Blog For Arizona

GOP war on voting: Gov. Brewer signs bill voiding citizens referendum on HB 2305

Posted by AzBliueMeanie:

More than 140,000 Arizona citizens signed the petitions for a referendum of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, exercising their constitutional right under the Arizona Constitution to refer HB 2305 to the voters of Arizona to decide the issue. The repeal legislation passed by our Tea-Publican legislature would void the referendum and once again deprive the voters of Arizona of their constitutional right to vote to decide this issue.

Today Governor Jan Brewer completed the skullduggery of the Tea-Publicans in the legislature, depriving the voters of Arizona of their constitutional right to vote to decide this issue. Gov. Brewer signs elections-overhaul repeal: Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2196 Thursday. The action cancels a November election where voters would have had the final say.

Remember in November!

Action Alert: CAP abortion bill in the House today

Posted by AzBlueMeranie:

Your work is not done now that Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed the Religious Bigotry bill from Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP).

The Committee of the Whole (COW) in the House is debating the CAP bill for surprise inspections of abortion clinics,HB 2284 (.pdf) TODAY. This bill is really about harassing and intimidating abortion services providers and invading the constitutional medical privacy rights of their clients. The bill is sponsored by a CAP water carrier, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria.

Democrats and Planned Parenthood oppose the bill. The federal courts have previously ruled that snap inspections of abortion clinics are unlawful because women’s medical privacy rights are at risk.

Once again our Tea-Publican lawless legislature is pursuing the radical exremist agenda of Cathi Herrod and the CAP. Should this bill ever be signed into law, it will result in another losing lawsuit that pisses away taxpayer money in pursuit of the radical extremist agenda of the CAP.

Contact your legislators now to oppose this unlawful bill.

UPDATE: The bill was approved on a voice vote and will be scheduled for a Third Read roll call vote. Will any of the "mythical moderate Republicans" stand up to say no to this unconstitutional and unlawful bill from Cathi Herrod and CAP?

Governor Brewer vetoes SB 1062

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) are having a bad week. First the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the state of Arizona of CAP's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.

Now Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed the Religious Bigotry bill from CAP, SB 1062, approved by our Tea-Publican lawless legislature.

Here is Governor Brewer's SB1062 Veto Letter (.pdf).

Here is Governor Brewer's Remarks (.pdf) at her press conference. Excerpt:

My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona.

When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear...

Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona’s economic Comeback.

Additionally, our IMMEDIATE challenge is fixing a broken Child Protection system. Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.

The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.

After weighing all of the arguments, I vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

Paul Waldman explains the Religious Liberty Campaign

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Paul Waldman at The American Prospect has an insightful look at the Religious Liberty Campaign of the far-right launched in 2012. This is not a recent home-grown campaign coooked up at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) as our local media would have you believe. CAP is just one of many far-right religious organizations in a network of far-right religious organizations that is quite literally seeking to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment. Platinum-Level Citizenship:

[C]onservative Christians have mounted a little war of their own, fought in the courts and state legislatures. The enemies include not just the Obama administration but gay people, women who want control of their own bodies, and an evolving modern morality that has left them behind.

In the process, they have made a rather spectacular claim, though not explicitly. What they seek is nothing short of a different definition of American citizenship granted only to highly religious people, and highly religious Christians in particular. They are demanding that our laws stake out for them a kind of Citizenship Platinum, allowing them an exemption from any law or obligation they'd prefer to disregard. They would refashion the First Amendment in their image.

Federal Court rules Texas ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The dominoes of discrimination continue to fall. Think Progress reports, Federal Judge Rules Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional:

A federal judge has ruled (.pdf) that Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, the state’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and therefore “demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.” Garcia stayed his decision pending appeal, so same-sex couples cannot begin marrying yet.

* * *

The ruling would prevent the state from enforcing its 2003 law and 2005 constitutional amendment that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. Voters passed that amendment by a 3-to-1 margin, but a plurality of Texans now support marriage equality.

According to the ruling, not only are these families denied benefits under the law, they are also subjected to “state sanctioned discrimination, stigma, and humiliation,” explaining: “In this case, it is clear that Plaintiffs suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment under the law on the basis of their sexual orientation, and this stigmatic harm flows directly from Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage.” Garcia cited Windsor, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, noting that not recognizing same-sex marriages “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Poll: GOP primary voters want Gov. Brewer to veto SB 1062

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A poll of Republican primary voters taken this week reveals that a majority of Republican primary voters want Governor Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Poll: GOP voters want Brewer to veto SB1062:

In the automated poll of 802 Republicans by Coleman Dahm, a Republican political consulting firm in Phoenix, 57.1 percent of respondents who were asked about the bill said they would like Brewer to veto it. Only 27.6 percent said they want her to sign SB1062. The remaining 15.3 percent had no opinion. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.

* * *

Bert Coleman, one of the firm’s partners, said that the poll was of “hard core” Republican voters who had voted both of the last two primary elections. He said the results show that even conservative Republicans believe the bill is bad for the state’s image and will harm its economy.

Now, you are scratching your head and asking yourself, "How is it possible that 50 out of 53 Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature voted in favor of SB 1062, when a majority of even Republican primary voters want Governor Brewer to veto this bill? How is it possible these Tea-Publican legislators were elected to office when they are so out of touch with their own constituents?"

AZ GOP First Vice Chair advises Religious Right to vote for Al Melvin!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The dysfunctional Arizona GOP is once again allowing the disgraced and recalled former Senate President and current First Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party, Russell Pearce, to behave as if he is still "King Russell" (only in his own mind).

Today Russell Pearce chooses sides in the GOP primary for governor by advising the Christian Right, "If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family" -- and vote for Cap'n Al Melvin! From the Arizona Republic, Stand up, Christians:

If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family.

* * *

I was very disappointed to see some of our Republican candidates for governor lose their nerve when it came to Senate Bill 1062, which amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And now some state senators who voted for it want to hide and retract their vote for religious freedom.

Unbelievable.

Making sense of the legal analyses of SB 1062

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are a couple of legal analyses out today that attempt to make the point that SB 1062, the Religious Bigotry bill, is just not that big a deal. Wrong.

Howard Fischer has a report captioned in the Arizona Daily Star, Outcry over Arizona's SB 1062 overshadows bill's limited power. Howie relies on former ASU Law Professor Paul Bender, who comments “My summary is: It means almost nothing.”"[T]he main thing people miss is, there’s no right of action against a bigot in the first place,” Bender said. “The bigot doesn’t need this.”

