Blog For Arizona

Move to Amend Arizona Barnstorming Tour This Week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Press release from Move to Amend. Arizona Barnstorming Tour with Ashley Sanders.

Arizona Barnstorming Tour with Ashley Sanders

May 10, 2013

Move to Amend is barnstorming through Arizona and we're coming to a town near you! Catch a talk in your area, and learn how you can get involved in the campaign to end corporate personhood and demand real democracy!

Ashley Sanders is touring Arizona for Move to Amend in an effort to build connections, inspire activism, and reveal the origins of corporate power in America.

Ashley Sanders is a long-time community activist from Salt Lake City, Utah. She began political work doing campus organizing against the Bush administration and then worked to build third parties as the Nader spokesperson in 2008. She worked for Democracy Unlimited (a Move to Amend Founding Organization) in 2009 and helped to form the Move to Amend coalition. She founded the Salt Lake affiliate of Move to Amend and serves on the National Leadership Team.

Move to Amend is a national coalition of over 285,000 people and organizations whose goal is to amend the US Constitution to end corporate rule and get money out of politics.

Action Alert: Call your state senator now to oppose SB 1493

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott posted about the upcoming week in the legislature, and covered the Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration and budget which moves to the House this week.

The Senate held the omnibus elections bill last week from its marathon appropriations bills session. The omnibus elections bill is likely to be scheduled for action in the Senate before the end of this week.

After a cursory review of SB 1493, it appears to me that Sen. Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale) and Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) have abandoned earlier attempts to modify their so-called election "reform" bills to address the complaints of voting rights groups and Democratic legislators, and are now sticking with the earlier versions approved in committee in an attempt to ram these unnecessary and counter-productive measures through the legislature.

This is a middle-finger salute to voting rights groups and Democrats. It moves Arizona backwards on voting rights.

SCOTUS watching down the final stretch

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

According to the stats kept by Scotusblog.com, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard 74 merit cases this term, and issued opinions in 39 of those cases.

This leaves 35 opinions to be announced over the next six weeks before the end of June. Mondays are orders and opinions days, with the exception of Tuesday, May 28, because of the Memorial Day holiday.

There are several cases I am following for decisions expected to be issued late in the term on June 17 or June 24, but one never knows.

There are two voting rights cases. The first is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., (12-71), which involves the question whether the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) that requires persons who are registering to vote to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The federal law requires only an attestation of citizenship, subject to prosecution for false attestation. This is a federal preemption issue.

The "big one" that everyone is waiting for is Shelby County v. Holder, (12-96), which involves the question whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority.

This is the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act with which covered states, such as Arizona, must comply because of past history of voter discrimination. Arizona has yet to qualify for the "bail out" provision of the Voting Rights Act because Arizona has not had a record of non-discrimination for more than 10 years.

If Section 5 is struck down, it will be a conservative activist court substituting its judgment for the judgment of Congress, which reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. That would set off a firestorm of protest, and justifiably so.

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.

Making the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have posted about this topic from time to time whenever a member of Congress introduces a bill for a constitutional amendment that would make the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right. This is important, because fundamental constitutional rights are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review by the federal courts. Currently the right to vote, which is not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution, is generally reviewed under the rational basis standard of review.

Under the strict scrutiny standard of review, most of the attempts to restrict voting rights that we have seen in recent years would not pass constitutional muster.

John Nichols writes at The Nation, Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a point of emphasizing during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that.

The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, on Monday unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.

Action Alert: Call your state senator now to oppose SB 1493

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott posted earlier about Senate President Andy Biggs' budget package introduced yesterday, and mentioned the omnibus elections bill tacked onto the appropriations bills. Here's Biggs' deal: Medicaid restoration in exchange for reducing voting rights.

After a cursory review of SB 1493, it appears to me that Sen. Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale) and Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) have abandoned earlier attempts to modify their so-called election "reform" bills to address the complaints of voting rights groups and Democratic legislators, and are now sticking with the earlier versions approved in committee in an attempt to ram these unnecessary and counter-productive measures through the legislature.

This is a middle-finger salute to voting rights groups and Democrats. It moves Arizona backwards on voting rights.

