaska,
Arizona and parts of six others, differently from states not covered by
the act. This month, according to the Wall Street Journal, he called
the act a form of “racial preferment” that affected only African Americans while ignoring the white population.

Update on the City of Tucson’s legal challenge to consolidated election dates

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Updating an earlier post, Update on the City of Tucson's legal challenge to consolidated election dates.

The City of Tucson filed a 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 was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Special Action and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief set on Monday, April 29, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Division 10 for two hours.

Since the last update, the evil bastards from the Goldwater Institute have sought to participate as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in this case, in support of the state of Arizona (or more specifically, the Arizona legislature). the City of Tucson and the City of Phoenix have objected, as well they should.

There are a number of motions pending, but the latest Minute Entry Order of the Court dated April 17, 2013 retains the hearing set for Monday, April 29, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Division 10 for two hours.

Tea Party Recall Hijinks

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rep. Steve "Secession" Smith (R-Maricopa), an acolyte of disgraced recalled Senate President Russell Pearce and crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, led an evil plot to legislatively "amend" the constitutional provision for recall in Arizona's constitution without voter approval. Stevie Secession actually got his evil plot approved by a vote of the Tea-Publican House. But it thankfully has died — for now — in the Senate (it's never over until sine die). GOP defections kill bill to change recall elections:

A plan to revamp the state's recall laws for all future elections fell apart Thursday when some Republican senators broke party ranks.

On an 18-10 vote, the Senate killed a House-passed measure that would have required both a primary and a general election in the event of a recall. Foes said they saw no reason to alter a system that has been in place since the early days of Arizona statehood.

Its fate may have been sealed by a late alteration that created an even more convoluted system – a provision where a recalled official could lose his or her own partisan primary and still be on the general election ballot.

UPDATE: On Monday, the Senate approved a motion for reconsideration by voice vote. A reconsideration of this bill has not yet been scheduled for a vote (while threats and intimidation to get the 16 votes needed is occurring behind closed doors).

It’s time to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes

by

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

NurembergCan we seat a Nuremberg Tribunal-style panel of judges now to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes in the name of America? (Statutes of limitations do not apply to war crimes).

The New York Times today reports  "A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention
programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
concludes that 'it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the
practice of torture' and that the nation’s highest officials bore
ultimate responsibility for it." U.S. Engaged in
Torture After 9/11,
Review Concludes:

The sweeping, 577-page report [Document: Constitution Project’s Report on Detainee Treatment] says that while brutality has occurred in
every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered
and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a
president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of
inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The
study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.