Howie cites the "three part test" contained in SB 1062:

The law provides a three-part test that someone seeking to use the shield would have to establish in court.

First, the person’s action or refusal to act “is motivated by a religious belief.” Second, that belief must be “sincerely held.”

And third, there would need to be proof that being forced to do something “substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”

It is that last provision that prevents SB 1062 from being a catch-all for any religious claim.

But Howie never asks the all important question: "How has this three part test been used in real world practical application?" The only reporter today to ask the correct question is Megan Finnerty at the Arizona Republic (congrats Megan!) Can courts measure sincerity of faith?:

Our most deeply held convictions cannot be proved or disproved — the love we have for our children, the faith we have in our God, the respect we have for our parents — but SB 1062 would create an opportunity for a judge or a jury to ascertain and measure them.

Religious and legal experts disagree whether a judge or jury could know if a belief was sincere. They also don’t agree on what could be considered proof of such a belief. Words and actions only go so far.

About 250 cases have been brought since the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was put in place 20 years ago. Since then, 26 states have passed similar laws.

Judges have believed those who asserted a religious belief essentially because they said they held it, said Phoenix attorney Joe La Rue of the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which co-wrote SB 1062.

“The courts know how to figure this out; they’ve done it,” La Rue said. “The court generally takes your word for it. You don’t presume a person is lying. You take them at their word unless the belief is so preposterous or so over the top that you couldn’t.”

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature loses in court, again (part the infinity)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You may recall that on the opening day of the legislative session this year, lobbyist Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), and her allies in the anti-choice, anti-constitutional rights for women movement suffered a major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona's petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's 20-week abortion restrictions, Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).

On Monday, lobbyist Cathi Herrod and the CAP and its legal partner in the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist movement, the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), suffered another major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona's petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Betlach v. Planned Parenthood (13-621) striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. U.S. Supreme Court won’t revive Arizona abortion law:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a move to resurrect an Arizona law that would have disqualified abortion providers from receiving public funding for other medical services.

The high court declined to hear Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked the 2012 law.

George Takei and House Minority Leader Chad Campbell on The Last Word

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

George Takei and House Minority Leader Chad Campbell were the interview on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on Monday night. (Video below the fold).

Last week, George Takei threatened to boycott Arizona:

Actor and gay rights activist George Takei warned Arizona to expect a boycott campaign if the controversial so-called “turn away the gay” bill becomes law.

In an open letter to residents beginning with “Dear Arizona,” the Star Trek actor sarcastically congratulated them for becoming the “first state actually to pass a bill permitting businesses–even those open to the public–to refuse to provide service to LGBT people based on an individual’s ‘sincerely held religious belief.’”

“This ‘turn away the gay’ bill enshrines discrimination into the law. Your taxi drivers can refuse to carry us. Your hotels can refuse to house us. And your restaurants can refuse to serve us,” Takei wrote.

* * *

“The law is breathtaking in its scope. It gives bigotry against us gays and lesbians a powerful and unprecedented weapon,” said Takei. “But your mean-spirited representatives and senators know this.” He added, “They also know that it is going to be struck down eventually by the courts. But they passed it anyway, just to make their hateful opinion of us crystal clear.”

Takei described his deep ties to the state; his husband Brad was born in Phoenix and the pair spends three weeks in Arizona every year on vacation to visit family and friends. But, Takei vowed to spend his time and tourist dollars elsewhere if this law gets the greenlight.

“If your Governor Jan Brewer signs this repugnant bill into law, make no mistake. We will not come. We will not spend. And we will urge everyone we know–from large corporations to small families on vacation–to boycott. Because you don’t deserve our dollars. Not one red cent.”

Read the full text of Takei’s letter.

The Arizona Republic does not like citizens initiatives or democracy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I warned you about this bill earlier this month: SCR 1003 (.pdf) would refer a legislative ballot measure to the ballot that requires "the reauthorization of statewide initiative and referendum measures that create funds for public monies, dedicate public monies to a specific purpose or otherwise effect state General Fund (GF) revenues or expenditures."

Note that this reauthorizaton is not for all citizens initiative and referendum measures, just the ones the legislature does not like -- the ones that require the legislature to spend money on priorites decided by the voters, like heath care and education. This is the teabaggers' "I hate the Voter Protection Act" (Prop. 105 -1998) measure to undermine Prop. 105. The reauthorization applies retroactively to all specified statewide initiative and referendum measures approved on or after November 3, 1998.

The teabaggers want the opportunity to revisit and to reverse the laws that the citizens of Arizona enacted as a super-legislature exercising the powers reserved to the citizens under the Arizona Constitution and exercising their constitutional right to citizen initiative and referendum. This reauthorization provision would give opponents a second bite at the apple after seven (7) years. It would invite a perpetual campaign that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of laws enacted by the voters. The teabaggers are demonstrating their utter disdain for your constitutional rights and for democracy.

This Proposed constitutional amendment is a Trojan Horse attack on the AIRC as well.

The Arizona Republic advocates for wage theft from retirees

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Didn't I tell you the editorial board of the Arizona Republic will have a sad over this ruling? Arizona Supreme Court smacks down Arizona's lawless legislature, again: "State lawmakers cannot balance the budget by limiting pension benefit increases for retired judges, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday."

Sure 'nuf, here is the "editorial board" of the Arizona Republic arguing in favor of wage theft from retirees -- keep in mind this is deferred compensation that these employees bargained for in good faith and have earned by performing their end of the bargain. They are entitled to receive payment in exchange for their performance. Reform pensions or lose them:

The Arizona Supreme Court just handed an enormous past-due bill to taxpayers.

The state Legislature’s attempt in 2011 to rein in the costs of poorly performing pension plans is unconstitutional, according to the justices. The Arizona constitution forbids reducing public-pension benefits, which effectively means that no matter how high the costs go, taxpayers simply will have to find a way to pay them.

As a result, the pension board will have to pay out $7.9 million to bring the tab current for beneficiaries of the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan, a part of the state’s worst performing pension trust, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.

The ruling also applies to other beneficiaries of the PSPRS whose benefits were temporarily curtailed. That adds another $32.1 million for retroactive raises. The system will set aside $335.6 million to fund cost-of-living adjustments going forward.

