Arizona Secretary of State

Kansas’ dual election system ruled unlawful; whither Arizona’s dual election system?

by

NoVoteIn September of Last year I posted an update on the status of Belenky v. Kobach (2013-CV-001331), the lawsuit in Kansas state court challenging the “dual election system” imposed by Secretary of State Kris Kobach after he lost his legal challenge to the federal voter registration form. Arizona Secretary of State Ken “Birther” Bennett imposed the same “dual election system” here in Arizona, which has been continued by Arizona’s queen of voter suppression, Secretary of State Michele Reagan. Update on ‘dual election system’ lawsuit in Kansas.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas filed a motion for summary judgment in state court to end the two-tiered voter registration system that Secretary of State Kris Kobach created.

The Kansas state court recently ruled on that motion, granting the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment. Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog reported In Loss to Kobach, Kansas Court Strikes Down Two-Tier Voter Registration in Kansas:

A state court in Kansas today issued a 30 page opinion granting summary judgment to two Kansas voters who registered to vote in Kansas using a federal form but who had been denied the right to vote in state elections by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Read more

2015 was a big year for the GOP culture of corruption in Arizona

by

The GOP culture of corruption in Arizona has produced a number of threads this year that are coming together at the end of the year. Other shoes are about to drop early in 2016 — lookin’ at you crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio.

Disgraced former congressman Rick Renzi has now exhausted all of his appeals and is finally serving time in prison after years of litigation. Ex-Arizona congressman Rick Renzi denied new trial:

MorgantownA federal judge on Wednesday denied a new trial for former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, who was convicted in 2013 of corruption, money laundering and other charges and is serving a three-year prison term.

* * *

Renzi was convicted in 2013 of corruption, money laundering and other charges. An appeals court upheld the convictions last year, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal in June.

Renzi began serving his sentence at the federal prison in Morgantown, West Virginia, in February. Best Places To Go To Prison – Forbes.

The top political corruption story in Arizona in 2015 has been the melodrama playing out at the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Read more

Preview of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

by

The issues presented in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission are:

SupremeCourtIssues: (1) Whether the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justifies intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that results in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle; and (2) whether the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permits the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle, and, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, whether this is still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder. [This is a retroactive application argument.]

The case will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the same day that the Court hears oral argument in the “one person, one vote” case from Texas, Evenwel v. Abbott. “Issue: Whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts.”

Read more

A silver lining in the ‘Dark Money’ cloud in Tucson

by

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2008)(.pdf), emphasized the importance of disclosure of the sources of campaign money:

dark_moneyShareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate democracy, see Bellotti, supra, at 794, and n. 34, can be more effective today because modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative. A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. It must be noted, furthermore, that many of Congress’ findings in passing BCRA were premised on a system without adequate disclosure. See McConnell, 540 U.S., at 128 (“[T]he public may not have been fully informed about the sponsorship of so-called issue ads”); id., at 196–197 (quoting McConnell I, 251 F.Supp.2d, at 237). With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” 540 U.S., at 259 (opinion of SCALIA J.); see MCFL, supra, at 261. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

This utopian ideal of transparency and rapid disclosure of donors through modern technology that Justice Kennedy conjured from his fertile imagination simply does not exist in the state of Arizona.

Read more

California regulates ‘dark money’ while Arizona dithers

by

Laurie Roberts of The Arizona Republic should take note of this: State panel outlaws ‘dark money’ in California political campaigns:

dark_moneyCalifornia’s campaign finance watchdog agency on Thursday adopted new requirements that nonprofit groups that contribute through a federal political action committee to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates in California must disclose their donors.

“The amendment to this regulation clarifies that so-called ‘dark money,’ originating from nonprofit or other organizations whose donors are not disclosed, is not permitted in California elections,” said Hyla P. Wagner, general counsel for the state Fair Political Practices Commission in a report to the panel.

Legislation and previous action by the commission had generally required disclosure of donors where money went to support or oppose candidates and ballot measures in California.

But state officials were concerned about a possible loophole that would allow nondisclosure of donors if nonprofits make contributions through federal or out-of-state political action committees, rather than in-state PACs.

“It is significant that dark money will not be coming into California,” said Jodi Remke, the commission’s chairwoman, after the vote. “We heard rumblings from various federal PACs and out-of-state committees about this rule not applying to them. This closes a major potential loophole in California’s reporting requirements to stop any kind of undisclosed donors and dark money.”

Read more