Blog For Arizona

Update on Special Action challenge to the consolidated elections bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law will apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

The City of Tucson filed its special action for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court, City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). The City of Phoenix Intervened as a plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner.

On Monday, Judge Marner ruled on the motions for summary judgment. (For some reason I am unable to access the case documents online today, so the ruling is not attached).

I have tried to interest our local newspapers The Arizona Dail Star and the Tucson Weekly in reporting on this case, but apparently they no longer have an interest in court reporting. The Arizona Republic today has a report, from a Phoenix-centric perspective, naturally. Phoenix, Tucson fight change in election calendar:

Tucson and Phoenix are waging a legal fight to overturn a state law that would require local governments to move their elections to even-numbered years to coincide with statewide contests for president and governor.

If the law takes effect in 2014, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and other municipal elected officials could have their terms extended by several months or even a year.

A Pima County Superior Court judge on Monday denied the cities’ request for summary judgment in the case, saying that he needs to get more information than already submitted in court filings. A hearing will likely be scheduled in the next month, so the parties can debate the facts further.

Dear AZ Lege, Separation of Church & State is in the US Constitution

by Pamela Powers Hannley

"Amid a discussion of the Bible and the Promised Land, the state House voted Tuesday to let Arizonans vote next year on whether they want to be able to challenge the federal government," reported the Capitol Media Services in the Arizona Daily Star.

Both Craig McDermott and the AZ Blue Meanie have written about the SCR1016 vote which would insert a strict constructionist passage to the Arizona Constitution thus setting up the Legislature for future court battles with the feds (their favorite way to waste OUR money) if US government dares to do something not specifically listed in the Constitution by the founding fathers-- like providing universal healthcare, food stamps, Social Security, etc. You know what they're up to.

I would like to point out to the Lege that separation of church and state IS in the US Constitution.

What the heck are you doing discussing the "Bible and the Promised Land" while you are in session? These topics are irrelevant to the conduct of government. Period. Get back to work.

Neo-Confederate dead-enders put the long discredited and unconstitutional theories of 'nullification, interposition and secession' on the 2014 ballot

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this previously, Arizona's Neo-Confederate dead-enders and secession:

Remember the "Checks and Balances in Government" citizens initiative aka the "nullification" initiative from a nutty Scottsdale millionaire businessman, Jack Biltis, that failed to qualify for the ballot due to an insufficient number of signatures last year? Businessman spends $1.2 million to put nullification measure on ballot.

Biltis has decided to bypass the expense of another initiative effort and to take the easy route of getting his fellow Neo-Confederate dead-enders in the legislature to repackage his "nullification" initiative as a constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by the Arizona legislature. SCR1016 is sponsored by the usual suspects, Sen. Rich Crandell (R-Heber), Sen. Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), and cosponsors Sen. Cap'n Al Melvin (R-Saddlebrooke), and Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson).

The ballot measure would amend the state Constitution to allow the state to reject any federal action the public deems to be a violation of the US Constitution by passing an initiative, referendum or bill, or by using any other legal remedy. The proposal also prohibits the state from using its employees or resources to enforce or cooperate with a federal action that’s rejected by the people.

It turns out that Jack Biltis has a lobbyist buddy who helped him out in getting these yahoos to sponsor SCR1016: the wannabe tinhorn dictator of Tucson, Jonathan "Payday" Paton. If there is a bad idea, you can bet this tool is behind it.

Minnesota makes it a 'baker's dozen' approving same-sex marriages

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

My home state of Minnesota just became the 12th state, plus the District of Columbia, to approve same-sex marriages . . . a "baker's dozen."

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports, In historic vote, Minnesota Senate approves same-sex marriage bill:

With deafening cheers and overwhelming emotion, the Minnesota Senate voted 37-30 to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Today, love wins,” said Sen. Tony Lourey, DFL-Kerrick.

The vote, on the heels of a vote last week in the House, brings to a close a decade of debate over marriage that has echoed through the Capitol, bringing thousands of friends and foes of gay marriage to its marbled dome to express their deeply held feelings.

The measure next moves to Gov. Mark Dayton, who will welcome it with his signature in a celebratory ceremony at 5 p.m. Tuesday on the south steps of the Capitol.

Once it is signed, Minnesota will become the twelfth state to legalize same sex-marriage.
"It's historic and I can never be so proud of this body and of Minnesotans," said Sen. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis. On the Senate floor, Hayden said that his wife is white and noted that just 50 years ago, his loving relationship would have been barred.

Repeal Citizens United movement gaining momentum

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Maybe the Arizona legislature would like to jump on the bandwagon? Oh right, they do the bidding of the Goldwater Institute, a charter member of the "Kochtopus," and a big supporter of its dark money organizations and Citizens United v. FEC, and also gutting Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections. "Power to the Plutocrats!"

John Nichols at The Nation reports that Maine, a pioneer of publicly financed campaigns, has become the thirteenth state to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. As Maine Goes… a Bipartisan Call to Overturn 'Citizens United':

When the Maine State House voted 111-33 this week to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the support for this bold gesture was notably bipartisan. Twenty-five Republicans joined four independents and all eighty-two Democrats to back the call.

Similarly, when the Maine State Senate voted 25-9 for the resolution, five Republicans joined with nineteen Democrats and independent Senator Richard Woodbury to “call upon each Member of the Maine Congressional Delegation to actively support and promote in Congress an amendment to the United States Constitution on campaign finance.”

What happened in Maine this week was a big deal for several reasons:

1. Maine became the thirteenth state to urge Congress to develop an amendment to address the money-in-politics crisis that is unfolding as a result of Supreme Court rulings that that have effectively struck down campaign-finance regulations and ushered in a new era of unlimited spending by wealthy individuals and corporate interests. Maine joins West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico and Hawaii in calling for an amendment. Washington, DC, has also backed the drive.

Update on Special Action challenge to the consolidated elections bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law will apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

The City of Tucson filed its special action for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court, City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). The City of Phoenix Intervened as a plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner.