* * *

The 5-0 Supreme Court decision may be perfectly rational and predictable — a constitutionally guaranteed promise made must be kept, after all. But it leaves Arizona taxpayers in a position of disturbing vulnerability, one that begs for a constitutional amendment that will allow lawmakers to make the sorts of changes the justices now say they cannot.

(Update) The Arizona Republic is all for denying you your constitutional rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic, formerly known as The Arizona Republican, and the mouthpiece of the establishment Republican Party in Arizona, is schizophrenic when it comes to your constitutional rights to a citizens referendum and voting.

Columnist Laurie Roberts published a series of reports on the Legislature plotting end run around voters on election law: "a fair amount of skullduggery is afoot."

Coliumnist E.J. Montini published Voters can suppress the suppressors: "The only way voters can guarantee it never happens again is to note of every politician who goes along with the scheme and, when those names appear next on the ballot box, suppress their re-election."

But the "editorial board" of The Republic has twice now published editorial opinions essentially telling the voters of Arizona to "go screw yourself."

'Cathi's Clown' takes a stand on SB 1062

Postede by AzBlueMeanie:

On Saturday, I asked Where does 'Cathi's Clown' stand on the Religious Bigotry bill?

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) stealth candidate for governor of Arizona is the only candidate yet to take a position on the Religious Bigotry bill. Cathi Herrod from CAP is on State Treasurer Doug Ducey's campaign steering committee (he proudly displays her endorsement on his campaign web site).

Where does "Cathi's Clown" stand on the Religious Bigotry bill?

To be fair, on Sunday "Cathi's Clown" answered this question for The Arizona Republic. Governor candidates weigh in on SB 1062 (from one of the Republic's multi-media reports):

So Ducey would veto this bill, but he would invite Cathi Herrod from his campaign (and others) to the table to write another bill? Way to straddle the fence there, Ducey. This is not a satisfactory answer.

And what is this "before this legislative session adjourns" parameter? What's the rush? Assuming that you are elected governor (God help us) you would not take office until January 2015. This is an empty promise on which you cannot deliver.

SB 1062/HB 2153 Veto March at the Capitol Today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Hero Phoenix has a SB 1062 / HB 2153 VETO MARCH TODAY at 5:30 p.m.

On Monday February 24th we will be gathering again at the Capitol building between 5:30-6pm to MARCH AROUND THE CAPITOL @ 6:30pm! Join us in our continued efforts to stop SB1062. #Bad4AzBiz

Arizona State Capitol, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Wingspan Daily Community Rally to Veto SB 1062 in Tucson

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

Tucson's Wingspan organization has an Official Daily Community Rally - VETO SB1062!

For businesses: you may print this sign directly by going to http://gallery.mailchimp.com/.../files/OPEN_FOR_BUSINESS.pdf

 

Friends and allies, please join us as we continue the momentum in our community. This is an official daily rally that will continue throughout the week! Lets increase the crowds every day and make a stance loud and clear.

Folks have the option to meet at Wingspan, 430 E. 7th Street, Tucson, at 5:00 p.m. to walk downtown for a 5:30 rally. For those who want to park and rally at Granada and Congress, folks could meet there at 5:30 p.m. with placards and horns!

We will continue the rally on the following dates starting at 5:00 p.m.:

Monday, Feb. 24
Tuesday, Feb. 25
Wednesday, Feb. 26
Thursday, Feb. 27
Friday, Feb. 28

Here are our parking options, some of which are free:

1) Free parking behind the Governor's Tucson Office at 400 W. Congress. About 30 parking spots.
2) Parking garage 100 ft. west of Gov's office parking lot. Free parking for 59 minutes! $2 for 1-2 hrs.

How to get there?

Heading West on Congress from downtown: Take a Right at the first driveway west of Granada.

Parking options are immediately visible there.

Please share this post and invite your friends!

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell discusses Arizona's Religious Bigotry bill with Steve Kornacki

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

 Steve Kornacki was guest hosting for Rachel Maddow on Friday night, and led off the program with a long segment on the history of discrimination in Arizona, from the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday boycott, to the SB 1070 "illegally breathing while brown" boycott, to the latest religious bigotry bill from Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). Kornacki suggested that Arizona could yet again be looking at another self-inflicted national boycott of the state, and possibly losing next January's Super Bowl, as previously happened in 1993.

Kornacki's interview was with Arizona's House Minority Leader Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix) to discuss the religious bigotry bill.

Video below the fold.

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature loses in court, again (part the infinity)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature has lost in court, again. This time it was our lawless legislature's attempt to overturn the constitutionality of the voter-approved citizens initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), to determine redistricting election boundaries rather than the state legislature. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (CV12-01211-PHX-PGR).

I have previously explained that, based upon case law precedents, this should be a no-brainer for the court in favor of the AIRC. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. And it was, except for Justice Paul Rosenblatt, who agreed with part of the ruling, but argued the citizen initiative wrongly removed any power lawmakers would have to influence how the politically sensitive lines are drawn in his dissent. Justice Rosenblatt is simply wrong. It happens.

The Court granted defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Failure to State a Claim, which is rare.

The Court's Ruling (.pdf) relies upon the case precedents I previously outlined, as the Court is bound to do:

The Supreme Court, however, has at least twice rejected the notion that when it comes to congressional redistricting the Elections Clause vests only in the legislature responsibilities relating to redistricting. Both cases found that states were not prohibited from designing their own lawmaking processes and using those processes for the congressional redistricting authorized by the Clause. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a state can place the redistricting function in state bodies other than the legislature.

Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 566 (1916) and Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932).

Where does 'Cathi's Clown' stand on the Religious Bigotry bill?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) stealth candidate for governor of Arizona is the only candidate yet to take a position on the Religious Bigotry bill. Cathi Herrod from CAP is on State Treasurer Doug Ducey's campaign steering committee (he proudly displays her endorsement on his campaign web site).

Where does "Cathi's Clown" stand on the Religious Bigotry bill? Ducey told Howard Fischer only that he is "studying it," saying he will “approach this as both a man of faith and a businessman.” Head of economic development group asks Brewer to veto controversial religion bill.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Business leaders: SB1062 could damage Arizona for years to come:

Most Republican gubernatorial candidates came out in opposition to SB1062. Secretary of State Ken Bennett was one of several who said the bill was unneeded to protect rights that already have sufficient protections.

