Courts & Law

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.

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.

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.

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.]