Each of the measures standing alone attracted unified opposition from Democrats and enough Republican opposition to stall these bills in the legislature. By combining all of these measures into a single omnibus bill and tacking it onto the budget appropriations bills, Senate President Andy Biggs is hoping to strong-arm this bill through the Senate by insisting on party unity. You can bet his whips are going to be working over Republican senators.

Your senators need to hear from you now. Pick up the phone and call your state senator to oppose SB 1493. The Senate directory is here: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S. Keep calling them until this bill is defeated.

Iran's authoritarian streak has deep roots

By Karl Reiner

Authoritarian rulers are not uncommon to Iran.  As Iran's June presidential election nears, the Guardian Council has yet to announce the list of approved candidates.  Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wants to see a suitable conservative elected as president.  In a country facing a faltering economy, sanctions and entanglement in Syria, the Supreme Leader may face some difficulty in getting his way.

In the 1960s, the Shah of Iran wanted to turn Iran into a new Persian Empire.  He aspired to make it a major force in the Persian Gulf area.  As the British withdrew their military presence east of Suez, the Shah was ready to step in and put his plan into action.

Oil revenues allowed the Shah to make large arms purchases.  Using the Cold War to his advantage, he knew if he couldn't buy military equipment from the U.S., the Soviet Union would sell him all the arms he wanted.  Within a few short years, Iran's military was turned into one of the most technologically advanced forces in the world.

The real IRS scandal: the ease with which political organizations have been abusing the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The latest "scandal" is that the IRS applied extra scrutiny to applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status from so-called Tea Party organizations.

Geez, an anti-government, anti-tax organization (the "Tea" is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) applies for tax exempt status from the IRS -- the agency responsible for the collection of taxes -- I can't imagine why that would attract any extra scrutiny (sarcasm). By the way, the tax exempt status in effect is a tax subsidy from taxpayers, so not only are these Tea Party organizations anti-tax, but they want you to pay for their political activities. Deadbeats!

I have yet to see any reporting that this 501(c)(4) status was denied to any organization, only that they had to provide additional information about their organizations' political activities.

Of course, the conservative media entertainment complex cult has portrayed this as a case of conservatives being persecuted for their beliefs, playing the victimhood card that is the stock and trade of the conservative movement. They all see themselves as martyrs who are being persecuted by the "librul" media and the big, bad "guvmint." The corporate "lamestream" media is taking its cue from the conservative media entertainment complex cult and playing along with this persecution/victimhood meme.

Again, I have yet to see any reporting that this 501(c)(4) status was denied to any organization, only that they had to provide additional information about their organizations' political activities.

The real "scandal" here, the scandal the media has largely ignored for several years and is still not reporting, is the ease with which political organizations have been abusing the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status, and the lack of any IRS legal enforcement to prevent such abuses.

Progressive election reforms move forward in Colorado and Oregon

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is probably the most forward-looking Secretary of State in America. She has been promoting the Brennan Center for Justice concept of "universal voter registration" (automatic registration).

Last Wednesday, Brown pitched legislators on a new version of her ambitious plan to automatically register hundreds of thousands of potential voters in the state. Oregon secretary of state tweaks universal registration bill in search of more support:

Brown said she has agreed to changes to address privacy concerns, as well as worries from minor political parties faced with rapidly increasing their numbers to keep their ballot status.

Brown's changes, now embodied in House Bill 3521, didn't satisfy Republicans, several of whom showed up to testify against the measure.  However, the Democratic secretary of state did get backing from several groups that seek to increase voter registration, such as the Oregon League of Women Voters and Common Cause Oregon.

Brown has proposed to use Oregon DMV data to automatically register citizens to vote if they are not already registered.  Her office has estimated that could increase the state's voter rolls by more than 500,000 over the current total of about 2.2 million.

Critics had earlier said that many people did not want to be registered because they did not want to be listed on the state's public record of voters. Under Brown's new proposal, new registrants would receive a notice giving them 14 days to opt out of being registered.

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.