Last Monday, the Court heard pending motions in this special action. I am not sure why it took a week for the Minute Entry for that hearing to be posted, but here it is. Minute Entry dated April 29, 2013.

The posture of this case is as follows:

There being no objections,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona’s Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Response to Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Plaintiff City of Tucson and Intervenor-Plaintiff City of Phoenix is GRANTED.

* * *

As to the Goldwater Institute's Request to file Amicus Brief,

The Court did not find a rule, either cited or un-cited, statute, case law or law review article that would have supported the notion that an Amicus Brief could be filed at the trial court level. Further, there was not a rule that was directly on point or even tangentially.

IT IS ORDERED that Goldwater’s Request for Amicus Briefing is DENIED.

And these high-priced suits call themselves constitutional law experts. They just make up their own rules as they go along. Such arrogance.

'None dare call it treason'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog has some important posts about the growing use of eliminationist rhetoric by the far-right, and their threatening armed insurrection and sedition, None Dare Call It Treason, if they do not get their way in the democratic political process (see this Fairleigh Dickinson University poll in which 44% of Republicans, think “in the next few years, an armed revolution may be necessary to protect our liberties”):

As Steve Benen notes this morning, the National Rifle Association’s new president, James Porter of Birmingham, Alabama, likes to talk about the importance of the Second Amendment as a way to ensure the American people will be able to “resist tyranny”—i.e., shoot and kill law enforcement officers, members of the U.S. armed services, and presumably anyone else (you know, like their neighbors) who might disagree with their definition of their essential “liberties”—at some undefined point in the future. And while I’ve not yet seen evidence of him calling Barack Obama a “tyrant” (though he has called him a “fake president”) I’d be shocked if it doesn’t exist.

So let’s put it this way: Porter seems to be highly representative of the amazingly common type of contemporary “conservatives” who combine extremist language about their political opponents with violent language about their political options—who in effect point their guns at “liberals” while making it known they and they alone will decide what “liberties” to surrender, democracy or laws be damned.

Tea-Publican Kansas asserts the long-discredited and rejected theory of nullification, interposition and secession over gun rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Those of you who remember your U.S. history will recall that Bleeding Kansas (1854-1861) was a proxy war between anti-slavery free-staters and pro-slavery "border ruffians" from the neighboring state of Missouri. It presaged the American Civil War, in which the Confederacy asserted the theory of nullification, interposition and secession.

While Kansas entered the Union as a free state in January 1861, 152 years later Neo-Confederate dead-enders are now in control of Kansas, and are once again asserting the long-discredited and rejected theory of nullification, interposition and secession -- this time with respect to Senate Bill 102, also known as the Second Amendment Protection Act.

Eric Lach writes at Talking Points Memo, Holder Calls Gun Law Unconstitutional:

Remember all those gun nullification bills that cropped up back in January? [Including one in the Arizona legislature.] Last month, Kansas went ahead and passed one. Senate Bill 102, also known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, became effective in Kansas on April 25. And it has led to a high-level back and forth between Attorney General Eric Holder and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R).

Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act declares, among other things, that firearms manufactured and owned in Kansas that do not cross state lines are not subject to any federal laws. It also makes it unlawful for government agents to try to enforce federal laws on firearms made and kept within state lines.

A National Day of Reason

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today is the first Thursday in May and you know what that means: by Congressional decree, today is the official "National Day of Prayer."

Charlotte, NC Mayor Anthony Foxx, whom President Obama recently nominated to be his new Secretary of Transportation, President Obama Nominates Anthony Foxx as Secretary of Transportation, as Mayor of Charlotte, has issued a proclamation saying that Thursday is a “Day of Reason,” lending his name for the second consecutive year to a movement that emphasizes the separation of church and state. Foxx proclaims 'Day of Reason,' 'Day of Prayer':

The American Humanist Association, a co-sponsor of the day, said on its website, that, “with the religious right’s influence in Congress, and with the threat to our Judiciary looming large, there has never been as important a moment in which to affirm our commitment to the Constitutional separation of religion and government, and to celebrate Reason as the guiding principle of our secular democracy.”

Foxx, a Democrat, also issued a proclamation saying that Thursday is also a “National Day of Prayer.” That is a congressional-sponsored day that encourages people of all religions and faiths to pray for the country.

Foxx attends the Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Charlotte.

The City of Bisbee wins (sorta) on civil unions

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago, Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne was threatening to sue the City of Bisbee over a newly enacted civil unions ordinance, at the prompting of Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP).

It looks like the Mullah will not get her lawsuit to call down hellfire on gay couples who want to make a public commitment to one another, and the City of Bisbee wins (sorta) on its civil unions ordinance. The city will just need to tweak its ordinance. Cities, AG strike deal on rights of partners:

Attorney General Tom Horne said Monday he won't challenge city ordinances, like the one passed in Bisbee, that detail the rights of those in civil unions.

Horne said there's nothing wrong with cities requiring hospitals to let partners visit or even those in registered unions getting family rates at the local swimming pool.

But he objected to a provision in the new Bisbee ordinance that mentioned seven specific rights, like community property and inheritance. Horne said that made it seem like those who register as partners get those rights despite specific state statutes reserving them to married couples.

Bisbee withdrew its new ordinance earlier this month after Horne threatened to sue the city.

After a closed-door meeting Monday with attorneys representing Bisbee and other cities, Horne acknowledged domestic partners do, in fact, have those rights. In fact, so does every other couple in Arizona, whether registered in a civil union or not.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of Alabama anti-immigrant law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ALEC model legislation for the anti-immigrant crusade of Kris Kobach, legal counsel with the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the author of Arizona's SB 1070, is losing in court. Federal courts have made it clear that federal law preempts the field in immigration law. Only federal gov't, not states, can enforce immigration laws, Supreme Court says:

The Supreme Court made it clear Monday that enforcing immigration laws is reserved for the federal government, not the states.