“SB 1062 is an unnecessary measure to protect a God-given right already assured by the Constitution,” Bennett said in a press statement. “I strongly support religious freedom, but divisive measures such as these distract us from the most important challenges facing Arizona — jobs and economic development.”

Public Citizen events for 'Son of Citizens United' decision day in McCutcheon

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

McCutcheon v. FEC, aka "Son of Citizens United" was heard on the second day of the U.S. Supreme Court's term back in October. Court observers believe that a decision in this case could be announced as early as next week when the Court returns from hiatus. Public Citizen is organizing events around the country to coincide with the announcement of the decision in "Son of Citizens United."

Press release: Nationwide Rapid Response Planned for U.S. Supreme Court’s McCutcheon Ruling:

Activists Are Organizing More Than 100 Rallies for the Decision Day

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Hundreds of activists nationwide are planning rallies, protests and other events in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which could be decided as soon as the week of Feb. 24. More than 100 events are being organized in some of the largest cities around the country, to take place on the day of the ruling.

The events range from press conferences and rallies to petition drives, to be held in cities including Baltimore, Md.; Chicago, Ill.; Denver, Colo.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, Calif.; New York, N.Y.; San Diego, Calif.; San Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; and Washington, D.C.

Oregon AG will not defend the state's same-sex marriage ban in court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oregon is the latest state to announce that it will not defend its same-sex marriage ban in court because it is unconstitutional in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Oregon ends defense of marriage ban:

State officials in Oregon notified a federal court on Thursday that they will no longer defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following similar switches by state officials in Nevada and Virginia.  The Oregon filing (.pdf) came in one of two consolidated cases in Eugene challenging the state ban, which was imposed by voters in 2004.

The key statement in the new Oregon document, which was in the form of an Answer to one of the lawsuits, said state officials “will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation.  Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review.”  The paragraph added, though, that they would continue to enforce the ban as a legal duty unless and until it were struck down in court.  Officials had not made that statement in their response in December to the other case in the pair that are now being considered together.

Amicus brief urges U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

During yesterday's House debate of the Religious Bigotry bill, Tea-Publicans made several references to the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354) case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear with the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356) case in oral arguments scheduled for March 25, 2014.

Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Tea-Publicans wielded "RFRA" like a sword in their arguments in favor of their Religious Bigotry bill.

Well, this amicus brief filed in these cases should cause their self-righteous hypocrite butts to pucker. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com writes, Bold challenge to a law on religion:

Arguing that Congress has gone too far to push aside the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in religion cases, a loose coalition of child welfare organizations, survivors of clergy child sexual abuse, and non-believers has urged the Justices to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it rules on a new dispute over the federal health care law.

The amicus brief, written by a prominent academic authority on religion and the law, Cardozo Law School’s Marci A. Hamilton, seeks to add a bold new dimension to the Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate.”

Tucson's Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria protest goes viral

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tucson's Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria has gone viral with its creative protest against the Religious Bigotry bill. https://www.facebook.com/roccoslittlechicago

Huffington Post, Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria Serves Up Fantastic Response To Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill.

Will someone please arrange to have these signs distributed to establishments in Phoenix/Tempe known to be frequented by our state legislators? Let's make them uncomfortable.

Demonstration Against Religious Bigotry Bill Today (Updated)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Could this be the beginning of the Moral Mondays Movement I have been asking for?

Demonstration Against SB1062/HB2153

People are starting to go to the Capitol and aiming for a large protest gathering TODAY between 4 and 6 pm... Signs, speakers, good shoes. Come and be seen. Peaceful and respectful actions!

Arizona’s State Legislature and the conservative majority in control are pushing to pass the expanded “religious freedom” bills and then have them signed immediately by Governor Brewer. These bills would allow businesses to deny services based on their deeply held religious beliefs, basically making discrimination legal and making the LGBTQ Community a clear target. But we know it won't stop there!

 Arizona State Capitol, 1700 W. Washington Street, Phoenix.

 

AZ Lege repeals HB 2305, the citizens referendum is now off the ballot

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our lawless legislature continues to demonstrate its contempt for the citizens of Arizona and their constitutional right to refer an act of the legislature to the voters to decide in a citizens referendum ("citizens veto"). The larger context here is its utter contempt for democracy and the right to vote.

More than 140,000 Arizonans braved the heat of an Arizona summer to circulate and sign petitions to refer HB 2305, the GOP Voter Suppression Act, to the ballot in November to let the people decide on what the legislature enacted as a "strike everything" amendment in the dead of night when no one was watching. There was no public notice, and no public hearing before a committee.

Last week, the Arizona House on a party-line vote voted to deny Arizonans their constitutional right to vote on a citizens-referred referendum. Arizona House approves bill to repeal election-law changes.

Yesterday, the Senate Tea-Publicans complete their anti-democraticdenial of your constitutional rights. Arizona Senate repeals 2013 election law:

The Arizona Senate has voted to repeal a sweeping 2013 Arizona election law that included trimming the state’s permanent early voting list and a host of other provisions that incensed voter-rights advocates.

Majority Republicans who pushed House Bill 2305 through last June voted Thursday to repeal the law 17-12. The House passed an identical bill last week. The bill will now go to the governor.

Repealing the law will cancel the voter referendum.

Action Alert: Contact Governor Brewer, tell her to veto SB 1062, the Religious Bigotry bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Tea-Publican controlled Arizona House passed the Religious Bigotry today, and conformed the bill to the Senate version passed yesterday. The bill will now be transmitted to Governor Jan Brewer. Contact Governor Brewer and tell her to veto this state-sanctioned discrimination bill, as she did last year. Arizona does not need another blacke eye like SB 1070.

The Arizona Republic reports, Ariz. House passes controversial religion bill; goes to Gov. Brewer:

The Legislature has given final approval to a controversial religion bill that’s spurring intense debate at the Legislature and across the country.

The legislation, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.

Opponents have dubbed it the “right to discriminate” bill, and say it could prompt an economic backlash against the state, similar to what they say occurred when the state passed the controversial immigration law Senate Bill 1070 in 2010.

* * *

The bill will be sent to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has five days to sign it into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.

