Blog For Arizona

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?

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.”

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.

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.

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Appalling treatment of rape victims in Missoula, Montana reveals what a big old suckfest conservative "values" are

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

Right wingers are forever going on about how the sexual revolution has brought about the decline of civilization and has been simply terrible for women due to us no longer being able to use pregnancy to force reluctant men to shotgun marry us, among other things. But this Mother Jones report from Missoula, MT clearly illustrates how antediluvian attitudes toward sexuality and women held by the prosecutors there are causing rapists to go free, tormenting female victims, and causing some victims not to even bother trying to get justice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Those fake NRCC mirror web sites violate federal law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You have all heard by now about last week's GOP dirty tricks by the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, setting up fake mirror web sites for Democratic candidates. If it's the NRCC, that means the Arizona Daily Star's former political reporter hack and all-around prick Daniel Scarpinato is involved. In fact, the Star gave "The Scarp" gratuitous copy in its reporting on this story. GOP fundraising websites touting Democrats called unethical:

A move by the National Republican Congressional Campaign has local Democrats seeing red over a set of new websites that appear to tout Democrat candidates.

The Republican political committee has created mini-websites for U.S. Reps. Ron Barber, Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema touting their accomplishments and asking for donations.

However, those pulling out their checkbooks with the intent of backing the incumbent Democrats will actually be giving their hard-earned dollars to Republicans.

The tactic isn’t isolated to Arizona, either. The NRCC has created at least a dozen websites in other states similarly targeting other Democrats running for office.

Campaign staffers are calling the slick, one-page websites with their high-resolution photographs of the candidates a cheap political play, designed with only one goal in mind: to trick voters into giving money to Republicans.

NRCC national press secretary Daniel Scarpinato is proud of the mini-websites, saying voters can get information from the Republican-backed websites that is not readily available on the candidates’ sites.

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.

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.

Tom 'banned for life by the SEC' goes on trial today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The job of the Attorney General of the state is to conduct investigations and to prosecute trials. Arizona's Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne must have misunderstood the job description, because since he has been in office he has been under investigation and is being prosecuted at trial. The man is a disgrace and embarassment to lawyers and law enforcement. If he had any sense of morality and decency, he would have resigned his office long ago -- and saved the taxpayers of Arizona the expense of investigating and prosecuting him.

Howard Fischer reports, AG Horne's campaign finance case heads to trial today:

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne heads to court Monday. But this time the state's top law enforcement officer isn't the prosecutor.

Instead, Horne and one of his aides are facing civil charges of violating the state's campaign finance laws when he ran for re-election four years ago.

Horne and aide Kathleen Winn deny the allegations that they illegally coordinated spending in his 2010 election while she ran an independent committee called Business Leaders for Arizona.

The charges were brought by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk in October. A three-day hearing is scheduled before an Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings judge starting Monday.

Maricopa County Judge tells anti-Medicaid expansion litigants to pound sand

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

No standing. That’s the verdict of Maricopa County Superior Court to the whiny cast of idiots suing the state to block the Medicaid expansion. Judge Katherine Cooper handily dispatched with all their baseless arguments.

Tea-Publicans love their vexatious litigation

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this year I posted about Rep. John Kavanagh's bill to designate a person a “vexatious litigant’’ and to make it difficult for them to file lawsuits if they initiated at least five unmerited litigations, other than in small claims court, over a period of seven years. HB 2021 (.pdf) (Passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee with amendment). As I said at the time:

I'm curious -- does this apply to the Arizona Legislature and the Goldwater Institute, which routinely file "vexatious" litigation only to have the court declare that the legislature's actions were unconstitutional and unlawful? Because they clearly qualify as a "vexatious litigant" given the number of lawsuits they have lost over the years (again today). These ideological extremists have been racking up millions of dollars in attorneys fees and court costs at taxpayer expense in pursuit of their ideological agenda. Shouldn't this be stopped?