By an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected a request from Alabama to revive part of a 2011 law designed to drive out illegal immigrants. That year saw a wave of new laws in Republican-controlled states where lawmakers decried perceived federal inaction. Alabama's was deemed the toughest.

State officials said if federal authorities were not going to arrest illegal immigrants, their police would take on the task.

But the Obama administration went to court to challenge these laws, arguing that federal immigration policy trumped state efforts. The administration said it was targeting criminals, gang members and smugglers, not the millions of otherwise law-abiding but undocumented immigrants who live and work in this country.

The administration won a major victory last year when the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, known as SB 1070. In a 6-3 decision, the justices agreed that Washington, not the states, gets to decide how to enforce the immigration laws. The opinion rejected the idea that states could make immigration violations a crime under state law.

Thoughts on the election consolidation bill now in court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law will apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

This legislation purportedly is the first of its kind enacted in the nation -- a strong indication that it is an ALEC drafted bill, as it was also supported by other "Kochtopus" funded groups such as Americans for Prosperity, the Goldwater Institute, and the Tea Party. (In fact, the Goldwater Institute moved to file an amicus curiae brief in the case below).

The City of Tucson filed its special action for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court, City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). The City of Phoenix Intervened as a plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner.

I was not able to attend the motion hearing scheduled for yesterday, April 29, 2013, because I have a job. I have not seen any reporting on this hearing, despite the fact that I posted the details about this hearing so that reporters could put it on their calendar and cover the hearing.

Rep.Trent Franks still fancies himself 'Mayor' of Washington, D.C.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is not channeling Joe McCarthy with his Islamophobia conspiracy theories about how the Council on American Islamic Relations tried to plant "spies" in the national security apparatus, House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies, or claiming that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today (why? Because "abortion!"), or declaring that President Obama is one of the most dangerous enemies facing America today and "an enemy of humanity", or threatening to impeach President Obama over his refusal to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, this Christian Right anti-gay, anti-abortion zealot fancies himself the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., proposing to outlaw the constitutional right to a safe abortion in the District.

As the Washington Post editoiralized last year, The House tramples again on the District's rights:

THE ISSUES ADMITTEDLY are not normally the domain of a member of Congress. But D.C. residents who wanted to discuss problems of city potholes, rat infestations and broken streetlights with Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) were trying to make an important point. If Mr. Franks is so interested in running the affairs of District residents, as evidenced by his effort to restrict their abortion rights, then let him deal with all the other issues of local government.

No surprise that Mr. Franks locked his doors to last week’s protest by D.C. Vote and turned off his phones. Nor is it any surprise that his noxious bill to restrict the constitutional rights of women in the nation’s capital is likely to advance. It’s pretty clear that the rights or wishes of D.C. residents matter little on Capitol Hill, particularly to members of the House Republican majority.

What is wrong with America in one photo

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a guest of Bill O'Rielly at the FAUX News Fraudcasting table, at the 2013 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. For those of us who have to actually read the transcripts of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, Scalia asks questions based upon willfully ignorant information he obviously learned from watching FAUX News, with a disturbing regularity.

And why is this important?

Gary May writes at the Washington Post, Scalia’s limited understanding of the Voting Rights Act:

In the debate over the future of the Voting Rights Act, it sometimes becomes apparent that certain members of the Supreme Court are either oblivious to our nation’s recent history or willfully ignore it. Justice Antonin Scalia made this abundantly clear in his comments during the Feb. 27 oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, statements that he repeated in a speech on April 15.

To Scalia, the Voting Rights Act — especially Section 5, which requires covered states to submit any changes in voting practices to the Justice Department or a Washington court for approval — is a “racial entitlement” and a violation of state sovereignty. In his view, it unfairly and unnecessarily treats seven Southern states, plus Alaska, Arizona and parts of six others, differently from states not covered by the act. This month, according to the Wall Street Journal, he called the act a form of “racial preferment” that affected only African Americans while ignoring the white population.

President Obama at the Planned Parenthood National Conference

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama became the first sitting president ever to address a Planned Parenthood event this morning, speaking at the health care group's national conference.

From the Transcript of prepared remarks (excerpt):

[O]bviously this is a special national conference, because it’s been nearly a hundred years since the first health clinic of what later would become Planned Parenthood opened its doors to women in Brooklyn.  And for nearly a century now, one core principle has guided everything all of you do -- that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health.  (Applause.)  It’s a simple principle.  

So what I see in this audience, extraordinary doctors and nurses, and advocates and staff who work tirelessly to keep the doors at health centers all across the country going, then I'm reminded of those very early efforts and all the strides that we've made in subsequent decades.  And I also think about the millions of mothers and daughters and wives and sisters, friends and neighbors who walk through those doors every year. 

Somewhere there’s a woman who just received a new lease on life because of a screening that you provided that helped catch her cancer in time.  Somewhere there’s a woman who’s breathing easier today because of the support and counseling she got at her local Planned Parenthood health clinic.  Somewhere there’s a young woman starting a career who, because of you, is able to decide for herself when she wants to start a family.  (Applause.)

One in five women in this country has turned to Planned Parenthood for health care.  One in five.  (Applause.)  And for many, Planned Parenthood is their primary source of health care  -- not just for contraceptive care, but for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and health counseling. 

Update on the City of Tucson's legal challenge to consolidated election dates

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Updating an earlier post, Update on the City of Tucson's legal challenge to consolidated election dates.

The City of Tucson filed a special action for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court, City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). The City of Phoenix was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff. The case is assigned to Judge James E. Marner. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Special Action and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief set on Monday, April 29, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Division 10 for two hours.

Since the last update, the evil bastards from the Goldwater Institute have sought to participate as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in this case, in support of the state of Arizona (or more specifically, the Arizona legislature). the City of Tucson and the City of Phoenix have objected, as well they should.

There are a number of motions pending, but the latest Minute Entry Order of the Court dated April 17, 2013 retains the hearing set for Monday, April 29, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Division 10 for two hours.