Arizona Supreme Court smacks down Arizona's lawless legislature, again

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our lawless legislature has lost yet another case in court, this time over the Elected Officials Retirement Plan (specifically retired judges). This is the second time in recent years that the Arizona Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional attempt by Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature to reduce benefits to retirees of public employee pension plans. I am sure the editorial board of the Arizona Republic will have a sad over this ruling.

Howard Fischer reports, AZ Supreme Court: Judges’ pensions can’t be cut:

State lawmakers cannot balance the budget by limiting pension benefit increases for retired judges, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The justices said a voter-approved section of the state constitution makes public pension plans a contractual relationship. More to the point, that provision says benefits “shall not be diminished or impaired.”

Justice Robert Brutinel, writing for the unanimous court said that language applies not just to what retired judges were getting at any one time. He said it also means lawmakers cannot tinker with already existing formulas that determine how much those benefits will increase each year.

Thursday’s ruling puts a damper on efforts by legislators to sharply restrain the obligations of the state to finance existing public pensions. But it does not bar lawmakers from setting new rules for those who have not yet become judges.

Action Alert: Religious Bigotry bill on House COW Calendar today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The House calendar for the Committee of the Whole (COW) today includes Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's House version of the Religious Bigotry bill, HB 2153, passed by Tea-Publicans in the Senate on Wednesday. Business takes place this afternoon.

Where are the "Mythical Moderate Republicans" in the Republican Party establishment and the business community, in particular, the chamber organizations? The "Mythical Moderate Republican" Ethan Orr (R-Tucson) will have to vote on this bill. LD 9 will be watching, E.Orr.

Other bills on the COW Calendar in the House today of note:

HB 2012, Rep. John Kavanagh's "vexatious litigation" bill that somehow exempts the Arizona Legislature and the "Kochtopus" Death Star, the Goldwater Institute, who file more vexatious litigation than anyone else.

HB 2058, Rep. John Kavanagh's bill to limit compensation under public pensions. This bill may be preempted by an Arizona Supreme Court decision to be announced today. Arizona high court to rule on judges' pensions.

HB 2107, Rep. John Kavanagh's bill regarding the number of candidate and ballot measure signatures in elections. This is the piecemeal approach to enacting HB 2305 that you have heard about.

Arizona Senate passes Religious Bigotry bill - state-scantioned segregation

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

What century are we living in? For the second time (Governor Jan Brewer vetoed this bill last year) the Tea-Publicans in the Arizona Senate have passed the religious bigotry bill, which would allow individuals and businesses to deny public services based upon their "sincerely held religious beliefs." This is state-sanctioned segregation, pure and simple.

The Arizona Republic reports, AZ Senate OKs bill boosting service refusal:

The Arizona Senate on Wednesday passed a bill backed by Republicans that expands the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others, a measure Democrats say will open the doors for discrimination and hurt the state economy.

The bill passed on a 17-13 party-line vote.

Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the bill that was pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.

Sen. Michele Reagan's dark money disclosure bill will accomplish little

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic will never admit they were shamed into doing it by my constantly berating them for not reporting on Sean Noble and the "Kochtopus" dark money network operating in their own backyard in the state of Maricopa. But I am going to claim a small victory anyway.

Today the Arizona Republic published the entire report by Pro Publica at azcentral.com. The Dark Money Man: Sean Noble, Koch cash and politics. (Note that this is not by Arizona Republic reporters).

This small victory comes the day after Sen. Michele Reagan's half-measure for dark money campaign finance disclosures was heard in her Elections Committee on Tuesday. Reagan's bill is a band-aid approach to close a gaping wound in Arizona elections. Lawmakers seek to shine light on anonymous campaign contributions:

State lawmakers took the first steps Tuesday to cut down on so-called “dark money’’ in political campaigns, but with no clear indication if their plan will work, or whether it’s even legal.

Legislation approved by the Senate Elections Committee requires all campaign commercials, literature and similar materials to include the names of the three largest contributors. Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, said it’s unacceptable that people can spend large amounts of money to influence elections and remain hidden.

On paper, the vote for SB 1403 was unanimous. But several GOP legislators, after hearing from lobbyists, said they fear the measure creates unnecessary hurdles.

And Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, openly worried requiring people to get out from behind the committees they create to affect elections might chill their First Amendment rights to speak freely.

Proposed constitutional amendment is a Trojan Horse attack on the AIRC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I previously posted about SCR 1003 (.pdf), a resoution which would refer a legislative ballot measure to the ballot that requires "the reauthorization of statewide initiative and referendum measures that create funds for public monies, dedicate public monies to a specific purpose or otherwise effect state General Fund (GF) revenues or expenditures."

Note that this reauthorizaton is not for all citizens initiative and referendum measures, just the ones the legislature does not like -- the ones that require the legislature to spend money on priorites decided by the voters, like heath care and education. This is the teabaggers' "I hate the Voter Protection Act" (Prop. 105 -1998) measure to undermine Prop. 105. The reauthorization applies retroactively to all specified statewide initiative and referendum measures approved on or after November 3, 1998.

The teabaggers want the opportunity to revisit and to reverse the laws that the citizens of Arizona enacted as a super-legislature exercising the powers reserved to the citizens under the Arizona Constitution and exercising their constitutional right to citizen initiative and referendum. This reauthorization provision would give opponents a second bite at the apple after seven (7) years. It would invite a perpetual campaign that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of laws enacted by the voters. The teabaggers are demonstrating their utter disdain for your constitutional rights and for democracy.

Two Neo-Confederate bills held in Senate because they violate the Constitution

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Good to know that somebody pays attention to the posts we do here. The legislature's staff attorneys have advised Senate leadership that two Neo-Confederate bills violate the Constitution, and those bills have been held. Senate bills barring federal law efforts stall:

Senate Bill 1093 by Republican Sen. Chester Crandell of Heber requires federal agents to register with the local sheriff.

Senate Bill 1290 by Sen. Judy Burges of Sun City West says the sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer in a county and allows that person to refuse to give federal agents permission to makes arrests or searches.

Senate President Andy Biggs held the bills in the Rules Committee Monday after the committee's attorney said they likely ran afoul of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Ya think! There are plenty more of these unconstitutional bills from our lawless legislature working their way through committees. Hopefully staff attorneys will shoot down these other bills as well.

PDA: Put the Constitution Behind Pay Equity

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Progressive Democrats of America (Arizona):

Put the Constitution behind Pay Equity

Help end discrimination on the basis of sex permanently by ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. Bring HCR2016 to a vote in the Arizona Legislature.

