Courts & Law

The Filibuster in Federal Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This might prove interesting — or not. While the plaintiffs' arguments are correct, I suspect the Court will grant the motion to dismiss, taking the easy way out by citing separation of powers doctrine and comity between the branches of government to say that this is a political question for which the Court lacks the power to compel the Senate to do anything. Senate filibuster faces federal court challenge:

Even as Democrats are pushing to change the rules of the Senate, a federal court plans to consider a legal challenge to the chamber’s rules Monday.

Four House Democrats and the nonpartisan political reform group Common Cause are suing to end the use of the filibuster, calling it “an accident of history,” and unconstitutional “because they are inconsistent with the principle of majority rule.”

The Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), John Lewis (Ga.) and Mike Michaud (Minn.), are joined by three other challengers, Erika Andiola, Celso Mireles and Caesar Vargas, who Common Cause says are being “denied a path to American citizenship” because of repeated filibusters of legislation that would grant young people brought to the United States illegally an opportunity to apply for citizenship. 

In court papers, the group argues that the filibuster “replaces majority rule with rule by the minority” by requiring at least 60 senators to vote to end debate on a bill.

Update: Arizona same-sex partner benefits case held by U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: The U.S. Supreme Court did not include Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, et al.,  Petitioners v. Joseph R. Diaz, et al. (12-23), the the Arizona state workers' benefits case, in its orders list this morning. SCOTUSblog.com live blog suggests that the Arizona same-sex marriage/domestic partner case will apparently be held for … Read more

U.S. Supreme Court will hear same-sex marriage cases

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court waited until late in the day to take advantage of the Friday news dump.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it will consider whether California’s
ban on same-sex marriage (Prop. 8) is constitutional, HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL. (12-144), and whether Congress may
withhold federal benefits from legally married same-sex couples (Section 3 of DOMA) by
defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL. (12-307). Supreme Court says it will hear same-sex marriage cases:

The court will hear arguments in the spring about about one of the
country’s most politically divisive social issues, with a decision by
June.

[According to SCOTUSblog: The arguments very likely will be March 25-27, and a
decision is very likely around June 27.]

The court will examine a key section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage
Act. The Obama administration announced in 2011 it was abandoning
defense of the law, and a string of lower courts has said it is
unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are
legally married in the states where they live while offering them to
opposite-sex married couples.

This marks the first time the
justices will hear arguments relating to same-sex marriage. Because the
DOMA case concerns couples who already are married under state law, the
case they selected would not require an answer to the broader
constitutional question of whether homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

The court also said it would review a lower court’s decision to
overturn Proposition 8, in which California voters in 2008 amended the
state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Quick overview of election reform bills introduced in Congress

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Chris Coons (D-DE) introduced a bill they're calling the "Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely
(FAST) Voting Act" (S.3635) Text of Legislation. Under their proposal, states that "aggressively"
pursue election reforms would be rewarded with federal grants.

And
what kind of reforms are proponents looking for? It's not a short list,
but the Warner/Coons bill calls for flexible registration
opportunities, including same-day registration; expanding early voting;
"no-excuse" absentee voting; and "formal training of election officials,
including state and county administrators and volunteers."

The FAST Act is roughly modeled after the Race to the Top education initiative — it's a competitive grant program, not a set of federal mandates.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) introduced a related proposal, the "Streamlining and Improving Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act" in the House (H.R. 6591) Text of Legislation.

UA students & activists ask DeConcini: ‘Why did you sell your soul to CCA?’ (video)

by


No ccaby Pamela Powers Hannley

Today, the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) is meeting on the University of Arizona campus. One of ABOR's most infamous members is former Senator Dennis DeConcini.

Why is DeConcini being villified through social media and the blogs? Because he's also a stockholder and member of the Board of Directors of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which builds, owns, and manages private prisons across the country.

Arizona has multiple CCA prisons— thanks to close ties between CCA and Governor Jan Brewer, former State Senate President Russell Pearce, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) boosters in the Arizona Legislature, and DeConcini. More background and a video shot on the UA campus, after the jump.