By Michael Bryan I have had a few thoughts about the idea and practicality of criminalizing and prosecuting abortion, as the GOP seems intent on doing recently. But, wow, this prosecutor discusses it more thoroughly and passionately than I could. Go read it. Here's a few samples: This is what happens when we start second-guessing … Read more
by Pamela Powers Hannley We here are Blog for Arizona have been beating the drum for election reform continuously for several weeks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11)– long before our state was disgraced last week with 600,000+ uncounted ballots. In the election integrity arena, one thing that Arizona has done right– despite the Arizona Legislature– is to … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
After witnessing the most overt and blatant GOP voter suppression efforts in this election that we have seen in years, the "Felonious Five" of the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear a legal challenge to Section 5 preclearance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Lyle Denniston writes at SCOTUSblog.com, Court to rule on voting rights law:
Acting three days after the nation’s minority voters showed that they
have increased and still growing power in U.S. elections, the Supreme
Court agreed on Friday to
rule on a challenge to Congress’s power to protect those groups’ rights
at the polls. The Court said it would hear claims that Congress went
beyond its authority when it extended for another twenty-five years the
nation’s most important civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act,
originally passed in 1965 and renewed four times since then.
Specially at issue is the constitutionality of the law’s Section
5, the most important provision, under which nine states and parts
of seven others with a past history of racial bias in voting must get
official clearance in Washington before they may put into effect any
change in election laws or procedures, no matter how small. The Court
came close to striking down that section three years ago, but
instead sent Congress clear signals that it should update the law so
that it reflects more recent conditions, especially in the South.
Congress did nothing in reaction.
That would be because the U.S. Supreme Court does not get to legislate policy. The Congress does. The Court only decides whether Congress acted within the scope of its constituional authority, which it clearly did in this case, as the Court has held many times since 1965. [Note: Congress reauthorized the VRA most recently in 2006, by a vote of 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate.]
The Court accepted the voting rights case from Shelby County, Ala.
Posted by AzblueMeanie: Remember the protracted legal battle in the Pennsylvania courts just a few weeks ago over photo ID? The court ruled that poll workers can ask for a photo ID, but if a voter does not have one they are still permitted to vote, just as they always have. There are widespread reports … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The United State Supreme Court did not grant any new orders this morning, so the lawyers for the "dark money" Americans for Responsible Leadership were forced to comply with the California Supreme Court's order. As you might expect, the disclosure only reveals additional layers of anonymity behind more non-profit organizations. Controversial Arizona nonprofit releases name of contributors — more nonprofits – latimes.com:
In a stunning reversal, an obscure Arizona nonprofit at the center of a legal battle over secret political contributions released on Monday morning the identity of its contributors, which it had been fighting tooth and nail to keep secret.
But the disclosure did little to shed light on who was behind the $11-million donation to a California campaign fund. The Arizona group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, identified its contributors only as other nonprofits.
The money was passed from Americans for Job Security to the Center to Protect Patient Rights to Americans for Responsible Leadership, according to state authorities. From there, the money was sent to a California campaign committee fighting Gov. Jerry Brown's tax-hike plan, Proposition 30, and pushing a separate ballot measure to curb unions' political influence, Proposition 32.
* * *
Americans for Responsible Leadership reached an agreement with the commission to reveal its contributors on Monday morning, allowing state authorities to skip the audit process. However, the disclosure of more nonprofits did little to satisfy activists who were seeking contributors' true identities.
Derek Cressman of Common Cause, which originally filed the complaint against the Arizona nonprofit, called the group "irresponsible, cowardly money launderers."
Still, Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, said in a statement that the disclosure was "a significant and lasting victory for transparency in the political process.”
* * *
In a statement on Monday morning, the Arizona nonprofit's legal team did not explain why they stopped fighting the court order, saying only that a settlement was reached after "late-night discussions."
I previously posted about a Yellow Sheet Report that identified Sean Noble of Center to Protect Patient Rights, a front group that launders campaign funds for the Koch brothers, in Americans for Responsible Leadership – a Koch brothers 'dark money' front group (excerpt):