Rand Paul down with using drones to summarily execute American citizens

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Just last month the village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), led a filibuster against the notion of using drones on American soil. Wingnuttia went wild with "I Stand with Rand" hashtags on twitter, fund raising emails, and even a line of merchandize online. There was a brief "Paul bump" in Beltway media villager speculation about 2016.

So this is fun. On Monday, Aqua Buddha told FAUX News that he is down with using drones on American soil and using them to summarily execute American citizens without the niceties of constitutional due process. Oh yes he did. John Aravosis reports, Rand Paul favors using $12m drones to kill liquor store robbers (video):

In a weird moment of macho bravado, Rand Paul told Fox the following:

I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham: Screw the Constitution

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Remember just a few weeks ago when the right-wing was all in a tizzy about the village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and his filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan for CIA Director over the use of drones in the U.S.? There was a lot of highfalutin talk from these right-wingers about the constitutional rights of American citizens on American soil -- when they thought they were talking about far-right fringe groups like white supremacists, Christian nationalists, the militia movement, and gun worshipers and fetishists.

Then came the Boston Marathon bombing.

The 19-year old Boston Bomber suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is a naturalized American citizen. He possesses the same constitutional rights as any natural born American citizen. A naturalized American citizen does not lose his constitutional rights any more than a natural born American citizen who is a terrorist, Timothy McVeigh for example, loses his constitutional rights.

But the "war on terror" twins, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are once again seeking to redefine the constitutional rights of American citizens under the rubric of their Neocon "war on terror." They would declare criminal actions an "act of war" for convenience sake and to declare American citizens on American soil an "enemy combatant" in order to deprive American citizens of their constitutional rights.

Americans have more to fear from the "war on terror" twins, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, than any wingnut conspiracy theory about President Obama using drones to kill American citizens on American soil. This pair of assholes actually wrote their bastardization of the Constitution into law, and the U.S. Supreme Court took a pass on its constitutionality. This threat is genuine.

Tea Party Recall Hijinks

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rep. Steve "Secession" Smith (R-Maricopa), an acolyte of disgraced recalled Senate President Russell Pearce and crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, led an evil plot to legislatively "amend" the constitutional provision for recall in Arizona's constitution without voter approval. Stevie Secession actually got his evil plot approved by a vote of the Tea-Publican House. But it thankfully has died -- for now -- in the Senate (it's never over until sine die). GOP defections kill bill to change recall elections:

A plan to revamp the state's recall laws for all future elections fell apart Thursday when some Republican senators broke party ranks.

On an 18-10 vote, the Senate killed a House-passed measure that would have required both a primary and a general election in the event of a recall. Foes said they saw no reason to alter a system that has been in place since the early days of Arizona statehood.

Its fate may have been sealed by a late alteration that created an even more convoluted system - a provision where a recalled official could lose his or her own partisan primary and still be on the general election ballot.

UPDATE: On Monday, the Senate approved a motion for reconsideration by voice vote. A reconsideration of this bill has not yet been scheduled for a vote (while threats and intimidation to get the 16 votes needed is occurring behind closed doors).

Three reasons why Congress is broken

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Yesterday's vote in the U.S. Senate, where a minority of members could block a background checks amendment to a gun safety bill that received a majority vote of 55 votes, based solely upon an undemocratic Senate cloture rule (filibuster), demonstrated how badly Congress is broken.

The first, and most important reason why Congress is broken, is the influence of money in campaigns. Ever since Arizona's contribution to truly awful U.S. Supreme Court Justices, William Rehnquist, invoked the plutocratic principle that "money equals speech" in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), later expanded upon by the conservative activist Court in a series of bad decisions culminating in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)("corporations are people"), this country has been on a glide path to the end of egalitarian democracy, and the rise of an über-rich elite plutocracy or corporatocracy.

Only a tiny fraction of Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties or PACs. Individuals who give contributions large enough to be itemized (over $200) is even smaller. Donor Demographics | OpenSecrets.

The average voter simply has no influence over politicians for political office for this reason. Only a tiny number of elite über-rich individuals and corporate PACs have any influence over politicians for political office. Campaigns have become astronomically expensive since the U.S. Supreme Court removed all constraints on campaign spending.

It's time to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Can we seat a Nuremberg Tribunal-style panel of judges now to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes in the name of America? (Statutes of limitations do not apply to war crimes).

The New York Times today reports  "A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that 'it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture' and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it." U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes:

The sweeping, 577-page report [Document: Constitution Project’s Report on Detainee Treatment] says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of New York concealed carry law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court has proven that the Second Amendment absolutists (absurdists) who argue there can be no laws regulating guns are wrong, yet again. The Court today declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Oh, gnashing of teeeth and wailing among the gun worshipers and fetisihists! Supreme Court leaves in place strict N.Y. limit on carrying concealed firearms:

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear in its Second Amendment cases that government regulation of firearms is permissible. There is no support in law for the absolutist (absurdist) position.

GOP rebranding fail

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After the 2012 election "autopsy," the GOP decided that it would rebrand itself with fancy "new and improved!" packaging and soft-sell messaging, all the while retaining its poisonous product inside the box that it is selling to an unsuspecting public. So how's that working out?

Just last week RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, the guy who told Republicans that they need to stop being stupid and to "tone down the language" about things like "legitimate rape," returned to the GOP war on women with another attack on Planned Parenthood and Democrats. Priebus suggests Obama, Democrats 'endorse infanticide'. This is "toning down the language"?

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus suggested that Democrats "endorse infanticide" by supporting women's health provider Planned Parenthood.

In an op-ed posted on the conservative site RedState, Priebus highlights movements made by state legislatures in North Dakota and Florida over the past week to restrict abortion rights. And he targets President Obama, congressional Democratic leaders and party officials over their support for Planned Parenthood.

Gov. Brewer signs back-door assault on Citizens Clean Eelctions - let the lawsuits commence

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Governor Jan Brewer signed off on the Tea-Publican back-door asault on Citizens Clean Elections, House Bill 2593, Brewer signs bill ending limits on campaign giving, a bill which is unconstitutional and will result in promised lawsuits.

