Courts & Law

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.

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.