Ken 'Birther' Bennett supplements his state salary with cool 'Kochtopus' cash

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett supplements his state salary with cool "Kochtopus" cash. He is on the payroll of the major bankrollers of the national Tea Party movement and FreedomWorks. Talking Points Memo reports:

Ken Bennett, the Secretary of State of Arizona, receives a $70,000 annual salary. But he also, it turns out, receives $2,000 a month for his work as a board member of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, a for-profit company founded by a one of the key people behind the tea party group FreedomWorks.

According to a report by KTVK reporter Dennis Welch, Bennett has received tens of thousands of dollars from the Cancer Treatment Centers of America since taking office in 2009. The company was founded by the conservative millionaire Richard Stephenson. There are no state laws or rules that would keep Bennett from serving on the company’s board, and Bennett has disclosed the money in financial disclosure statements. So Bennett sees nothing wrong with the arrangement.

“I don’t think there’s anything inappropriate, in fact it’s an honor for me to serve on a board that’s helping treat people for cancer,” Bennett told KTVK. “I’m on other boards, my whole life isn’t about being secretary of state.”

Well no, it's about running for governor and trying to attract high-roller donors to your campaign. Bennett hasn't done much of a job as Secretary of State, anyway.

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.

States try to tackle 'dark money' groups

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

The Los Angeles Times reports, States try to tackle 'secret money' in politics:

Early last month, state lawyers and election officials around the country dialed into a conference call to talk about how to deal with the flood of secret money that played an unprecedented role in the 2012 election.

The discussion, which included officials from California, New York, Alaska and Maine, was a first step toward a collaborative effort to force tax-exempt advocacy organizations and trade associations out of the shadows.

* * *

"There is no question that one of the reasons to have states working together is because the federal government, in numerous arenas, has failed to take action," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of California's Fair Political Practices Commission, who organized the call with officials from about 10 states. [The reporting does not disclose whether Arizona was one of the 10 states.]

Colorado passes model election reform legislation

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Longtime readers of this blog know the election reforms that I have been advocating for years. I cannot get a bill, let alone get a bill heard, in our Tea-Publican dominated legislature. All they care about is restricting your right to vote and making participation in the political process more difficult for voters.

But the Democratic controled legislature of the state of Colorado just passed several of the election reforms that I have long advocated for. Can you say "model legislation"? This is the bright-line policy divide in the Secretary of State race in 2014. Colorado Legislature Passes Major Voting Rights Expansion Bill:

Both houses of the Colorado legislature passed a major overhaul of state election law that would implement same-day registration and voting, automatically send mail-in ballots to every voter, and create a real-time statewide voter database to prevent fraud. [They stopped short of universal voter registration.] Proponents view the bill, written by a bipartisan group of county clerks, as a national model for other states.

Arizona's 'resign to run' law effectively nullified

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Constitutional provisions enacted by the voters through initiative or referendum can only be repealed by the voters through another initiative or referendum. At least, that is how it is supposed to work.

The ballot referendum proposed by the Arizona Legislature in 1979 to amend the Arizona Constitution to impose a "resign to run" law was approved by the voters at the 1980 general election. Article 22, Sec. 18 of the Arizona Constitution provides "Except during the final year of the term being served, no incumbent of a salaried elective office, whether holding by election or appointment, may offer himself for nomination or election to any salaried local, state or federal office."

The "resign to run" law was undermined a few years ago by an incorrectly decided court decision in the case of John Huppenthal, which has become known as the "Huppenthal rule": candidates can file an exploratory committee and collect money and signatures before "officially" declaring their candidacy.

A bill sponsored by Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), HB 2157, has effectively nullified what little remained of the "resign to run" law through legislative legerdemain, without referral of the measure to the voters.

Election Integrity Action Alert

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The election "reform" bills that have been stalled in the Arizona legislature, see (Update) Election 'reform' bills still stalled in the Arizona legislature, have been put on the calendar for Wednesday afternoon. Your urgent attention is requested.

Action Alert from the Arizona Democratic Party:

Mayday, Mayday, Mayday! We need your help. Zero hour is 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 1st. That’s when a conference committee will meet to discuss Republican Senator Michele Reagan’s latest attempt to circumvent open government.

Senator Reagan is replacing HB 2305 with the onerous and objectionable parts of two other bills which would severely limit a person’s ability to vote. Because she hasn’t been able to get SB 1003 and SB 1261 through the legislature, Reagan and other Tea Party extremists are resorting to back door maneuvering that eliminates any public comment.