The bill is unconstitutional because the Clean Elections Act of 1998 was a citizens initiative, and any changes to voter-passed initiatives need a vote of three-fourths of each chamber of the Legislature under the Voter Protection Act (also a citizens initiatve). HB 2593 did not meet this three-fourths vote standard. This is a middle-finger salute from Tea-Publicans to the voters of Arizona who support Citizens Clean Elections.

While eliminating contribution caps for traditionally funded candidates, the Tea-Publican controled legislature did not increase the contribution and spending caps for Citizens Clean Elections candidates, eviscerating the purpose and intent of the Clean Elections Act of 1998. It is a transparent attempt to put Clean Elections candidates at a severe disadvantage and to kill Citizens Clean Elections by discouraging candidates from its use.

Let the lawsuits commence! Be sure to thank our lawless legislature and Gov. Brewer for pissing away your tax dollars on unnecessary litigation in pursuit of legislation they know is blatantly unconstitutional.

(Update) Oregon Secretary of State to propose automatic universal voter registration

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Update to an earlier post, Oregon Secretary of State to propose automatic universal voter registration.

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post reports today, Voter registration could be automatic:

The Oregonian editorialized over the weekend about voting in that state (via Hasen):

Secretary of State Kate Brown has a proposal, based on what Oregon has learned over two decades’ experience with the mail ballot: Getting to vote should be easy, not hard.

Brown has introduced House Bill 2198, which would allow the state to automatically register any Oregonian when a state agency already has their name, age, address and digital signature. Right now that means Driver and Motor Vehicle Services, but it could extend to other agencies. Following this system in other places achieves registration of more than 90 percent of eligible voters.

Just using DMV records, Brown estimates that another 500,000 Oregonians would get the power to decide, at the end of October or the beginning of November, that a candidate has finally inspired or annoyed them enough to make them decide to vote.

It’s a right they should have.

There’s absolutely no good reason for such proposals not to be adopted — and not just state-by-state, either. There’s no good reason for the burden of voter registration to be on the voter, instead of on the government.

Civil unions city ordinances in Arizona about to expand?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week Bisbee legalized civil unions, pushing aside AG's legal warnings. The City of Tempe announced that it too would explore a ciivl unions ordinance. Tempe to begin discussion on civil-union laws. Members of the Tucson City Council have advised me that city Attorney Mike Rankin has been asked to explore the legality of a ciivl unions ordinance for Tucson. Can the City of Flagstaff be far behind? Maybe even Phoenix?

Today in the Arizona Republic, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton put these efforts into context. Stanton dons cape, defends little Bisbee against Horne:

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton this week said that if Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has a problem with cities giving legal status to gay and lesbian couples, he should stop bullying tiny Bisbee and take the issue up with the state’s largest city.

Phoenix has had a domestic- partner registry since 2009. Couples who file a declaration of partnership with the city clerk then have a right to visit their partners in any hospital in the city.

“We can’t go beyond our area of jurisdiction,” Stanton said. “But this gives legal status in any area where the city can provide support.”

He said that’s what Bisbee is trying to do with its civil-union ordinance.

“As mayor of Phoenix, I stand with Bisbee,” he said. “I support local control. And if the attorney general wants to pick on somebody, they ought to look at Phoenix.”

Update on the City of Tucson's legal challenge to consolidated election dates

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law will apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

This legislation purportedly is the first of its kind enacted in the nation -- a strong indication that it is an ALEC drafted bill, as it was also supported by other "Kochtopus" funded groups such as Americans for Prosperity, the Goldwater Institute, and the Tea Party.

Charter cities are entitled under the Arizona Constitution to determine how they are governed, and how to conduct elections. Arizona Supreme Court unanimously rejects 'Paton's Law'.

The City of Tucson filed its special action for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 10, 2013 in the Pima County Superior Court, City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). The City of Phoenix filed a Motion to Intervene as a plaintiff. The case is now assigned to Judge James E. Marner.

In a Minute Entry Order dated March 20, 2013, Judge Marner ordered:

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Opening briefs are due by March 29, 2013 and are limited to a maximum of thirty pages.

2. Responses are due by April 15, 2013 and are limited to a maximum of fifteen pages.

3. There will be no replies to the responses.

4. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Special Action and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief set on Monday, April 29, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Division 10 for two hours is affirmed.

Black helicopters day at the Arizona Lege

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Tea-Publican Birthers-Birchers-Secessionists in the Arizona lege held "black helicopters" day on Thursday to advance a couple of their wild conspiracy theory bills. Arizona is sovereign land, House tells US and UN:

If the federal government wants to lock up U.S. citizens without trial it should not count on Arizona to cooperate, the state House announced Thursday.

Lawmakers also voted to have the United Nations butt out of trying to affect Arizona laws and policies. And the House agreed to have the state take the first steps to recognize privately minted gold and silver coins as legal tender in anticipation of the collapse of the dollar.

Underlying all these actions is the argument that Arizona is a sovereign state, and the votes stake out a position to defend that sovereignty.

The first part of HB 2573 deals with two sections of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which give [the] President Obama the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to detain certain people without trial. That includes not only those who planned or aided in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but anyone who "substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces."

[Actually a reauthorization of existing law, but Howie Fischer wants to feed the Obama Derangement Syndrome of the Tea-Publican Birthers-Birchers-Secessionists.]

It includes U.S. citizens and provides for military trials.

Tempe to debate joining Bisbee with civil unions ordinance

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

OK, I thought the City of Tucson and/or Flagstaff would be the first to take up my challenge to lock arms with the city of Bisbee in enacting a civil unions ordinace to stick a finger in the eye of Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy and the self righteous Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne, but it appears that the city of Tempe will take up the challenge first. I tip my hat to you for stepping up to the plate to defend civil rights. Tempe to begin discussion on civil-union laws:

Tempe, a historically progressive city, is poised to become embroiled in the debate over equal rights for same-sex couples.

