Read Blog for Arizona | Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint for more about voting rights

Two things to increase voter participation – and it ain’t that damn fool Top Two Primary!

January 15, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

Donna Gratehouse has done an admirable job of pointing out the fraud behind the
Top Two Primary ballot measure. I have posted several posts over the past year or so on the political science research which demonstrates that the Top Two Primary (jungle primary) fails to deliver what its proponents promise: higher voter turnout and more moderate (centrist) candidates.

Only certain media villagers and pundits in Arizona — (cough!) The Republic! — love this damn fool idea because they are dumber than dirt when it comes to political science.

If you really want to increase voter participation there are two things Arizona could do today that would immediately increase voter participation: universal (automatic) voter registration, and universal balloting by mail (vote by mail). Of course, our Tea-Publican overlords at the Capitol oppose these common sense solutions because higher voter turnout and voter participation means more voters opposed to their far-right views. Their opposition to these common sense measures is a form of voter suppression.

(Update) SCOTUS: the defining issue in the 2016 election

January 8, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

Last year I posted SCOTUS: the defining issue in the 2016 election, a quick glance at attorney Rick Hasen’s longread for TPM, which is well worth your time to read. It begins:

The future composition of the Supreme Court is the most important civil rights cause of our time. It is more important than racial justice, marriage equality, voting rights, money in politics, abortion rights, gun rights, or managing climate change. It matters more because the ability to move forward in these other civil rights struggles depends first and foremost upon control of the Court. And control for the next generation is about to be up for grabs, likely in the next presidential election, a point many on the right but few on the left seem to have recognized.

Today Hillary Clinton has a new op-ed in the Boston Globe emphasizing the importance of the high court in this year’s election:

There’s a lot at stake in this election. Nowhere is this clearer than in the US Supreme Court.

The court’s decisions have a profound impact on American families. In the past two decades alone, it effectively declared George W. Bush president, significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, and opened the door to a flood of unaccountable money in our politics. It also made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, preserved the Affordable Care Act not once but twice, and ensured equal access to education for women.

Tucson appeals decision striking down its election system

December 26, 2015 by AZ BlueMeanie

Update to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Tucson’s electoral system, appeal to follow. In November, the Tucson City Council voted 5-0 to file an appeal for an en banc review by the 9th Circuit.

That appeal has now been filed, and is being joined by other interested parties in amicus briefs. Washington counties and cities join Tucson court appeal:

Tucson’s unusual election system may not be unique after all.

The state of Washington is joining the city’s appeal of a recent opinion from a three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2-1 split opinion said Tucson’s election system, which uses a ward-specific primary election and a citywide general election, is unconstitutional because it excludes some voters from the primary election based on the ward in which they live. That’s a violation of the 14th Amendment, the “one-person, one-vote” protection, the majority opinion said.

Judge Alex Kozinski described Tucson’s election system as “unusual” and “odd.”

The city is appealing the decision and asking for a review by an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit.

Sen. Andrew Sherwood to pursue universal (automatic) voter registration

December 26, 2015 by AZ BlueMeanie

The Arizona Capitol Times reported this week that Sen. Andrew Sherwood, D-Tempe, will file a bill in January for universal (automatic) voter registration in Arizona. Automatic voter registration bill faces uphill climb – again.

Sherwood filed a bill last January, but “it didn’t receive a committee assignment in the House until one of the final days of session in March, when it was assigned to the House Rules Committee as a procedural maneuver necessary for adjournment.”

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan is generally opposed to automatic voter registration, and “Sherwood’s bill stands little chance of approval by the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature, or Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.”

I have advocated for universal (automatic) voter registration for years, so I will offer Senator Sherwood the same advice I have offered to Democratic legislators who want to actually accomplish what they propose. Arizona is an autocratic one-party control state. The GOP legislature will not pass, let alone consider a Democratic bill, unless it has Republican sponsors and the Republicans want it to pass. This is not the case with election reforms that expand the franchise to vote.

Democrats have no choice but to follow the two-track method to accomplish anything: file the bill in the legislature, and file a citizens initiative with the Secretary of State, then start circulating petitions and collecting signatures.

Oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott

December 9, 2015 by AZ BlueMeanie

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott on Tuesday, the Texas “one person, one vote” case. The transcript of the oral argument is here (.pdf).

There has been some very good analysis of the oral argument, which I have collected at length below.

Let’s begin with Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, Argument analysis: The choice — be bold or practical:

The argument in Evenwel v. Abbott involves as fundamental an issue for a democracy as can be imagined: is everyone represented in elected governments, or are those eligible to vote entitled to special influence and the political power making that possible? The reason that such a choice is just now arising is that it is controlled by the half-century-old constitutional principle of “one person, one vote,” but the Supreme Court has never specified how to measure that equality.