By Michael Bryan Governor Brewer just made her selection to replace Justice Hurwitz on the State Supreme Court: Arizona Appeals Court Judge Ann Scott Timmer. Judge Timmer will make a fine Supreme Court Justice and is highly qualified for the Supreme Court. The reason she was picked is that she was one of three … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Last week the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Ohio must make its early voting available to all voters of the state on an equal basis, and reinstitute early voting on the final weekend before election day. Equal protection . . . fairness . . . who would … Read more
by Pamela Powers Hannley
Sunday, October 14, Occupy Tucson will celebrate it's one year anniversary. Occupy Tucson was one of the longest-running encampments in the history of the Occupy Movement.
Although Occupy Tucson was a peaceful encampment, at one point, the Tucson Occupiers had received hundreds of tickets, primarily for breaking curfew at local parks– more tickets than any other Occupy group, except New York City. Some of those tickets are still winding their way through the court system, but most have been dismissed (including mine).
Occupy Tucson may not be camping in the parks anymore, but the movement is far from dead. Occupy Tucson is housed in a small office in the historic YWCA on 5th Ave. You can find out more information by checking out their website and Facebook page.
For a walk down memory lane, check out these videos of Occupy Tucson. After the jump is background information on the Occupy anniversary celebration (complete with a General Assembly, of course.)
Organizing Occupy Tucson, Oct. 1, 2011
Occupy Tucson General Assembly, October 9, 2011
The Tucson Progressive gets a ticket at Occupy Tucson
El Tour de Rio Nuevo March, Tucson
Jobs with Justice, Occupy Tucson, and Union Workers march to save postal jobs
Arizona Unionists and Supporters Protest Proposed Anti-Labor Laws
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Say what now? Judge Robert Simpson of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled Tuesday that for the presidential election of Nov. 6, voters in Pennsylvania could be asked to produce the newly required photo IDs, but if they did not have them could still go ahead and vote. Pennsylvania Judge Puts Voter ID … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
While we are awaiting a decision from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on voter ID in Pennsylvania (certain to be appealed to the state supreme court), let's take a look at other election law cases in court today.
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied petitions for certiorari this morning in:
Washington State Democratic Central Committee v. Washington State Grange, Docket: 11-1263
– and –
Libertarian Party of Washington State v. Washington State Grange, Docket: 11-1266
These are cases challenging Washington state's top-two primary system on a theory of trademark infringement to protect the use of the trademark of "Democratic Party" and "Libertarian Party" by candidates who are not the official candidate of the party, under a primary system that allows candidates to self identify party affiliation through voter registration. High court rejects Wash. top-2 primary appeal – AP. This is relevant to Prop. 121 in Arizona on the ballot in November.
In Ohio, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will hear two appeals today on early voting and Ohio's so-called "right church, wrong pew" rule for rejecting provisional ballots due to poll worker errors. Edward Foley, an election law expert writes at Election Law @ Moritz – Commentary: Two Big Cases Ready for Major Appellate Rulings:
In the next week or two, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will decide two Ohio election cases with both practical and jurisprudential importance. One concerns the rollback of early voting during the last three days before Election Day (November 6 this year). The other involves the invalidation of a ballot cast by a valid voter in the correct polling location, but to whom the poll worker erroneously gives the incorrect ballot for the voter's specific precinct.
Both cases present claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and both expose the current uncertainty of how the Fourteenth Amendment applies to voting rules, particularly in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. The Ohio government lost both cases in the federal district court, but is seeking to reverse those two rulings on appeal. The Secretary of State, Jon Husted, declined to appeal the main portion of the provisional voting case, but the Attorney General, Mike DeWine, appealed on behalf of the State of Ohio as an independent litigating entity.