Currently, ERA ratification is stalled in the Arizona House Judiciary Committee. This is the last week for bills to be heard. If HCR2016 is not heard this week, it will be dead for this session.

Contact Judiciary Committee Chair Eddie Farnsworth ([email protected], 602-926-5735) and tell him to put HCR2016 on the committee's agenda. The women of Arizona deserve economic equality.

You can also contact your representatives and senators about the ERA. Tell them that you support the ERA and encourage them to vote for ratification when it is considered by the full legislature.

Arizona House roster http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H

Arizona Senate roster http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S

ALEC's stealth constitutional convention

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott has posted about this previously, The AZLege's Black Helicopter Caucus wants a Constitutional Convention. Just the wrong kind., as have I. The Teabaggers want a Constitutional Convention.

Today the East Valley Tribune published its wingnut editorial contributor Tom Patterson extolling the virtues of a "compact" among states calling for a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of a balanced budget amendment. Patterson: Compact for America could be answer to our nation’s despair. Oy.

First of all, this latest right-wing gimmick is a product of the "Kochtopus" organization ALEC. the Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch reports, Wisconsin Moving to Advance ALEC Constitutional Convention Scheme:

ALEC's Stealth Convention

"AJR 81 comes right out of the 'Convention of States' workshop and materials presented at ALEC where state legislators were promised bundled campaign contributions and grassroots support if they joined this effort to amend the federal constitution," said Rep. Chris Taylor, a Madison Democrat who attended ALEC's Annual Meeting in Chicago last summer, in a statement. "I am alarmed that this effort is now making its way through the Wisconsin legislature and is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the full Assembly next Tuesday."

(Update) Kansas Senate blocks religious bigotry bill - same as Arizona's religious bigotry bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times today has an update on the surprising move by the Tea-Publican controlled Senate in the Kansas legislature blocking the same model legislation for religious bigotry that is in the Arizona legislature. In Kansas, Right Joins Left to Halt Bill on Gays:

A bill that would have allowed individuals to refuse to provide business services to same-sex couples in Kansas because of religious beliefs met a surprising and quick end last week when conservative senators sided with liberal advocates in saying that the measure promoted discrimination.

The bill had passed the House, 72 to 49, last Wednesday and it appeared that it might also easily sail through the Senate. Both chambers are controlled by conservative Republicans who in recent years have passed some of the most conservative legislation in the country, whether on gun control, abortion rights or taxes.

Susan Wagle, a conservative Republican who is president of the Kansas Senate, raised opposition to the House measure, saying she had “grown concerned about the practical impact of the bill” and “my members don’t condone discrimination.”

Ms. Wagle was backed by Senator Jeff King, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who said he would not hold hearings on the House bill. Instead, Mr. King said, his committee would hold hearings on the broader topic of religious freedom in Kansas and explore whether the Legislature needed to take any further steps to shore up those protections.

Felony disenfranchisement is a vestige of Jim Crow

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Jamelle Boiue writing at The Daily Beast expounds upon Attorney General Eric Holder's call to end felony disenfranchisement of former prisoners who have served their sentence and repaid their debt to society. The Jim Crow Zombie That Won't Die:

Felon disenfranchisement laws are, literally, a vestige of Jim Crow. It’s time for them to go.

Nationwide, five million Americans are barred from voting because of felony convictions. In recent years, a coalition of reformers on the left and right (including former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky), have moved to either mitigate the effects of this, or push for full repeal of these felon disenfranchisement laws.

And for good reason. As is true of most things in the criminal justice system, this is a status quo with particular harm for African Americans. Thanks to the rampant racial disparities in arrests and prosecutions, blacks—and black men in particular—bear the brunt of these policies. More than thirteen percent of black men are unable to vote because of a felony conviction, with no regards to the nature of the offense or time served.

Indeed, for reasons you can imagine, the biggest impact is felt in the states of the former Confederacy, where disenfranchisement laws are especially draconian, and several states—Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi—have lifetime voting bans.

Kansas Senate blocks religious bigotry bill - same as Arizona's religious bigotry bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this week the radical Tea-Publican House in the Kansas Legislature passed a religious bigotry bill nearly identical to the religious bigotry bill currently in the Arizona Legislature. These bills are almost certainly model legislation from the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) that I posted about earlier. The Arizona Republic:One step forward, two steps back on religious bigotry.

The Kansas City Star reported, Kansas House passes bill allowing service refusal to gay couples:

The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings.

The House’s 72-49 vote Wednesday sends HB 2453 to the Senate.

Supporters describe it as a religious freedom measure. Opponents contend it will encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill would bar government sanctions when individuals, groups and businesses cite religious beliefs in refusing to recognize a marriage or civil union, or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to a couple. Anti-discrimination lawsuits also would be barred. Individual workers and government employees also would get some protections.

* * *

The bill covers private and public employees. Government agencies would still be required to provide services, but individual clerks could refuse to serve same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs on marriage.

Businesses would still provide services, provided it was not unduly burdensome to do so.

* * *

The bill’s true purpose is to enable discrimination by government employees, said Thomas Witt, spokesman, for Equality Kansas.

In other words, a return to the "good ol' days" of state-sanctioned segregation -- this time against gays and lesbians.

Action Alert: Fight for your right to vote on Monday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Arizona Democratic Party:

HB2305 Update!

We need your help on Monday, Feb. 17

Thanks to your help, and the signatures of over 144,000 Arizonans, the harmful anti-voter bill HB2305 was referred to the November 2014 ballot.

Now the same politicians who passed HB2305 are trying to repeal it in a desperate attempt to circumvent the referendum process. First they thought they could pass this harmful bill without the scrutiny of voters, now they think they can kill the referendum to avoid being held accountable by the voters.

We think HB2305 is bad because it will hurt voters. Republicans now are trying to repeal it because they think it will hurt them politically. The Legislature has no right to do an end-run around the referendum and the Arizona Constitution, which gives the citizens the right to veto any bill from the Legislature. Additionally, without a referendum, Republicans will be free to pass more harmful anti-voter bills in the future. The Republicans in the Legislature cannot be trusted.

Join us at the State Capitol as we let the Republicans in the Legislature know that we will hold them accountable for taking away the right of the voters to weigh in on this important issue.

