AZ attorney general

SCOTUS upholds state legislative district redistricting plan (updated)

by

Every challenge the Arizona Republican Party has made to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) redistricting plan for Arizona has ended in failure.

SupremeCourtThe latest attempt has again ended in failure.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (.pdf) rejecting the challenge to legislative districts from the Original North Phoenix Tea Party founder Wesley Harris. Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan  filed an amicus brief in support of Harris. Attorney General Mark Brnovich had to argue in favor of the Secretary of State at oral argument before the Court.

A three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for Arizona, by a vote of 2 to 1, entered a judgment for the AIRC. The majority found that “the population deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act . . . even though partisanship played some role.” 993 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1046 (Ariz. 2014). Appellants sought direct review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Breyer delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court:

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires States to “make an honest and good faith effort to construct [legislative] districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable.” Reynolds, 377 U. S., at 577. The Constitution, however, does not demand mathematical perfection. In determining what is “practicable,” we have recognized that the Constitution permits deviation when it is justified by “legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy.” Id., at 579.

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

GOP Culture of Corruption: things just got real for Commissioner Susan Bitter-Smith

by

The GOP culture of corruption at the Arizona Corporation Commission has been a soap opera for over a year now.  Tom Forese and Doug Little were elected to office last year with “dark money” from the state’s largest utility, APS, and its parent company Pinnacle West Capital Corp. The regulated purchased the regulators.

Screenshot from 2014-04-02 14:06:21In a related matter, Commissioner Bob Stump’s phone was seized for a forensic examination to recover emails and texts that may disclose illegal campaign coordination between Tom Forese and Doug Little and the GOP “dark money” organizations. The complaint is being pursued by the Checks and Balances Project.  Judge orders review of Stump’s text messages.

There has been the ongoing “dark money” disclosure dispute between some members of the Commission who want APS and Pinnacle West to come clean, and  Tom Forese and Doug Little who simply chant the Goldwater Institute’s magical mantra of “First Amendment free speech!” to justify political corruption and the Commission becoming a captive agency, bought by the utilities that it regulates. Regulator wants APS to disclose ‘dark money’ — well, not really — Montini: APS disclosure request is kind of a sham and Roberts: Burns’ request for APS disclosure is a joke.

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

Anti-immigrant groups file amicus briefs in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission

by

At the end of March I posted that Kobach v. US Election Assistance Commission appealed to U.S. Supreme Court:

Last November, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down proof-of-citizenship requirement for National Voter Registration Form:

NoVoteA panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, in a unanimous decision, struck down Arizona’s Prop. 200 (2004) proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration and a similar provision of Kansas law in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (Nos. 14-3062 and 14-3072). Specifically, this case concerns whether Arizona and Kansas have to accept the federal National Voter Registration Form without additional proof of citizenship. The Arizona Voter Registration Form proof-of-citizenship requirement has previously been upheld by the Courts.

Read the Opinion Here (.pdf).

[UPDATE: The Federal Voter Registration Form requires the voter to swear/affirm that they are a U.S. citizen and that they meet the eligibility requirements of their state “under penalty of perjury. If I have provided false information, I may be fined, imprisoned or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.”]

The Wichita Eagle reports, Kris Kobach asks U.S. Supreme Court to restore his proof-of-citizenship law:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision and restore a state law he wrote requiring proof-of-citizenship documents to register to vote.

Kobach wants the Supreme Court to undo the November decision by the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, in a case pitting Kansas and Arizona against the federal Election Assistance Commission and a bevy of voting rights groups.

This case was docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24.  Docket for 14-1164. (h/t SCOTUSblog).

Read more