Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks like asking the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene lit a fire under the Michigan Supreme Court. The court in a closely divided 4-3 decision ruled today that the petition drive met the requirements and should be certified for the November election ballot. Supreme Court: Emergency manager repeal must go on November ballot:

The Michigan Supreme ended a dispute over font size today when it ruled in a 4-3 opinion that the proposed repeal of the state’s emergency manager must be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Justice Mary Beth Kelly, a nominee of the Republican Party, wrote the majority opinion. Her opinion strikes down an earlier opinion that found “substantial compliance” with petition details such as the size of the font used on the petition should not keep an otherwise valid voter petition off the ballot. Kelly’s opinion said the petition must fully comply with requirements such as font size, which are spelled out in Michigan law.

But in breaking with her fellow Republican nominees, Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. and Justices Stephen Markman and Brian Zahra, Kelly ruled that the Stand up for Democracy petition did comply fully, because type printed in a 14-point style will produce letters that measure smaller than 14-point.

“It is clear that the point size of all the required text refers to the size of the type and not the individual letters,” Kelly said in writing the majority opinion.

Three justices nominated by the Democrats, Michael Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly and Diane Hathaway, did not agree with all of Justice Mary Beth Kelly’s reasoning, but voted with her to get the contentious question on the ballot.

The opinion ends a long legal fight and is a victory for opponents of the law toughened by Gov. Rick Snyder and the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: With time running out to bring the issue before the voters, opponents of Michigan's emergency manager law have asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene and place the repeal measure on the November ballot. Opponents of Michigan emergency manager law turn to feds for help: One week after it made oral … Read more

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Closing arguments in the case of Jim Crow on trial in Pennsylvania began on Wednedsday. Lawyer: Pa. agrees, no evidence of fraud:

A lawyer for plaintiffs said the state's new voter identification law should be blocked from taking effect because as many as one million people lack proper identification and could be prevented from voting on Election Day, while a Commonwealth attorney said the law should stand because it places no special burdens on any class of people.

Vic Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said not only will the law disenfranchise the petitioners that he represents, but the Commonwealth has agreed there is no evidence of in person voter fraud – the very basis on which the law was approved.

"There are registered voters who will be unable to vote under this law," said Walczak in his closing arguments on the final day of the weeklong hearing. "The Commonwealth has not assured us that every one of the petitioners can vote and that's the tip of the iceberg."

In testimony at trial, Witnesses say state isn't ready for voter ID rule:

PennDot offices throughout the state seem ill-equipped to handle the expected demands of voters seeking state-issued identification cards, according to witnesses Tuesday in Commonwealth Court.

In recent visits, the witnesses said they found long lines, short hours and misinformed clerks, all of which made obtaining voter identification cumbersome, and in some cases impossible, for those that don't have supporting documentation.

* * *

"There is a burden associated with this law and a burden on a fundamental right is unconstitutional," said Marian Schneider, a lawyer with the Advancement Project, a civil rights group.

Four other witnesses from across the state – all of whom already have PennDot issued licenses – went to driver's license centers at the behest of voters' rights groups seeking to determine the difficulty in obtaining IDs.

All reported roadblocks such as limited or no public transportation to PennDot offices; limited hours when authorized employees were available; and clerks who said there was a $13.50 charge for the IDs, which, in fact, are to be issued free.

Lawyers are seeking an injunction ahead of the Nov. 6 election when the law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature is to take effect.

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson said he would issue his ruling the week of Aug. 13. Both sides have said they will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Closing arguments in the trial over Pennsylvania’s voter ID law wrapped up Thursday.

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."