Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Open Elections/Open Government Act initiative (.pdf) is presently scheduled for oral argument before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain on Friday, August 3 at 9:30 a.m.

The Plaintiffs, Save Our Vote Opposing C-03-2012, have filed their Opening Brief (.pdf).

The Real Party in Interest, Open Government Committee, has filed its Opposition Brief (.pdf).

Let's break it down.

This is a "separate amendment rule" aka "single subject rule" challenge to the initiative. Arizona Const. Art. 21 § 1. Plaintiffs argue first that "In addition to proposing a top-two primary system, the Initiative seeks to rewrite scores of statutes that, among other areas, govern the conduct of elections, nomination procedures, nomination signature and other ballot access requirements, campaign finance regulation, political party organization and conduct, and Voting Rights Act compliance."

Second, Plaintiffs argue "Complicating matters is that the Initiative fails to propose these amendments in black-and-white language for voters to evaluate."

Third, "the Initiative's 100 word statement that appears on the petition signature sheets grossly misstates what the voters are being asked to approve."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in the case over whether the size of wording on petitions should keep a proposed referendum on the state's 2011 emergency financial manager law off the November ballot. Michigan Supreme Court hears word-size dispute in emergency manager ballot case:

A union-led coalition that opposes the law gathered enough valid signatures to put the issue to voters. But a group started by current and retired business leaders challenged the petitions, arguing – among other things – that their headings in 14-point Calibri font were not printed in 14-point type.

In a packed courtroom with an estimated 145 onlookers, Chief Justice Robert Young began the oral arguments by noting it is rare for justices to hear cases in July.

"That alone should signify to all … how significant this case is," he said.

A three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals last month begrudgingly ordered that the referendum go to voters – citing an earlier case giving the benefit of the doubt if petitions "substantially comply" with the law.

Postesd by AzBlueMeanie:

Gary Trudeau is running a series of Doonesbury comic strips this week on the return of Jim Crow laws to suppress voting by minority citizens. Today's strip is about the GOP voter suppression law in Pennsylvania.

A coalition of civil rights groups heads to court on Wednesday for a state court trial challenging the GOP voter suppression law under Pennsylvania’s constitution. Ryan J. Reilly at TPM reports Ahead Of Voter ID Trial, Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter Fraud:

In this case, Pennsylvania might have handed those groups and their clients (including 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite) a bit of an advantage: They’ve formally acknowledged that there’s been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn’t likely to be in November.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges “there have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

Pennsylvania has said that over 750,000 registered voters do not have ID from the Transportation Department, a problem more concentrated in urban centers like Philadelphia. One top state Republican has claimed the voter ID law would help Mitt Romney win the Keystone state and Democrats have already altered their campaign plans should the law survives legal challenges.

Judge Robert Simpson will hear the case, Applewhite et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., in Harrisburg starting on Wednesday. The ACLU expects the trial to last five to seven days.