Courts & Law

Tea Party temper tantrum: Arpaio ‘Birthers’ sue to stop Arpaio recall

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this week, Respect Arizona, the organization behind the recall of crazy uncle Joe Arpaio, announced that it is suspending its paid signature gathering campaign due to a shortage of funds (you can help alleviate this cash flow problem by using the link to contribute and to volunteer to circulate petitions).

Respect Arizona

This announcement from Respect Arizona caused The Arizona Republic(an), which first opposed the recall effort and then supported it, to have another manic depressive episode. Laurie Roberts clutched her pearls and reached for her smelling salts with a post assigned two doom and gloom captions. Joe Arpaio recall doomed by political miscalculation and Joe Arpaio recall in trouble:

Just 12 days after anti-Joe Arpaio forces announced that they had collected an impressive 120,000 signatures in the campaign to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the campaign has taken a nosedive.

Lilia Alvarez, campaign manager of the Arpaio recall, confirmed the campaign is out of money and can no longer pay petition circulators. Instead, Respect Arizona will rely on volunteers to get to the promised land of 335,317 valid signatures by May 30.

Alvarez remains optimistic that it can be done.

The Iraq War: 10 years later no one has been held accountable

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War — an unnecessary "war of choice" built upon a mountain of lies and deception, fabricated intelligence, and media propaganda — that was illegal under international law and treaties because Iraq did not pose an "imminent threat of harm" to the United States.

To this day, not one of the architects of this unnecessary and illegal war, whether the Neocons in the conservative think tanks, members of the Bush-Cheney administration or Congress, members of the Tony Blair government in Britain, military contractors and military leaders of the Pentagon, the spectacularly failed intelligence agencies, or members of the propagandist media have been held to account for their crimes under the law. Not one.

Cartoon_02

Arizona Republic editorial: Arizona voter ID law should be overturned

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic editorialized in an opinion today that Arizona's voter ID law should be overturned. Voting law isn’t useful:

The Arizona voting-rights case now before the U.S. Supreme Court is more about states’ rights vs. federal control of elections than about the particulars of the case itself.

Yes, that sounds like a familiar, Arizona-centric issue.

From efforts to nullify federal laws to this current question of whether Arizona can pack additional requirements onto a federal voting-rights law, our state is highly prone to challenging federal dominion.

NY Times editorial: Arizona voter ID law should be overturned

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times editorialized in an opinion today that Arizona's voter ID law should be overturned. Arizona’s Barrier to the Right to Vote:

Arizona’s Proposition 200, passed in 2004, prohibits local officials from registering any would-be voter who does not provide “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” That requirement conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter Act, which set up a national registration system for federal elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments (.pdf) about whether states have the power under the federal law to add restrictions to voter registration. They clearly do not. The justices should reject Arizona’s law as invalid and avoid recreating the problem that the federal law was intended to fix.

WaPo Editorial: Arizona voter ID law should be overturned

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post has an editorial opinion this morning on Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. Arizona voter ID law should be overturned:

COMPARED WITH WHAT some Americans have to tolerate on Election Day,
registering to vote is relatively painless. That’s partly thanks to the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law at the root of a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. The state of Arizona argues that it should be allowed to subvert the law’s obvious purpose. The court shouldn’t let it.

In 1993, Congress looked at the “complicated maze” of often
confusing and sometimes discriminatory state election rules, and it
found that “unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct
and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for federal
office.” So lawmakers established national standards. Americans could
register to vote when getting driver’s licenses, which gave the act its
unofficial name: the “motor voter” law. Congress also required every
state to accept a simple, common, mail-in registration form
drafted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The record
indicates that Congress meant these to be among the “procedures that
will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in
elections for federal office.”