We need you to call and/or email members of the conference committee and let them know you will not stand for their sneak attack on voter’s rights and democracy. Here is the contact information for committee members (below the fold).

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.

(Update) 'Kochtopus' spring retreat April 28-29 in Palm Springs

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted last week about the fabulous "Kochtopus" Confab in Coachella (Palm Springs) going on right now. 'Kochtopus' spring retreat April 28-29 in Palm Springs. Mother Jones intercepted an email invite to the "billionaires caucus" retreat and wrote about it.

I am hoping that Mother Jones will score another insider audio-visual exclusive story like they did with Willard "Mittens" Romney. These cockroaches like to operate in the dark. The double super-secret "no media" retreat for the "billionaires caucus" will receive no media attention otherwise. (The Local Desert Sun newspaper doesn't even mention the presence of all the high rollers in town).

The best that I can find (so far) is this report by Peter Stone at the Huffington Post. Maybe the local Arizona political media could, you know, maybe follow-up with some investigative reporting on Phoenix-based "Kochtopus" political operative Sean Noble, who is under investigation in California for money laundering? Hello? New Koch Brothers Group Revamps Billionaires' Dark Money Operation:

The sprawling conservative network backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch is being overhauled, with some key Koch operatives moving to a fledgling "dark money" group that is poised to become a chief financing vehicle for the mega donors' political and ideological projects, The Huffington Post has learned.

The new organization, called the Association for American Innovation, is expected to ultimately funnel millions of dollars to other dark money groups nationwide. It's being staffed with Koch stalwarts, including Marc Short, who currently oversees other Koch-funded projects, according to a few GOP operatives familiar with the overhaul.

The Wyden-Murkowski campaign finance bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last Tuesday, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) unveiled the first bipartisan campaign disclosure bill in the Senate since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to unlimited electoral spending by groups that were not covered by any prior campaign disclosure regime. The Huffington Post reports:

The bill, known as the Follow the Money Act, would require any and all groups spending at least $10,000 on electoral activity to register and disclose contributions above $1,000. The bill would also raise the threshold for contributor disclosure from $200 to $1,000 for all political committees, including those of candidates and political parties.

* * *

In addition to expanding disclosure of independent group spending and reducing the contribution disclosure threshold, the Follow the Money Act would create a system of real-time disclosure, require independent groups to abide by "Stand By Your Ad" provisions (including the identification of their top three donors), require senators to file campaign reports electronically, require tax-exempt 527 groups to file disclosure reports with the FEC (instead of the Internal Revenue Service), and direct the FEC and IRS to work together to craft and enforce regulations.

Is campaign finance disclosure coming from the SEC?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is an under-reported story in the political media, although you can bet that corporate players in campaign finance are all over this like white on rice. Christine Hurt at The Conglomerate legal blog writes, “Is Mandatory Political Activities Disclosure Coming from the SEC?”:

Two summers ago, a group of well-known law professors submitted a proposal to the SEC to require disclosure of political contributions by Exchange Act filers.  The arguments for new rulemaking were valid and persuasive:  investors are increasingly interested in the political contributions corporations make; even a diligent investor would have a difficult time finding this information independently; many corporations voluntarily disclose such information; and disclosure rules have historically evolved to require disclosure in various areas.

Wednesday, the NYT ominously declared that "S.E.C. officials have indicated that they could propose a new disclosure rule by the end of April, setting up a major battle with business groups that oppose the proposal and are preparing for a fierce counterattack if the agency’s staff moves ahead."  That sounds very dramatic.  The article reports that half a million comments have been submitted to the proposal; I did not count, but you can try here.  The NYT also reports that the majority of the comments are in favor of the proposal; again, feel free to count yourself!

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.

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.

(Update) Election 'reform' bills still stalled in the Arizona legislature

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago. Election 'reform' bills stalled in the Arizona legislature. The election 'reform' bills are still stalled in the Arizona legislature, and now the Tea-Publicans are looking for creative ways to get around the logjam. The reforms under consideration are unnecessary or counterproductive. As I detailed in an earlier post, the Arizona legislature fails to consider real solutions to the problems with our elections.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports today, AZ election reform bills face further problems:

Lawmakers attempted to push through a set of bogged-down election bills in a comprehensive 43-page amendment in conference committee Wednesday afternoon, but the committee was called off minutes after the amendment began circulating at the Capitol.