Today, the Tempe City Council will discuss civil-union laws in its private executive session. The discussion comes two days after residents of Bisbee watched their council approve a historic vote to legalize civil-union certificates, which provide same-sex partners with some of the same rights as married couples.

Tempe Councilman Kolby Granville called the Bisbee vote momentous. On Wednesday, Granville, a Democrat, told The Arizona Republic that he asked for the council executive session on civil unions. He wants Tempe to be the first Valley city to approve civil-union certificates for its residents.

If approved, the legal rights would apply to an estimated 165,000 Tempe residents compared with 5,600 or so in Bisbee.

“Tempe tends to be a leader in issues of civil rights,” Granville said. “And, to me, equality based on sexual orientation is one of those very same civil rights.”

Laugh riot: Mr. Sex on The Side is going to defend the 'sanctity of marriage'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is a laugh riot. Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC," who got caught having an extramarital affair during an FBI investigation into his political corruption, FBI report: Tom Horne was having affair when he hit parked car, climbed up on his high horse named "self-righteous" and announced that Mr. Sex on The Side will file a lawsuit to defend the "sanctity of marriage" by suing the city of Bisbee over its civil unions ordinance. Now that's chutzpah. AG Horne to challenge Bisbee's civil union vote:

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne will file a lawsuit challenging Bisbee's new civil union ordinance, his office confirmed Wednesday. There was no timeline yet available for when the lawsuit may come.

Horne's decision comes hours after the small southeastern Arizona city of Bisbee ignored vociferous opposition and threats of lawsuits and legalized civil unions for same-sex couples Tuesday night. It was an historic council vote that turned into a political circus, as nearly 100 people packed the chambers in both opposition and support.

The City Council pushed aside legal warnings from the state’s attorney general and a conservative advocacy group and voted 5-2 to become first city in the state to offer civil-union certificates for all couples that would extend to same-sex partners some of the same rights as married couples within the Bisbee boundaries.

The ordinance, which goes into effect in 30 days, would cover joint property ownership, property inheritance, guardianship and adoption rights.

North Carolina bill for a state religion

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

While the state of Arizona is one step away from sending a bill to Governor Jan Brewer making idolatrous gun worship the official state religion, the Christian Taliban in the state of North Carolina is pushing a bill to establish an official state religion in that state.

The Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists reject the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion and even judicial review to decide whether the state law is constitutional (because in a theocracy, no one can question "God's law"). The Christian Taliban has essentially checked out of reality. It's long past time for the media to stop being deferential to these radical extremists just because they couch their radical extremism in religious beliefs.

Steve Benen writes, Next stage in the culture war: official state religions:

[W]e've already seen Republican policymakers ban abortion rights, reject marriage equality, go after contraception access, target Planned Parenthood, and go after sex-ed.

What else is there? Wait, I know, how about an effort to empower state lawmakers to declare an official religion, shamelessly thumbing its nose at the Constitution?

A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide. [...]

Bisbee passes civil unions ordinance . . . city not destroyed by fire and brimstone

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I guess God doesn't hate gays after all, it's just the self-righteous Christian Taliban. Bisbee passed its civil unions ordinance last night, and the city was not destroyed by fire and brimstone as Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy prophesied. Maybe people should stop listening to these false prophets. Bisbee legalizes civil unions, pushes aside AG's legal warnings:

Ignoring vociferous opposition and threats of lawsuits, the small southeastern Arizona city of Bisbee legalized civil unions for same-sex couples Tuesday night in an historic council vote that turned into a political circus, as nearly 100 people packed the chambers in both opposition and support.

The City Council pushed aside legal warnings from the state’s attorney general and a conservative advocacy group and voted 5-2 to become first city in the state to offer civil-union certificates for all couples that would extend to same-sex partners some of the same rights as married couples within the Bisbee boundaries.

The ordinance, which goes into effect in 30 days, would cover joint property ownership, property inheritance, guardianship and adoption rights.

Christian Taliban bullies Bisbee over civil unions ordinance

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Bisbee City Council is scheduled to cast a final vote Tuesday night on an ordinance allowing civil unions for gay couples. Bisbee council is poised to recognize civil unions.

Naturally, this has caused unhinged apoplexy among the "God hates gays" crowd, including Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne. Geezus, hasn't this poster boy for political corruption been indicted yet? AG Horne threatens legal action against Bisbee over civil union vote:

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne warned Bisbee on Tuesday that his office would take legal action against the city if council members approve an ordinance tonight allowing civil unions for gay couples. 

The unions would be recognized only within the city limits and would grant rights given to a married couple, including property ownership, inheritance, guardianship and adoption.

Horne opposed the measure in a letter to city officials, saying Bisbee doesn’t have the authority to offer such unions and that “the impact goes beyond (city) boundaries.”

Tucsonans Fight to Keep City Safe for Guns-- Not People (videos)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

If only Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik had kept his big mouth shut about this whole gun control thing...but, no, he dared to discuss gun control at a public forum, he sponsored a local gun-buyback-and-destroy program on the anniversary of the Tucson Massacre, and he pushed for (and passed) an ordinance requiring gun show background checks.

Now to combat Koz's jack-booted attempts at sensible gun control laws to take away their freedoms, Tucson gun nuts patriots Charles Heller and Sean McClusky are working hard at make Arizona a safer place for guns-- lots of guns.

Heller opposed Koz's gun buyback because innocent guns were destroyed. Instead he supported fromer State Senator Frank Antenori's parking lot gun sales which allowed private citizens to freely sell their guns to strangers, which held on the same day at basically the same location. More recently, Heller appeared on the Daily Show touting the merits of a new law in the Arizona Legislature which would bar law enforcement from destroying guns.

McClusky-- working with The Armed Citizen Project-- also wants to break down barriers to gun ownership-- by giving them to Tucsonans who live in high-crime areas-- specifically the Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood, the Midvale Park Neighborhood, and midtown Tucson neighborhoods. (What could go wrong?) Videos and details after the jump.

