Courts & Law

AIRC Update: Motion to dismiss GOP complaint in federal court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Howard Fischer reports on Wednesday's hearing before a three judge panel of federal judges. GOP attorney to judicial panel: Redistricting maps are illegal:

David Cantelme told the three-judge panel the
Independent Redistricting Commission broke the law when it created
districts with varying populations despite state and federal laws
generally requiring all voting districts to have approximately the same
number of people. The commission's maps have a difference of more than 8
percent between the most and least-populated districts.

This is a losing argument. Apparently neither Howard Fischer nor David Cantelme are aware that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on September 25, 2012 in a West Virginia Redistricting case — by an apparent unanimous vote — that lower-court judges not insist
on close-to-zero differences in the population of each of a state’s
districts for choosing members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Lyle Denniston wrote at SCOTUSblog.com, Opinion recap: Hedging on “one person, one vote”:

“Zero variance” in population is not the new constitutional norm for
redistricting, the Court made clear.  Just because computers can
produce almost exactly equal-sized districts, the Constitution does not
require it, the decision said.

After sitting on the case from West Virginia all summer long, the
Court produced an eight-page, unsigned ruling that largely deferred to
the wishes of that state’s legislature on how to craft the three
districts for choosing its House delegation.  The opinion can be found here. The new ruling came in the case of Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission (docket 11-1184).

* * *

Tuesday’s ruling gave state legislators constitutional permission to
have some variation in size between congressional districts, if the
lawmakers do so to protect incumbents from having to run against each
other, to avoid splitting up counties, and to avoid moving many people
into a new district from the one where they had previously cast their
votes. In what appeared to be a novel new declaration, the Court
stressed that lower courts should not demand that a state prove
specifically how each of those goals would be satisfied by moving away
from equally populated districts. And, in another legal innovation,
the Court said that a variation that is not really very big does not
become a constitutionally suspect one just because a sophisticated
computer program could be used to avoid nearly all such variations.

If the difference between a state’s largest House district and its
smallest one is small — such as the 0.79% deviation in the West Virginia
plan — that does not become unconstitutionally large just because it
could be avoided by “technological advances in redistricting and mapping
software.”

* * *

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said once again that state legislatures
can have some inequality in the population of districts, if that is
done, within reason, to serve the other goals that redistricting can be
arranged to meet. The Court said explicitly that the Constitution does
not guarantee absolute equality in population of districts, even if
that could be achieved by high-tech computers.  It also cautioned judges
around the country not to go too far to second-guess how legislatures
work out the various and competing interests that they confront in
redistricting.

What else have you got, Howard?

‘Flipped’ votes in Pima County? Will voting machines or voters determine 2012 election? (video)

by

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Since the 2006 Pima County election, which created the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), there have been ongoing gquestions about election integrity, the ease in which local vote-scanning machines can be hacked, and accusations of slip-shod procedures in the county's election division.

Last Friday, a group of local citizens– Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and Independents– filed a lawsuit to force Pima County to comply with election laws in the way it handles ballots and ballot machines in this election. This action will be heard in Pima Superior Court tomorrow– Nov. 1– at 2 p.m.

In a Wake Up Tucson radio interview, Bill Beard (who is running against long-time Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez) and attorney Brad Roach said that the current court action alleges no past wrong doing by the county; it simply asks judge to order the county to comply with state law in handling the elections. 

"Pima County has short-circuited some of the laws of the state of Arizona," Beard claims in the radio interview.

In the past, the Pima County Board of Supervisors has been less than cooperative with election integrity investigations– hence the move to encourge the courts to force the county's hand. The plaintiffs want the judge to instruct the county to:

1- Have poll workers include in every Official Return Envelope a copy of the signed "tally lists" or results tape. (This is a record of the total number of votes a machine has on board before it leaves the precinct polling place and is taken to the elections department. When the machine reaches the county, these totals can be rechecked.)

2- Separate the vote by mail ballots by precinct (thus simplifying random sample rechecks of votes).

3- Conduct sufficient randomly selected hand count audits of the vote by mail ballots– including county races.

4- Pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the costs of expert witnesses and "reasonable" costs for any analysis and testing to verify results.

Why does a group of citizens have to file a lawsuit against the Pima County Board of Supervisors to force them to protect our votes? Videos and more informaiton after the jump. 

Update: Pima County Election Integrity case set for hearing on Thursday

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Update to Pima County Election Integrity activists seek accurate audit of ballots. Attorney Brad Roach, representing electors from all the major political parties in Pima County, filed a special action for mandamus and injunctive relief in Pima County Superior Court. You can read the pleadings here. Special Action for Mandamus and Injunctive Relief (.pdf) … Read more

McSally forces use SEO to hide from questions in Blog for Arizona story

by

Everything is on the Internet– including stories “they” don’t want you to find. I researched my Martha McSally story over a few days before I posted this– Martha McSally: Warrior woman hides from questions, constituents, inconsistencies — on Sunday. Consequently, I know what search results you get when you Google her name different ways, since I … Read more

Martha McSally: Warrior woman hides from questions, constituents, inconsistencies

by

If there were a race between Senator Jon Kyl and former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who would you vote for?

The CD2 race is just that. Former Kyl employee Martha McSally is running against former Giffords employee Ron Barber.

Whose legacy would better serve Southern Arizona? That of a right-wing, anti-woman, every-man-for-himself, war-monger who never ventured south of his Tucson Foothills office or that of a reasoned, pro-choice, pro-public health Blue Dog who wasn’t afraid to meet constituents?

As a long-time resident of Giffords’ district, my experiences yesterday made up my mind. Yesterday, I thought I was going to meet the Warrior Woman who hopes to take the CD2 seat– you know, the one who says she “resemble[s] Gabby Giffords more than the man who worked for her”– but she was a no show.

McSally is no Gabby Giffords

Giffords was not afraid to face constituents and answer tough questions. McSally apparently doesn’t have the nerve to answer questions that are not softballs from right-wing commentators. (Sounds like something Jon Kyl would do, huh?)

I had a scheduled interview with McSally to discuss women’s issues (since she now claims to fight for women’s rights, while being anti-choice); the multiple inconsistencies in her platform (believing in the “sanctity of life”, while flying 325+ hours as a bomber) pilot; and rumors circulating about her two-year marriage to Donald Henry in 1997 (what’s up with that annulment in Santa Cruz County, when you were married and lived in Pima County).

When I showed up at her office, video gear in tow, I was given mush-mouth excuses from her press secretary and campaign manager. “Gosh, she’s so busy.” (My guess is they Googled me and said, Yikes– we’re not talking with her!)

Not surprised that McSally bailed on a video interview with a feminist who wanted to ask about women’s issues, I went to her constituent event at Nimbus, down the street. I waited with about 30 old white folks on the Nimbus patio for 45 minutes. Eventually, McSally staffers said, “Gosh… she’s so busy. She doesn’t have time to come and talk with you all today. Scheduling conflicts, you know… blah, blah, blah.” Since when does a politician in a tight race not have time for a meeting with rich, old white folks?   (Was it something I tweeted?)

More unanswered questions about Martha McSally after the jump.

Read more