Courts & Law

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.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When testimony in the trial began last Thursday, Sheriff's Deputy Louis DiPietro took the stand as plaintiffs' attorneys zeroed in on his motivation for stopping Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican tourist in the U.S. legally, who was stopped outside a church in Cave Creek where day laborers were known to gather. Melendres was the passenger in a car driven by a White driver.

Melendres claims that deputies detained him for nine hours and that the detention was unlawful. (This plainly would violate the "stop" conditions for SB 1070 laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court recently in Arizona v. U.S.) Attorneys for the plaintiffs have long contended that the Sheriff's Office conflates being Hispanic and being a day laborer with being an undocumented immigrant. DiPietro said as much in his testimony. Racial profiling trial: Ruling to be based on current conditions.

When testimony resumed on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow directed questions to Deputy Louis DiPietro. Arpaio's words used against him at racial-profiling case:

[Judge] Snow focused in on the background, training and experience of Deputy Louis DiPietro, who stopped a car in Cave Creek that had just picked up a group of day laborers, including Manuel de Jesus Ortega-Melendres. Ortega-Melendres is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Of particular interest to Snow was a statement DiPietro made last week regarding his opinion that most day laborers are in the country illegally. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have long contended that the Sheriff's Office conflates being Hispanic and being a day laborer with being an undocumented immigrant.

DiPietro said he formed that opinion based on the stop he made in Cave Creek nearly five years ago.

"Is there any other basis other than that day on which you have now formed that opinion," Snow asked.

"The fact that that type of work doesn't require any type of, um, you don't have to show an ID, um, it would be easier, that type of work would be easier for, um, a person in this country illegally to, um, get because they wouldn't have the proper paperwork for other types of employment," DiPietro replied.

After a little more than an hour on the stand, DiPietro was excused.

On to the main event Tuesday. Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio took the witness stand next.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The "most corrupt sheriff in America," Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, goes on trial today in a civil lawsuit for a declaratory judgment that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department has a systematic policy of discrimination of racially profiling Latinos. U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow is presiding over the trial that begins today and is expected to last until early August. Ariz. sheriff faces profiling allegations at trial:

Now, the sheriff in Arizona's most populous county will have to convince a federal judge who is presiding over a lawsuit that heads to trial on Thursday and is expected to last until early August.

The plaintiffs say Arpaio's officers based some traffic stops on the race of Hispanics who were in vehicles, had no probable cause to pull them over and made the stops so they could inquire about their immigration status.

"He is not free to say whatever he wants," said Dan Pochoda, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, one of the groups that has pushed the lawsuit against Arpaio.

"He will be called as a witness in our case," Pochoda said. "He will not have control over the flow of information, and he is not the final arbiter."

The plaintiffs aren't seeking money damages and instead are seeking a declaration that Arpaio's office racially profiles and an order that requires it to make changes to prevent what they said is discriminatory policing.

* * *

The lawsuit marks the first case in which the sheriff's office has been accused of systematically racially profiling Latinos and will serve as a bellwether for a similar yet broader civil rights lawsuit filed against Arpaio in May by the U.S. Department of Justice.