Courts & Law

Gov. Brewer’s blind hatred for DREAMERS (proxies for President Obama)

by

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Gov. Jan Brewer's executive order denying driver's licenses and ID cards to
undocumented immigrants who obtain work permits through President Barack
Obama's deferred-action program is a significant change in state
policy, records obtained by The Arizona Republic show. Brewer's order to end migrant driver licenses 'contradictory':

Brewer_hateOver the past eight years, Arizona issued licenses and ID cards nearly 40,000 times to non-citizens who had federal employment-authorization documents. Since Brewer's Aug. 15 order, the state has issued more than 1,000 driver's licenses or ID cards to non-citizens with work permits while denying licenses to those with work permits issued through Obama's program.

The data show that despite the state's longstanding practice of issuing driver's licenses to non-citizens with work permits, Brewer has singled out so-called dreamers, denying them driver's licenses even when they have work permits.

The federal work permits are identical except for a number that identifies them as recipients of deferred action under Obama's program. Anyone with that number can't get a permit under Brewer's order.

"It's completely contradictory," said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "If you give a driver's license under one of these circumstances, they are all pretty much the same circumstance, so it's contradictory to say we will give to one but not the other."

Team McSally seeks to suppress conditional ballots from Latino districts in Cochise County

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Tucson Weekly reports that Team McSally is trying to suppress conditional ballots from Latino districts in Cochise County by seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent provisional ballots from being counted on the specious grounds that the enclosure envelope was not sealed before being presented to election officials.

Spoiler alert: there is nothing in the statutes that require a sealed envelope — the ballots were accepted by poll workers, so the chain of custody was complete. CD2 Update: Republicans Go to Cochise County Court To Block Counting of Provisional Ballots in Latino Precincts:

[Martha McSally's] attorneys were in Cochise County court today in an effort to block
the counting of provisional ballots in a predominantly Latino precinct.

Barber’s campaign manager, Jessica Floyd, said it was an effort by Team McSally to disenfranchise Cochise County voters.

"We respect the ballot counting process currently taking place and want
to see it move forward,” Floyd said in statement. “The request for a
temporary restraining order filed today is an active attempt by Martha
McSally’s attorneys to disenfranchise voters in Cochise County. Throwing
away the votes of Southern Arizonans is wrong and unacceptable.”

* * *

Attorneys Eric H. Spencer and Michael Liburdi of the Snell and Wilmer
law firm claim that approximately 130 provisional ballots should not be
counted because they “have been spoiled because they were not sealed,
as required, when they were transported from the Castro Park, Ramsey and
Hopi Precinct polling locations to the Cochise County Elections
Department and Recorder’s Office.”

The lawyers have asked for a temporary restraining order to keep the
Cochise County Division of Elections from counting the ballots.

But attorneys Paul F. Eckstein, Dan Barr and David Gaona of the Perkins
Coie law firm, which is representing Barber, say that Judge Wallace R.
Hoggart should reject the request for a temporary restraining order
because Spencer and Liburdi “simply cannot point to anything in section
16-584(D)—or any section of the election code, for that matter—which
would require that provisional ballots be sealed when presented to
election officials for verification.”

Prosecuting Abortion

by

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

Gerrymandering kept Republicans in charge of US House

by

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

U.S. Supreme Court to reexamine Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

by

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.