(Update) Redistricting trial in U.S. District Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Hopefully you were all following reporting by Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog last week as I recommended because, I have to be honest, the corporate media reporting on this case has been so pedestrian and politicized it appears to have been culled from press releases from the conservative media entertainment complex. Bloomberg News, Arizona Capitol Times, and The Arizona Republic in particular were horrible.

This poor court reporting occurred the same week that a legend of court reporting, Anthony Lewis, the great New York Times reporter and columnist, passed away at the age of 85. On Anthony Lewis:

As a journalist, Lewis is best known for revolutionizing the coverage of the Supreme Court. In his remembrance of Lewis, current New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak wrote:

As a reporter, Mr. Lewis brought an entirely new approach to coverage of the Supreme Court, for which he won his second Pulitzer, in 1963.

Rep. Matt Salmon is the antithesis to 'evolved' Sen. Rob Portman

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) revealed that his son is gay and that he has now decided to support gay marriage. By Sen. Portman’s own account,  he opposed gay marriage until he realized that opposition to gay marriage stands in the way of his own son’s happiness.

The Washington Post reports today, Rep. Matt Salmon: Gay son hasn’t changed my views on marriage:

In an interview aired over the weekend, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) told a local news station that his son’s homosexuality has not led him to change his position on gay marriage.

“I don’t support the gay marriage,” the social conservative said. But Salmon emphasized that he loved and respected his son and did not consider homosexuality a choice.

“My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say,” an emotional Salmon told 3TV. “It doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize with some of the issues. It just means I haven’t evolved to that stage.” (video below the fold).

Corrupt Kavanagh's Committee passes the 'show me your papers before you pee' bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) got the corrupt Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) to sponsor its bill based upon ignorance, fear and loathing for a distinct class of individuals whom they want state law to sanction discrimination against on the basis of gender.

On Wednesday, the corrupt Kavanagh's Tea-Publican-controlled Appropriations Committee voted to void parts of local anti-discrimination ordinances designed to give protections to transgender individuals on a 7-4 party-line vote. Phoenix transgender restroom bill clears House committee:

Senate Bill 1045 [a strike everything amendment] would prohibit local governments from passing ordinances that could subject businesses to lawsuits or criminal penalties if they forbid a transgender person from using a restroom.

Bill sponsor Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the measure is a response to Phoenix’s new city ordinance, which bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. The law applies to public accommodations such as stores, restaurants and hotels.

SCOTUS grants review of second affirmative action case

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the University of Texas affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas (11-345). It is widely speculated that the Court may issue its decision in this case this week.

But on Monday, the Court granted review in another affirmative action case with broader implications, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Michigan's Proposition 2, the so-called "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" (2006) promoted by anti-affirmative action proponent Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute. Similar Ward Connerly measures were enacted in California, Proposition 209 (1995), in Nebraska, Initiative 424 (2008), and in Arizona, Proposition 107 (2010).

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Court to rule on affirmative action ban:

In a surprise development, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a state may constitutionally ban the use of race in deciding who gets admitted to public colleges or universities.   The Court chose not to await the outcome of an already pending case on the constitutionality of an admissions plan at the University of Texas that makes some use of race. The new case is significantly broader.

SCOTUS appears ready to punt on California's Prop. 8

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case involving a challenge to California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. It appears as if pre-hearing legal analysis questioning whether the parties have proper legal standing to be litigants before the Court may carry the day after all. Justice Kennedy openly questioned "Why are we here?," indicating that the Court may punt on a decision on the merits and instead issue a procedural ruling.

The argument transcript is here (updated link). Argument audio  is here. (h/t SCOTUSblog.com).

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog.com has posted his first impression of The Proposition 8 oral argument:

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument.  The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

Well this should be fun . . .

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian first cousin, Jean Podrasky, will be attending Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s arguments before the Supreme Court on gay marriage. She should wave and blow a kiss to her cousin, "Hi Johnny!"

John Aravosis posts, Justice Roberts’ lesbian cousin will attend Tuesday’s Supreme Court gay marriage arguments:

Podrasky, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area with her partner Grace Fasano, announced the news in a blog post at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

I know that my cousin is a good man. I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law. I believe he understands that ruling in favor of equality will not be out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit. I am hoping that the other justices (at least most of them) will share this view, because I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings.

Redistricting trial in U.S. District Court this week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The lawyers/lobbyists of the GOP's secretive redistricting organization FAIR Trust take their wild conspiracy theories about the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) to court today in U.S. District Court. These hucksters are challenging the state legislative districts which they believe should have been gerrymandered to create a permanent Republican majority in perpetuity because, after all, it is the divine right of Republicans to lord over us all.

Based upon the biased reporting of Howard Fischer today in the Arizona Daily Star, Arizona redistricting challenge heads to US court today, it appears that lawyer/lobbyist David Cantelme from FAIR Trust is pinning his hopes on  the claim that population deviation between the districts is a violation of law. He apparently believes that state legislative district populations must be strictly equal.

Challengers are pinning their hopes on the fact that 30 districts crafted by the Independent Redistricting Commission are not all equal in population.

Attorney David Cantelme contends the differences were done "deliberately, intentionally and in violation of the one-person/one-vote principle."

The goal of the commission, he charges, was to cluster as many Republicans as possible together in districts, leaving the other, underpopulated districts with more Democrats than otherwise would occur, giving Democrats an unfair and illegal advantage in electing their own candidates to the Legislature.

Historic civil rights arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court this week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This week historic civil rights arguments will he heard in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the rights of gays and lesbians to marriage equality. On Tuesday, the Court will hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, and on Wednesday the Court will hear United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Spectators started camping out in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday for the handful of public seats available to these historic arguments. You can be certain that both pro and anti gay marriage demonstrators will be out in force in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday to create a circus atmosphere for the Beltway media villagers.