 

What:
Day of Action to demand that the voters are not silenced and allowed to vote on HB2305 in November

When:
Monday, February 17, 2014 at 12:00 p.m.

Where:
Lawn of the Arizona State Capitol
Directions

Click Here to SHARE and JOIN our Facebook event for the HB2305 Day of Action

The Trouble with E.Orr - he does not represent the values of his constituents

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

Tim Steller of the Arizona Daily Star is writing the most recent iteration of the Political Notebook that Rhonda Bodfield and Daniel Scarpinato (now with the RNCC) before her used to write. God, I hated the Political Notebook!

Anyway, Timmeh takes issue with Blog for Arizona's Pamela Powers Hannley for taking issue with a recent column of his, correctly pointing out that Rep. Ethan Orr (R-Tucson) only nurtures the appearance of being a moderate but votes with his GOP caucus routinely.

I would make the point that the occasional departure vote does not make Orr a "moderate" or a RINO, any more than a Democrat casting the occasional departure vote makes him or her a Teabagger or a DINO. It is a voting record taken as a whole that matters.

Here is Pamela's informative post. AZ Star Perpetuates 'Ethan Orr Is a Moderate' Myth. Please note the Votesmart.org link to Orr's voting record.

Today's Steller column wastes everyone's time focusing on Facebook comments about his previous column with which Pamela Powers Hannley took issue. Yeah, that's not news. Too many political reporters are fixated with social media like Twitter and Facebook. It is not news.

AZ House votes to deny Arizonans their constitutional right to vote on a citizens-referred referendum

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Our lawless legislature continues to demonstrate its contempt for the citizens of Arizona and their constitutional right to refer an act of the legislature to the voters to decide in a citizens referendum ("citizens veto"). The larger context here is its utter contempt for democracy and the right to vote.

More than 140,000 Arizonans braved the heat of an Arizona summer to circulate and sign petitions to refer HB 2305, the GOP Voter Suppression Act, to the ballot in November to let the people decide on what the legislature enacted as a "strike everything" amendment in the dead of night when no one was watching. There was no public notice, and no public hearing before a committee.

(If you want to outlaw something in the Arizona Constitution, let's start with the "strike everything" amendment. All bills should have to be filed, noticed for public hearing, and proceed through "regular order" of committee hearings and floor amendments.)

You willl recall that at the end of January, the House Judiciary Committee took up HB 2196 (.pdf), a singe-sentence bill to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act. House Judiciary Committee approves repeal of HB 2305 on a party line vote. The House Rules Committee signed off on this GOP skullduggery earlier this week.

Virginia is for Lovers: Federal court strikes down state's same-sex marriage ban

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Valentine's Day arrived early Thursday evening as the U.S. District Court for the District of Norfolk, Virginia struck down the state of Virginia's same-sex marriage ban. Federal judge strikes down Virginia’s gay-marriage ban:

A federal judge in Norfolk struck down as unconstitutional Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday night, saying the country has “arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen issued a sweeping 41-page Opinion and Order (.pdf) that mentioned at length Virginia’s past in denying interracial marriage and quoted Abraham Lincoln. She struck the constitutional amendment Virginia voters approved in 2006 that both bans same-sex marriage and forbids recognition of such unions performed elsewhere.

She stayed her decision pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, meaning same-sex marriages will not be immediately available in the commonwealth.

Black helicopters day at the Arizona Lege came early this year

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The GOP crazy base bills are moving through the legislature at a break-neck pace this year. Last year "black helicopters day" at the Arizona Lege didn't come until April. Black helicopters day at the Arizona Lege.

On Wednesday the annual "constitutional sheriffs" bill, a favorite of anti-government right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe the black helicopters of the federal "guvmint" are coming for their guns and "freedom!", is sponsored by far-right extremist groups like former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack's conspiratorial Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Oath Keepers, made up of former and current law enforcement officers and military personnel who believe it is their duty to defy what they deem to be unconstitutional orders. Here is a profile of Mack from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 'Army' of Sheriffs to Resist Federal Authority.

In 2012, wingnut Rep. David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), who has now been promoted to House Majority Leader, sponsored HB 2434 which would have required employees of federal agencies to first notify the sheriff of the county "before taking any official law enforcement action in a county in this state." HB 2434 was actually approved by the Arizona legislature. It took a veto by Governor Jan Brewer to restore sanity. Governor Brewer vetoes 'States' Rights' Tea-Publican bill.

The sponsor of this year's version of the bill, SB 1290 (.pdf). is the "Birther Queen," Rep. Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), who is also the Grand Inquisitor of climate science denialism. This woman is never without her tinfoil hat.

Federal Court rules Kentucky must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal judge, who struck down part of the state ban. Huffington Post reports, Kentucky Ban On Recognizing Out-Of-State Gay Marriages Struck Down By Federal Judge:

In a 23-page Memorandum Opinion (.pdf) issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that the government may define marriage and attach benefits to it, but cannot "impose a traditional or faith-based limitation" without a sufficient justification for it."

"Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons," wrote Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

The decision in the socially conservative state comes against the backdrop of similar rulings or actions in states around the country where same-sex couples have long fought for the right to marry. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004 and included the out-of-state clause.

The decision came in lawsuits brought by four gay and lesbian couples seeking to force the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages.

Time for the restoration of ex-felon voting rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Bravo to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for calling for the restoration of ex-felon voting rights. Someone who has repaid their debt to society should not be forever banned from the franchise to vote. This holdover provision from Jim Crow laws should go. We are a better country than this. Holder Urges States to Lift Bans on Felons’ Voting:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called Tuesday for the repeal of laws that prohibit millions of felons from voting, underscoring the Obama administration’s determination to elevate issues of criminal justice and race in the president’s second term and create a lasting civil rights legacy.

In a speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Holder described today’s prohibitions — which in some cases bar those convicted from voting for life — as a vestige of the racist policies of the South after the Civil War, when states used the criminal justice system to keep blacks from fully participating in society.

“Those swept up in this system too often had their rights rescinded, their dignity diminished, and the full measure of their citizenship revoked for the rest of their lives,” Mr. Holder said. “They could not vote.”

Mr. Holder has no authority to enact the changes he called for, given that states establish the rules under which people can vote.

Nevada ends its defense of state's same-sex marriage ban

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of weeks ago I explained that Nevada's defense of same-sex marriage ban crumbles in Sevcik v. Sandoval.

