Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The civil trial for racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department ended on Thursday, with the parties to submit closing briefs to Judge Murray Snow

The best trial summary I have read so far comes from Stephen Lemons at the Phoenix New Times. Joe Arpaio's Racial Profiling Trial Ends, and Yes, Joe's Still Guilty as Sin – Phoenix New Times (excerpts):

As U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow explained what he wanted opposing counsel to address in their closing, written arguments in the ACLU's big racial-profiling case Melendres v. Arpaio, he mentioned that he didn't mean to "foreshadow" his ruling with the questions he was asking.

And yet, Snow seemed to do just that after the last witness left the stand a little before 3 p.m. Thursday, the final day of the trial.

An exacting jurist with an obsession for detail, Snow noted that in videotaped testimony Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lawyers had played for the judge earlier, Alonzo Pena, former Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Phoenix office, said race could be used, along with other factors, in developing probable cause regarding an individual's immigration status.

Snow, who is both judge and jury in this bench trial, observed that in the Ninth Circuit, Pena is "dead wrong," according to a precedent set in U.S. v. Montero-Camargo, a 2000 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that eliminated race as a factor in most immigration stops.

If the MCSO used race as "one factor among many," does it matter if they believed they were following the law, as instructed by ICE? That is to say, if MCSO deputes intended to use race as a factor, does it matter if they did not intend to violate the law?

That was the inquiry put to lawyers for both sides, and yet, in his December ruling granting class action to all Hispanics stopped by the MCSO since January of 2007, Snow addressed the same issue.

Back then, Snow wrote:

"Defendants assert that in training 287(g) officers, ICE informs them that race or apparent ancestry may be used as one factor in evaluating whether officers have reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, although it cannot be considered the sole factor.

"Whether or not such information is provided by ICE to local law enforcement officers during their 287(g) training, the law in the Ninth Circuit is clear: `Hispanic appearance is of little or no use in determining which particular individuals among the vast Hispanic populace should be stopped by law enforcement officials on the lookout for illegal aliens.'"

Translation: the MCSO is up a creek sans paddle, flippers, or canoe.

Its officers have admitted under oath that they believed race could be considered as one among many factors, and even Arpaio has expressed this idea more than once in press conferences and interviews. The MCSO has insisted that ICE taught its officers to do just that.

That's just the beginning of the MCSO's woes. Snow stated that he was going to decide "what the policies of the MCSO are," and that, "I am also going to be determining what the practices of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office are, regardless of what the policies state or may or may not state."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is a Howard Fischer report, so take it for what it is worth. State judge not buying arguments by foes of open primary ballot measure:

A state judge on Friday questioned efforts of foes of an open primary system to keep it from ever going to voters.

The opponents contend that the proposed constitutional amendment illegally deals with too many disparate subjects. Attorney Mike Liburdi said that makes putting it on the November ballot improper.

But during a hearing Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain suggested he was not buying all of Liburdi's arguments that the measure, if approved, would change too many unrelated things.

Brain also was skeptical of Liburdi's contention that a 100-word description of the measure, included on each petition, did not comply with legal requirements that it be solely a factual description of what would change if approved.

The attorney argued that proponents improperly used the description to convince people to sign. But Brain told Liburdi that under his interpretation of the law, there is no way anyone could accurately describe a ballot measure within 100 words.

* * *

The measure initially was fought largely by Republicans who currently dominate Arizona politics. But on Friday, Brain agreed to a request to add two Democratic officials to the legal challenge.

Rep. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix said his concern is that the change could result in fewer Hispanics being elected.

Gallardo lives in a heavily Democratic and largely Hispanic district. And he said most Hispanics are registered as Democrats.

He said that pretty much ensures that the Democratic nominees will be either Hispanic or at least candidates that Hispanics think represent their interests. And given the Democratic registration edge in the district, that makes the Republican nominees pretty much irrelevant by the time the general election comes around.

Under this proposal, he said a single non-Hispanic candidate might face off in the primary against four Hispanics. Gallardo said if the Hispanics split the ethnic vote, that means only one might survive to reach the general election.

All that, however, is legally irrelevant to the court fight over whether the issue gets on the ballot in the first place.

The law according to Howard Fischer? Have you got a source besides your own opinion, Howie?

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.