The lengthy amendment proposed to HB2305 includes essential portions of four election-reform bills – Sen. Michele Reagan’s SB1003, SB1261 and SB1264, as well as Rep. Michelle Ugenti’s HB2527 – that have languished at the Capitol.

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).

Election 'reform' bills stalled in the Arizona legislature

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Election "reform" bills have stalled in the Arizona legislature. SB1003 and SB1261, sponsored by Sen. Michele Reagan, have stalled in the House at her request in an effort to give Latino groups and Democrats a say in the measures and pitch amendments.The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Despite changes to election reform bills, Democrats, Hispanics still opposed:

The bipartisan discussions have resulted in agreements for several changes in the bills.

But some Democrats say the efforts aren’t enough and are still urging Reagan to hold the bills until next year and use the interim as a chance to meet with all stakeholders — county recorders, lawmakers and voters — before drafting new legislation to make Arizona’s voting systems more efficient and accurate.

“I do appreciate the sponsor of the bill at least trying right now to bring everyone together, but it makes it a little more difficult once a bill is prepared to come to an agreement,” said Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix.

Reagan said House Speaker Andy Tobin has withheld the bills from votes in the House Committee of the Whole at her urging.  The Scottsdale Republican used the extra time to meet with the Arizona Association of Counties, the Secretary of State’s Office and Democratic lawmakers to address concerns with the bills.

Though Democrats convinced Reagan to make a few changes to the bills in a stakeholders meeting on April 8, Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, called Reagan’s efforts a “waste of time” — without significant changes to both bills, his vote on the bill won’t change from a no to a yes.

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.

Back-door assault on Citizens Clean Elections goes to the Governor - tell her to veto the bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our lawless legislature is disregarding sound legal advice and passing unconstitutional legislation again, pissing away your tax dollars on the litigation which is certain to follow.

This time it is the Tea-Publican back-door assault on Citizens Clean Elections. Arizona Legislature OKs higher election-donor caps:

The Senate approved higher contribution limits Tuesday, as a grass-roots group lobbied state lawmakers to reject the measure and critics warned the bill is unconstitutional. Even before House Bill 2593 gets to the governor’s desk, critics are asking Brewer to veto it.

Supporters said the increase in how much individuals and political-action committees can give to campaigns is needed to combat the rising influence of independent-expenditure committees, effectively fighting the committees’ financial firepower with beefed-up finances from candidates themselves. It would apply to all elections under state control, from the gubernatorial race to school-board seats.

[Bullshit Alert: No candidate can hope to outspend an independent-expenditure committee with unlimited resources from undisclosed donors. All this does is make elections so expensive that it freezes out qualified candidates from running for office who are not independently wealthy or have a lot of rich friends and relatives. This is another step towards a wealthy elite plutocracy.]

Arizona legislature fails to consider real solutions to the problems with our elections

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Capitol Times has an important report on an Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting analysis of the problems experienced in the 2012 eelction in Arizona. What the report makes clear is that the Arizona legislature is failing to consider real solutions to the problems with our elections, while pursuing bills to place additional burdens on the right to voters. Rejected ballots reflect continuing problems in Arizona’s elections:

Tens of thousands of ballots cast in Arizona’s 2012 election were rejected by elections officials, indicating continued communication and voter education problems in the state, according to an analysis by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting.

Nearly 46,000 of the more than 2.3 million ballots cast in Arizona’s 2012 election – or about 2 percent – were rejected. That rate is down from 2.2 percent in 2008, when Arizona led the nation in rejected provisional ballots.

The analysis was based on a review of rejected ballots and interviews with experts and legislators.

The rejected votes consist of early voting or provisional ballots in which voters went through the voting process but later had their ballots thrown out after review by elections officials. The most common reasons were that voters weren’t registered in time for the election, voted in the wrong precincts or didn’t sign their ballots.