Anti-abortion Christian Taliban waging a crusade in Republican-controled state legislatures

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ealier this month, the state of Arkansas passed the most restrictive abortion law in the nation -- a 12-week ban that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound.

Arkansas' action touched off a race to the bottom among Republican-controled state legislatures where the Christian Taliban is firmly in control.

The state of North Dakota passed two anti-abortion bills last week, one banning most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, something that can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy (before many women are even aware that they are pregnant). Another measure would prohibit women from having the procedure because a fetus has a genetic abnormalities, such as Down syndrome. Lawmakers urge governor to veto North Dakota abortion bills:

If the governor signs the measures, North Dakota would be the only state with those laws.

North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors looking at abortion restrictions, ranging from denying funding under the federal health care law to requiring women to get an ultrasound and teenagers to get parental permission before having abortions. Just days before North Dakota lawmakers approved the ban, Arkansas instituted a 12-week ban that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound.

A fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique. North Dakota’s measure doesn’t specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected.

The crazy train has left the station in the Arizona legislature

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have had Democratic senators in the Arizona legislature, who shall remain nameless, assure me that there are enough reasonable Republicans in the Senate to defeat the crazy train bills that we have become used to in recent years. Yeah... about that.

The Birthers-Birchers-Secessionists of the Tea Party in the Arizona legislature have been riding the crazy train off the rails of late.

Yesterday, the Senate gave voice approval to the Glenn Beck "Agenda 21" wingnut conspiracy bill sponsored by the Birther Queen, Sen. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley. Arizona Senate OKs bill rejecting UN declaration on environment:

The Senate voted Wednesday to make it illegal for state and local governments to recognize the United Nations or any of its declarations as legal authority here.

While some lawmakers have always been suspicious of the U.N., the focus of this measure is that organization's Rio Declaration, adopted in 1992, which deals with issues of environment and development.

Arizona Republic editorial: Arizona voter ID law should be overturned

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic editorialized in an opinion today that Arizona's voter ID law should be overturned. Voting law isn’t useful:

The Arizona voting-rights case now before the U.S. Supreme Court is more about states’ rights vs. federal control of elections than about the particulars of the case itself.

Yes, that sounds like a familiar, Arizona-centric issue.

From efforts to nullify federal laws to this current question of whether Arizona can pack additional requirements onto a federal voting-rights law, our state is highly prone to challenging federal dominion.

NY Times editorial: Arizona voter ID law should be overturned

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times editorialized in an opinion today that Arizona's voter ID law should be overturned. Arizona’s Barrier to the Right to Vote:

Arizona’s Proposition 200, passed in 2004, prohibits local officials from registering any would-be voter who does not provide “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” That requirement conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter Act, which set up a national registration system for federal elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments (.pdf) about whether states have the power under the federal law to add restrictions to voter registration. They clearly do not. The justices should reject Arizona’s law as invalid and avoid recreating the problem that the federal law was intended to fix.

WaPo Editorial: Arizona voter ID law should be overturned

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post has an editorial opinion this morning on Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. Arizona voter ID law should be overturned:

COMPARED WITH WHAT some Americans have to tolerate on Election Day, registering to vote is relatively painless. That’s partly thanks to the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law at the root of a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. The state of Arizona argues that it should be allowed to subvert the law’s obvious purpose. The court shouldn’t let it.

In 1993, Congress looked at the “complicated maze” of often confusing and sometimes discriminatory state election rules, and it found that “unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for federal office.” So lawmakers established national standards. Americans could register to vote when getting driver’s licenses, which gave the act its unofficial name: the “motor voter” law. Congress also required every state to accept a simple, common, mail-in registration form drafted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The record indicates that Congress meant these to be among the “procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office.”

Supreme Court argument recap in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lyle Denniston has a recap of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning of Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case. Argument recap: Does “may only” mean “shall only”?

Anyone entering the Supreme Court’s chamber Monday morning expecting constitutional drama over the right to vote had to come away quite disappointed.  It took all of fifty minutes of a one-hour argument to get to any constitutional issue, most of the Justices wanted to focus on what “may only” means in a federal law, and one Justice pronounced the current federal-state voter registration regime “a crazy system.”  In an era when very heated debates over curbing voters’ rights regularly occur in political circles, there was none of that as the Court heard Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (12-71).

At the center of the case is an Arizona law, approved by the state’s voters nine years ago, that requires a would-be voter seeking to register to show proof of U.S. citizenship as an additional requirement besides submitting a federal form which includes a question — enforced by possible perjury prosecution — asking whether or not one is a citizen.

Rick Hasen on Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case before the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog posted a summary of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the Prop. 200 voter registration case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. Sleeper Case of the Year?:

In brief, the question is whether Arizona can refuse to accept a simple federal form for voter registration (which Congress in the 1993 National Voter Registration Act required states to accept), on grounds Congress has exceeded its constitutional power under the Elections Clause  to “make or alter” state rules for congressional voting.

I’ll be writing more about the case after I read the transcript, but at this point I can say the following: This is one of those cases where if the Supreme Court affirms the result in this case (that Arizona must accept the federal form), it will be no big deal, but if the Court reverses it would mark a major change in U.S. election law.

Ted 'Calgary' Cruz demonstrates he is a prick, and wrong on the law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Senate Judiciary Committee today completed passage of a package of four bills for gun safety, including the assault weapons ban renewal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The ghost of Joe McCarthy, Senator Ted "Calgary" Cruz, decided to demonstrate once again that he is an obnoxious prick who thinks too highly of his own intellectual prowess. He decided to query Senator Feinstein, in that smug prickish way of his, as follows:

The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First and Fourth Amendments. Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books, and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures could properly apply only to to the following specifified individuals, and not to individuals that Congress has deemed outside of the protection of the Bill of Rights?

The conservative media entertainment complex is all atwitter today with excitement over the piqued response this baiting by Sen. McCarthy Cruz elicited from Sen. Feinstein (in the video below the fold). The wingnuts think that "Calgary" carried the day with his absolutist position on the Second Amendment.