Arizona Secretary of State

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

The Times and Post editorialize in favor of universal (automatic) voter registration

by

While we’re still waiting on the California Assembly to complete passage of universal (automatic) voter registration and send the bill to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature, both the New York Times and the Washington Post editorial boards weighed in this week in support of a expanding universal voter registration to all states.

The Times writes, Entwining Two Rights in California: Voting and Driving:

Voting-RightsFor all the early excitement stirred by the presidential primary contests, a greater test of democracy than the candidates’ cut-and-thrust will be voter participation, a vital statistic which dropped from 62.3 percent in 2008 to 57.5 percent in the last presidential election. In part because of a welter of obstructionist state laws, more than 90 million Americans did not bother or care to vote in 2012.

The Democratic-majority Legislature in California, the most populous state, has just taken a major step toward resisting this alarming trend by approving a system of automatic voter registration for any citizen who obtains or updates a California driver’s license. Modeled on Oregon’s excellent “motor-voter” program, the new system cannot help but increase democratic participation.

Read more

California on verge of enacting universal (automatic) voter registration

by

Update to California following Oregon’s lead on universal (automatic) voter registration.

Screenshot from 2015-09-13 13:49:14The California Senate approved a universal (automatic) voter registration bill last week with some minor amendments that will require the Assembly to vote on the amended version of the bill. Final approval of the bill could come as early as this week. California moving toward automatic voter registration:

The nation’s largest state may be about to make it much easier to register and vote.

California’s Senate passed a bill Thursday by a 24-15 vote that would automatically register to vote anyone who gets or renews a driver’s license, unless they chose to opt out. The state Assembly already passed a similar bill in June. If the Senate version passes an Assembly vote, as expected, the measure would head to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

Brown, a Democrat, hasn’t taken a public position on the bill, and a spokesman for his office declined to comment on pending legislation. But in 2012 he signed legislation allowing Californians to register and vote on the same day.

Another provision that Arizona should enact to eliminate the use of provisional and conditional provisional ballots, thousands of which are never counted.

Read more