* * *

Election experts say rejected ballot rates – and the reasons for rejection – can point to either poor voter education about Arizona’s election process or inefficiencies in the state’s election administration efforts. [Bingo!]

Of the 33,000 provisional ballots that were rejected in 2012, 38 percent were because the voter wasn’t registered in the state and 33 percent because the voter submitted a ballot in the wrong precinct.

Election officials said voters who weren’t registered might have missed the state’s registration cut-off date, which was 29 days before Election Day. Voters who register after that date are not eligible to vote in that election.

(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.

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.

(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.

Low Expectations for Election Administration Commission

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama followed through on his State of The Union Address and signed an executive order establishing an election administration commission to improve access to and efficiency at the polls.

The two co-chairs are the chief lawyers representing the candidates in the 2012 election: Ben Ginsburg of the Mitt Romney campaign and Ben Bauer of the Obama campaign. I would caution low expectations for this commission with Ben Ginsburg as co-chair. Ginsburg is the GOP's point man in court for voter suppression. Obama creates voting commission:

The commission will have nine members, appointed by the president. The two co-chairs are the chief lawyers representing the candidates in the 2012 election: Ben Ginsburg of the Mitt Romney campaign and Ben Bauer of the Obama campaign.

Their report is “intended to serve as a best practices guide for state and local election officials to improve voters’ experience at the polls under their existing election laws,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday.

Among other things, the commission will investigate the management and number of polling places, the training and number of poll workers, voting machine technology, provisional and absentee ballot issues and ballot simplicity.

Obama is asking for a report six months after the group’s first meeting. The commission will dissolve 30 days after its final report.

Deceptive plot to kill Citizens Clean Elections one step closer to the ballot

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Back in 2010, then Sen. Jonathan "Payday" Paton had a purposefully deceptive plot to kill Citizens Clean Elections by technically leaving the Citizens Clean Elections Act approved by voters in 1998 in place, but leaving no money in the fund for candidates in the 2012 election. Public financing of elections all but dead | The Sierra Vista Herald:

Sen. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, a foe of public financing, conceded that he fears the public, confronted with a measure that asks to repeal the “Clean Elections” system, would not see it the way he does.

This bill, said Paton, gets around that political problem. More to the point, it offers a carrot to convince voters to go along.

It has an excellent chance of passing,” he said. Paton said the measure provides voters with the choice of “funding junk mail and yard signs or funding our classrooms.”

Evil Tea-Publican plots never die, they just get recycled year after year until they get their way. This year, "Tempe Normal" graduate student Rep. Paul Boyer (R-Phoenix) is the water-carrier for this purposefully deceptive plot to kill Citizens Clean Elections. You can bet that lobbyist "Payday" Paton, the Goldwater Institute, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce -- longtime foes of Citizens Clean Elections -- are in the shadows behind this purposefully deceptive plot to kill Citizens Clean Elections.

California election watchdog does what Arizona legislature refuses to do to protect its own GOP operatives

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this month, Cronkite News reported No state law on 'dark money' coming this legislative session:

For all of the controversy during the last election over the influence of so-called dark money in politics, the Arizona State Legislature is unlikely to produce any laws on the subject this session.

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, introduced the only bill addressing dark money, one that would have increased disclosure requirements for groups making such donations, but it didn’t receive a hearing.

Farley said that the “future of our democracy” depends on citizens knowing who is funding campaigns, something that certain corporations can keep secret because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

“I just think that we owe it to our voters to do everything we can to reveal as much as we can about where it comes from,” he said during a recent Senate Elections Committee session on Citizens United.

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.

Oregon Secretary of State to propose automatic universal voter registration

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

If Arizona had a serious Secretary of State instead of Ken "Birther" Bennett, maybe we could have nice things.

Oregon Secretary of State State Kate Brown will present Oregon legislators with an ambitious plan that would ensure that almost all eligible Oregonians are automatically registered to vote. Oregon secretary of state wants to use driver licenses to automatically register voters:

Brown plans to unveil legislation that would use driver-license data and -- eventually -- data from other government agencies to register citizens.

"I do not think that voter registration should be a barrier to participation in voting," Brown said in an interview Tuesday, "and our goal is to get ballots in the hands of every eligible Oregonian."

