Courts & Law

Latest on the New Jersey Special Election for U.S. Senate

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last month an appeal was pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging the October special election date for U.S. Senate. With all of the breaking news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of June, this story sorta got lost in reporting.

On June 20, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. N.J. Supreme Court allows special U.S. Senate elections | NJ.com:

The special October election to fill the seat of the late Sen. Frank
Lautenberg can go on as scheduled after the Supreme Court today said it
will not hear the case.

In a one-page notice, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner denied Somerset
Democratic chairwoman Peg Schaffer’s request for the state’s highest
court to take up her challenge.

That leaves the Oct. 16 special Senate election on the calendar.

* * *

Schaffer said she’s disappointed the court wouldn’t take up the case, even if simply to clarify voting laws in New Jersey

"I would have been much happier if they explained whether or not they
agreed with the Appellate Division decision," Schaffer said.

On the Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today marks the 49th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of civil rights legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

I guess the media is waiting for the 50th anniversary to take note of this historic achievement. The media may not want to wait after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gutted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last week, and interpreted provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in such a way as to make claims for workplace discrimination under the act harder to enforce. The Roberts Court is hostile to the civil rights acts.

I am in agreement with Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog, “Getting Over” Jim Crow:

[Chief Justice] John Roberts and so many others try to argue that discrimination
against black folks in the Deep South is some sort of ancient scandal
with no relevance today, you can’t much get around the fact that just 49
years ago Jim Crow was very much alive and as pervasive a feature of
southern life for both races as fried food or hot weather or going to
church on Sunday.

Research data proves the Supreme Court is wrong

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This reporting by Morgan Kousser at Reuters blows away the disingenuous sophistry of Chief Justice John Roberts in Shelby County v. Holder (and echoed by every pundit in the conservative media entertainment complex right-wing noise machine). Gutting the landmark civil rights legislation:

The Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision on Tuesday essentially cast aside the key component of the nation’s most important civil rights legislation.

The five “conservative” justices castigated Congress for putting too much emphasis on history by failing to update the “coverage formula” in Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 4 specifies which states and local jurisdictions must “pre-clear”
with the Justice Department or the Washington district court all
changes in election laws – anything from adding voter ID regulations to
redistricting. Areas now subject to this federal oversight have had a
substantial history of voter discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing for the 5-4 majority, conceded
that the Voting Rights Act is largely responsible for a decline in
blatant voting racial discrimination efforts. Yet he declared the
federal oversight program “unconstitutional”
on the grounds that it did not reflect “current conditions.” Instead,
he invited this most dysfunctional of Congresses to “draft another
formula.”

But the chief justice is wrong.

Read more

Fallout from Shelby County v. Holder decision

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If you were upset with the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, you should be outraged at the court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, crippling the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The “Felonious Five” conservative activist Justices of the Court demonstrated in orders today just how far they intend to go in applying this decision — it is now open season for GOP voter suppression and gerrymandered redistricting.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:

The Supreme Court, acting swiftly to promote further review of voting
rights under federal law, told lower courts on Thursday to take a new
look at two Texas cases involving a photo ID law for voters and a new
set of redistricting plans for the state’s delegation in Congress and
for members of the two houses of its state legislature.

In both cases, the Justices wiped out lower court rulings that had
refused to give legal clearance to the photo ID law and the new election
districting plans. The lower courts are now to apply the Supreme
Court’s ruling on Tuesday in Shelby County v. Holder,
(docket 12-96), striking down one key part of the Voting Rights Act of
1965.  Because the Supreme Court’s actions did not resolve the cases
finally, the two Texas laws at issue will now remain in legal limbo, at
least for a few weeks.

Read more

Supreme Court denies appeal in Brewer v. Diaz (same-sex domestic partner benefits)

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
6a00d8341bf80c53ef01901df0a0f0970b-piThursday’s orders by the Supreme Court came in the final round of
actions it planned to take in the 2012-13 Term. Orders List (.pdf).

One day after issuing two historic
rulings on same-sex marriages, the Court denied review of two cases from
Arizona and Nevada that posed tests of state laws that treat gays and
lesbians less favorably than straight couples.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:

The Arizona case (Brewer v. Diaz,
12-23) was a plea by state officials for permission to enforce a law
enacted by its legislature in 2009, taking away health benefits for
same-sex state employees who were not married but were legally “domestic
partners.” The law accomplished that result by defining “dependent”
for purposes of the benefits as “a spouse,” meaning a legally married
wife or husband.

Since a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution limits
marriage to “one man and one woman,” same-sex couples are not eligible
to marry in Arizona, so the redefinition of “spouse” to exclude domestic
partners shut out couples who were not eligible to marry.  The Ninth
Circuit Court barred enforcement of that law, and the state had
appealed, arguing that its law was actually neutral, and thus should
satisfy constitutional demands for legal equality.

The Ninth Circuit Court ruling stands, barring enforcement of the Arizona law.

Read more