State officials in Nevada, concluding that they can no longer successfully defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, have formally switched position to argue that the ban is unconstitutional. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Nevada ends defense of marriage ban:

[State officials] did so on Monday, in a plea to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to withdraw their written legal brief defending the ban.

That request came at about the same time that the same-sex couples challenging the Nevada ban asked the Ninth Circuit Court to set an early date for a hearing as the case continues in that court.  The state’s withdrawal leaves only the original proponents of Nevada’s voter-approved ban to carry on a defense.

The Nevada case in the Ninth Circuit is one of the furthest along among cases unfolding in federal appeals courts in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June in U.S. v. Windsor striking down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal marital benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married.  Although the Court’s ruling did not settle whether states could constitutionally ban gay and lesbian marriages, a lengthening string of lower court rulings has interpreted the decision at least to seriously  imperil the validity of such bans, if not to doom them outright.

Nevada officials cited that recent trend on Monday, telling the Ninth Circuit that the Windsor decision “signifies that discrimination against same-sex couples is unconstitutional,” and thus the arguments that the state had made previously in support of their state’s ban “cannot withstand legal scrutiny.”

Update on Arizona's proof-of-citizenship voter registration form case

Posted by azBlueMeanie:

Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett are in U.S. District Court in Kansas, Kris W. Kobach et al. v. United States Election Assistance Commission (13-4095-EFM-DJW) suing the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and threatening to impose a two-tier system for voting in Arizona and Kansas based upon whether you registered to vote with the Arizona voter registration form or the federal motor-voter form (NVRA).

Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle reports on the latest breaking news in this case, Judge questions feds’ role in Kansas, Arizona voting laws:

A judge strongly questioned Tuesday whether a federal commission has the authority to prevent Kansas and Arizona from demanding proof-of-citizenship documents from people trying to register to vote using federal forms.

Judge Eric Melgren repeatedly pressed Department of Justice lawyer Bradley Heard to explain how a Supreme Court decision last year on Arizona's proof-of-citizenship law allows the federal Election Assistance Commission to reject requests from Arizona and Kansas to add state-law requirements to the instructions for filling out the voting form.

"The single pivotal question in this case is who gets to decide … what's necessary" to establish citizenship for voting, Melgren said.

Heard said that decision lies with the EAC under the federal National Voter Registration Act, also known as the motor-voter law. He said the law empowers the commission to decide what questions and proofs are necessary to include in the federal registration form.

While the law doesn't explicitly state the EAC can overrule states on proof of citizenship, Heard said the legislative history shows that requiring document proof was considered and rejected by Congress.

"I've read the legislative history, and I'm not very impressed by it," Melgren responded.

Tea-Publicans move to deny Arizona citizens their constitutional right to vote on a citizens-referred referendum

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

More than 140,000 Arizona citizens signed petitions for a "citizens veto" of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, exercising their constitutional right under the Arizona Constitution to refer the legislature's anti-democratic measure to the voters in a referendum.

Tea-Publicans, fearing retaliation from the voters in November, are moving to deny Arizona citizens their constitutional right to vote on this citizens-referred referendum -- making it a two-fer for voter suppression, and demonstrating their utter disdain for your constitutional rights.

Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305 subject to a citizens referendum ("citizens veto"), HB 2196 (.pdf), cleared the House Rules Committee on Monday on a party-line 5-2 vote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted for SB 1270 (.pdf), the Senate version of Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, on a party-line 6-3 vote. It now goes to the Rules Committee.

Remember in November -- kick 'em all out!

Senate Judiciary Committee advances unconstitutional 'nullification' of federal gun laws

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday advanced SB 1294 (.pdf), the gun worshipers' wet dream, sponsored by the Neo-Confederate "interposition, nullification and secession" caucus (Ward, Burgess, Crandell, D. Farnsworth, Borelli, Gowan, Mitchell, Seel, Thorpe, Barton, Kwasman. Livingston, and Petersen).

This gun worshiper's wet dream "Declares federal law that violates the Second Amendment invalid and void in Arizona and prohibits state and local enforcement of federal firearm laws within the state."Howard Fischer reports, Senate panel moves forward on broad gun legislation:

State lawmakers sent a warning Monday to local officials: Do anything to help the federal government enforce its guns laws and find yourself out on the street.

The legislation approved on a 6-3 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations that violate the “true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment are invalid and void in this state.” SB 1294 also forbids the use of state personnel or resources to enforce those rules.

House Ways and Means Committee advances unconstitutional 'empowerment scholarship accounts'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Snap quiz class. Tell me what is wrong with this headline from the Arizona Daily Star's creative headline writer: Expanding state aid to private and parochial schools on track. Congratulations class! You are all way smarter than the Star's creative headline writer.

This is a clear violation of the Arizona Constitution which prohibits state funding to private and parochial schools:

Article 2, Section 12: "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment."

Article 11, Section 7: "No sectarian instruction shall be imparted in any school or state educational institution that may be established under this Constitution, and no religious or political test or qualification shall ever be required as a condition of admission into any public educational institution of the state, as teacher, student, or pupil;"

Several years ago, the Goldwater institute convinced the Arizona Supreme Court to accept a sort of "straw man exchange" argument common in real estate transactions to uphold tax credits that supported private and parochial schools. The argument was that the money went to the parents, not directly from the state to the schools, and thus did not violate the constitutional provisions above. The legal fiction created by the Court was in error, but established a legal precedent that the Goldwater Institute has been trying to exploit ever since.

And this is exactly what our Tea-Publican controlled legislature is hoping to accomplish with these so-called "empowerment scholarship accounts." Howard Fischer reports:

A House panel agreed Monday to allow hundreds of thousands of children to attend private and parochial schools at public expense — a vote one legislator said is part of a radical agenda to destroy public schools.

Justice Department policy: equal protection to married same-sex couples

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In a speech Saturday night at the Human Rights Campaign’s Greater New York Gala at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced a new Justice Department policy. Justice Dept. to give married gay couples equal protection (modified and updated):

The Justice Department on Monday instructed all of its employees across the country, for the first time, to give lawful same-sex marriages sweeping equal protection under the law in every program it administers, from courthouse proceedings to prison visits to the compensation of surviving spouses of public safety officers.

In a new Policy Memo (.pdf), the department spells out the rights of same-sex couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses, even if their marriages are not recognized in the state where the couple lives.