Brown's proposal could give Oregon the broadest pool of registered voters in the country – with the exception of North Dakota, which does not require voters to be registered. [You don't hear anyone screaming "voter fraud" about North Dakota!]

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.

Just say no to online Internet voting: Cyberattack on Florida election is first known case in US

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

SB 1387, a bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Worsley (R-Mesa), the founder of retail catalog giant SkyMall, seeks to establish an online voting pilot program in time for the 2014 primary election. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported earlier this month, Senator proposes online voting for 2014.

I posted about this election scandal out of Miami not being reported anywhere outside of Florida. The case of the phantom ballots: an electoral whodunit - Miamia Herald:

It had all the appearances of a political dirty trick, a high-tech effort by an unknown hacker to sway three key Aug. 14 primary elections, a Miami Herald investigation has found.

The plot failed. The elections department’s software flagged the requests as suspicious. The ballots weren’t sent out.

But who was behind it? And next time, would a more skilled hacker be able to rig an election?

Six months and a grand-jury probe later, there still are few answers about the phantom requests, which targeted Democratic voters in a congressional district and Republican voters in two Florida House districts.

NBC News today has a follow-up to this story. Cyberattack on Florida election is first known case in US, experts say:

An attempt to illegally obtain absentee ballots in Florida last year is the first known case in the U.S. of a cyberattack against an online election system, according to computer scientists and lawyers working to safeguard voting security.

GOP vote rigging scheme passes the Arizona House

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

Today is primary election day in a number of municipalities across Arizona, but a bill that has been flying under the radar and that has received no media attention until now would radically alter how these primary elections are conducted in the future. Howard Fischer mentions it only in passing in his Legislature briefs:

A bill approved Monday by the House could radically revamp how cities and towns conduct their elections.

Under current law, the first vote, or primary election, usually narrows the field to the top two vote-getters, who advance to a runoff.

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, said problems arise when there are perhaps eight candidates with a conservative point of view and just two who are considered liberals. With voters entitled to cast ballots for only one, Olson said that creates a "spoiler effect," where the conservatives split the vote and the runoff in what might be a conservative community deciding between the two liberals.

HB 2518 would permit cities to alter their system so individuals could vote for as many - or as few - candidates as they want. Olson argued that would create a better chance for candidates whose views more realistically reflect that of the community.

He said the system would not work in Tucson, which has partisan primaries.

Monday's 31-26 vote sends the measure to the Senate.

The GOP's new strategy, same as the old strategy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Garry Trudeau scoops the National Press Club on the GOP's "soul-searching" results. RNC Chairman Priebus to share future Republican strategy at the National Press Club on March 18: Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus will discuss the party's future strategy at National Press Club Speakers Breakfast at 8 a.m. Monday, March 18 in the Ballroom.

Doonesbury
By Garry Trudeau

(Update) Tea-Publicans in the Arizona Lege are trying to limit voters' rights

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted the other day about the several so-called election reform bills moving through the Tea-Publican controled Arizona legislature. Tea-Publicans in the Arizona Lege are trying to limit voters' rights.

Undeterred by public opinion, the House voted to advance election bills in the House on Thursday. Controversial ballot bill clears committee:

A Republican state lawmaker switched her vote at the last minute in a committee meeting Thursday, saving a controversial elections bill, SB 1003, from oblivion.

Rep. Doris Goodale, R-Kingman, had voted against Senate Bill 1003, which would bar any group, or members of a group, from collecting voters’ ballots and returning them to elections headquarters. The bill has been a lightning rod, drawing criticism from Latino, civic and other groups that it restricts voting rights.

As the vote counting continued in the House Judiciary Committee, it was clear the bill would die on a 4-4 tie.

Chairman Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, lamented the “red herrings” raised by critics, and said it appeared the bill would fail unless someone changed their vote. He then looked at Goodale, who had sided with Democrats to vote “no,” and asked her if she was going to change her vote.

“I’m not pressuring you, but if you’re going to change your vote, now is the time,” he said.

Goodale switched from a “no” to a “yes” and the bill passed.

