Courts & Law

AIRC Update: State and Federal Court Cases Headed for Trial

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The attempts by the Arizona Republican Party Caucus and its secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust to overturn the redistricting by the Arizona Independent Redistricitng Commission (AIRC) are headed for trial  soon. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Courts: redistricting lawsuits to move forward, commissioners cannot invoke legislative immunity:

A Feb. 21 ruling by a Maricopa County
Superior Court judge denied a last-chance request by the commission to
throw out a lawsuit [motion to dismiss] that claims the state’s nine congressional districts
were intentionally drawn to give favor to Democrats by packing
Republicans into four districts.

* * *

[A] federal court on Friday denied the
commission’s request to allow commissioners to refuse answering
questions under “legislative privilege” in a suit that claims the
state’s legislative map violates federal laws because of population
deviations among districts.

* * *

A three-judge panel [federal court] will begin hearing the case on March 29.

Both suits are part of broader allegations made by many Republicans
that the commission’s maps were created to favor Democrats with the help
of Colleen Mathis, the chairwoman of the five-person panel.

Civil Rights legend John Lewis: Why we still need the Voting Rights Act

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Bloody_sundayRep. John Lewis (D-GA), is a legend of the Civil Rights Movement who was almost beaten to death by Alabama state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on "Bloody Sunday" (March 7, 1965), on the March from Selma to Motgomery, Alabama to secure the right to vote for African-American citizens.

The televised brutality of this attack galvanized the nation and led to the enactment of perhaps the single most historically significant and effective pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This week, the Voting Rights Act is under attack from conservative organizations and Tea-Publican controled states (including an Amicus Brief of Arizona (.pdf) filed 1/2/13 by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne) under the old battle cry of "state's rights."

These conservative organizations and Tea-Publican controled states are appealing to the conservative activist court of Chief Justice John Roberts to disregard more than 15,000 pages of evidence and congressional testimony and the judgment of Congress, which overwhelming voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2006 (the fourth such renewal since 1965), by a margin of 390-22 in the House of Representatives and 98-0 in the Senate. This congressional judgement is entitled to due deference from the Court.

Direct corporate campaign contributions to candidates is a bridge too far for U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A petition for certiorari that I have been following is Danielczyk v. United States (12-579):


GavelIssue:
(1) Whether the ban on campaign contributions by corporations in the
Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §441b, violates the First
Amendment; and (2) whether restrictions or bans on the right to make
campaign contributions should be reviewed under strict scrutiny, as
other restrictions on political expression are, or instead under a less
protective standard.

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning denied certiorari, upholding the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision.

Obama administration files Supreme Court briefs to challenge constitutionality of DOMA

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Friday, the Obama adminstration filed its briefs in U.S. v. Windsor. The brief of the Obama administration on the constitutionality of DOMA is here, and its brief on its right to pursue an appeal on DOMA is here. The brief for the House Republican leaders on their standing to appeal
and their challenge to the government’s right to appeal is here.

Lyle Denniston breaks down the position of the Obama administration at Scotusblog.com, DOMA: U.S. takes tough line on marriage denial:

The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights
for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of
those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against
gays and lesbians still continues.  The brief cited California’s flat
ban on such marriages — Proposition 8 — as an example of the ongoing
problem of bias against homosexuals.

In the context of the brief, the brief references to California’s
Proposition 8 were subtle and fleeting, but they immediately raised the
question of whether the administration was getting into position to come
out directly, next week, against that voter-approved ballot measure. 
It has not yet taken a position on the proposition’s constitutionality,
and that is not an issue in the case in which the new document was filed
— United States v.Windsor (12-307).

In a separate administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor
case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the
constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is properly
before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case.  That 1996 law’s
Section 3 barred legally married same-sex couples from any federal
benefits or programs based on marriage.

Citizens United 2.0 – U.S. Supreme Court to lift aggregate limits to campaign contributions?

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelOn Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536), a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court could open the door to even more money in politics than it did in its disastrous 2010 decision, Citizens United v FEC. If the court sides with the challengers in McCutcheon v FEC, political power and influence in America will further be concentrated in the hands of wealthy elite plutocrats.

Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog.com provides a brief summary, Campaign donation issue reopened:

Giving itself the option of changing its mind on government power to
limit campaign contributions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set the stage
for review of the constitutionality of a specific donation ceiling set
by federal law, but a larger issue looms in the background. Since the
Court’s landmark opinion in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo,
it has always given government more leeway to control contributions to
candidates or political organizations than over spending by candidates
or by independent political activists. That differing
constitutional treatment potentially is at stake in the new case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536).