So whatever happened with that Nathan Sproul voter registration fraud case in Florida?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Funny you should ask. Steve Benen has the latest developments. GOP election fraud reported in Florida:

By every possible measure, [ claims of voter fraud] have been wildly and laughably exaggerated, but when evidence of fraud does appear, more often than not, it seems to involve Republican wrongdoing (thanks to my colleague Will Femia for the tip).

Two employees of a company once aligned with the Republican Party of Florida admitted to law-enforcement authorities that they forged voter registration forms.

It's the first result in a far-reaching voter fraud investigation that was launched last fall -- and initiated at the urging of the party after election supervisors started flagging questionable applications.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement reported Tuesday that the two ex-employees were charged with a third degree felony. But prosecutors back in January decided to place both of them on probation because neither has a criminal history.

Tea-Publicans in the Arizona Lege are trying to limit voters' rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Think back to November 2012 and what were the problems with the election: voter lists from the county recorders were inaccurate, voters did not know where to go due to precinct consolidation into new "voting areas," and many voters were listed as an early voter but wanted to vote in person, all of which contributed to a large number of provisional ballots being cast. This slowed the counting of the vote.

A large number of voters dropped off their "early" ballots on election day -- as is their lawful right to do so -- which also contributed to the slow counting of the vote.

And then there was the scandal of "dark money" independent expenditure committees corrupting the political process with attack ads funded by contributors who do not have to disclose their identity or the amount of their political contributions.

Tom 'banned for life by the SEC' Horne misleads on the Voting Rights Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Editor's Note: I strongly encourage Felecia Rotellini, a Democratic candidate for Attorney General, to weigh in on this issue. We will be happy to give you space on the blog if the corporate media will not give you an opportunity to respond.

In The Arizona Republic(an) today, Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne (and under investigation for political corruption) has an op-ed explaining his lame reasons why he filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Arizona in Shelby County v. Holder, seeking to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (the preclearance enforcement provision). Preclearance of voting laws now irrational. "Tommy Boy" would have you believe that it is oh so unfair that Arizona was ever included under Section 5 (by amendment) in the first place, and oh, "states' rights!" (the battle cry of segregationists):

In 1975, the act was amended to include “language minorities.” Any state that had a population of more than 5 percent belonging to a language minority and that did not have bilingual ballots by 1972 would be an included state.

This amendment was reverse-engineered to take in Arizona, which adopted bilingual ballots in 1974, not 1972. Now, more than a third of a century later, we are still being punished for having adopted bilingual ballots in 1974, rather than in 1972.

Joe Biden leads reenactment of Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court Justices should have attended to get a sense of history as to why the Voting Rights Act remains vitally important to voting rights in this country. Biden Leads Re-enactment of Voting Rights March - NYTimes.com:

Vice President Joe Biden and black leaders commemorating a famous civil rights march on Sunday said efforts to diminish the impact of African-Americans' votes haven't stopped in the years since the 1965 Voting Rights Act added millions to Southern voter rolls.

More than 5,000 people followed Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma's annual Bridge Crossing Jubilee.

The event commemorates the "Bloody Sunday" beating of voting rights marchers — including a young Lewis — by state troopers as they began a march to Montgomery in March 1965. The 50-mile march prompted Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act that struck down impediments to voting by African-Americans and ended all-white rule in the South.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative John Lewis of Georgia led more than 5,000 people over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala.,to commemorate the 48th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. (By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Sheldon Adelson's Sands Corp. admits to violation of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In 2012, billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson contributed more than $60 million close to $150 million to elect Republicans up and down the ticket, including Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, through their Super-PACs.

I posted last July about a ProPublica investigative report co-published with PBS' "Frontline" into an investigation by the Department of Justice, FBI and SEC for violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Sheldon Adelson through his Macau casino. Exhibit 'A' in the case to overturn Citizens United - Sheldon Adelson trying to buy the American presidency with foreign money:

Internal email and company documents, disclosed here for the first time, show that Adelson instructed a top executive to pay about $700,000 in legal fees to Leonel Alves, a Macau legislator whose firm was serving as an outside counsel to Las Vegas Sands.

The company's general counsel and an outside law firm warned that the arrangement could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is unknown whether Adelson was aware of these warnings. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bars American companies from paying foreign officials to "affect or influence any act or decision" for business gain.