Tea-Publicans believe that Kavanagh's notion of vexatious litigation "applies to thee, not to me."

The Arizona Daily Star today reports today that the gun worshipers and fetishists want a cause of action to sue any local government official (read the City of Tucson) which enacts "illegal" regulations of firearms in violation of their absolutist view of the Second Amendment.

Get in line, assholes! You get to sue for damages when the government violates the law or the Constitution when I get to sue our lawless legislature and governor for damages for pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court. Proposed law wants to make elected officials to pay for adopting illegal gun laws:

A proposed state law would let gun owners sue city council members or county supervisors personally if those governments pass or try to enforce gun laws that are stricter than state law.

Under the bill, HB 2517 (.pdf), courts could hit individual elected officials with civil penalties of up to $5,000 for passing an ordinance out of compliance with state law.

Anyone who enforces an illegal ordinance would be subject to penalties as well.

'Crazy' Carl Seel wants to return to the dark days of Russell Pearce

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Back in the dark days when disgraced and recalled former Senate President Russell Pearce was at the zenith of his anti-immigrant reign of terror, he and his good buddy Kris Kobach from the Immigration Law Reform Institute and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) were proposing bills to deny undocumented immigrants access to health care, public education, rental properties, public services. etc. Many of these anti-immigrant measures were first beta-tested by Kris Kobach in the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

Russell Pearce, who is now the First Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party, still has his loyal acolytes willing to carry out his anti-immigrant hysteria in the Arizona legislature.

"Crazy" Carl Seel -- you remember him, one of the sponsors of the "Birther" bills in 2011 and 2012 Arizona's Penis-Free "Birther" Bill Is Back in Action -- has filed HB 2192 (.pdf), a bill that would declare it "an unlawful use of public resources if the person uses any public resource while present in this state in violation of any [law] that has determined that the person is not lawfully present in this state..."

Rep. Seel is the only sponsor of this bill, and his bill has not yet been assigned to a committee. Arizona's business community has made it abundently clear in recent years that it does not want to revisit the dark days of Russell Pearce's reign of terror. So will the business community punish Seel for his sin?

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).

Last month the EAC filed with the Court a detailed 46-page EAC Final Decision on Proof of Citizenship Requests (.pdf). In its decision, the EAC found that added documentation results in an overall decrease in registration of eligible citizens — undermining the core purpose of the National Voter Registration Act. The EAC essentially told Arizona and Kansas to "go pound sand."

The AP reports this week Kansas, Arizona rekindling lawsuit over proof-of-citizenship voter registration:

Kansas and Arizona have rekindled a lawsuit seeking to force the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to require residents to show proof-of-citizenship when registering to vote, arguing that a recent agency decision to deny the requests was unlawful.

In a filing late Friday in a case with broad implications for voting rights, the two states asked U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren to order federal officials to include state-specific requirements in federal voter registration forms.

ENDA bill filed by Democrats in the Arizona Legislature

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In analyzing the Religious Bigotry bills approved in the House Government Committee earlier this week, I pointed out that:

The Arizona legislature has regularly refused to amend the state civil rights act to extend employment non-discrimination and non-discrimination in public accommodations and public housing to gays and lesbians since 1996. Since there is no cause of action under either the state or federal civil rights acts for gays as a protected class, this bill is a proactive right to discrimination.

A bill to amend the Arizona Civil Rights Act to add non-discrimination against gays and lesbians (and also transgenders) has been filed every year since 1996, to the best of my recollection, and this year is no exception.

Democrats have once again filed the state version of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), SB 1443 (.pdf), which would amend the Arizona Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of "gender, gender identity or expression, and sexual orientation."

Virginia is for Lovers: federal judge promises a decision 'soon'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Tuesday, Virginia Solicitor General Stuart A. Raphael compared his state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages to the commonwealth’s previous defense of segregation, a ban on interracial marriage and resistance to admitting women to VMI — all decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Quick ruling pledged on Va. gay marriage ban:

“We are not going to make the mistakes our predecessors made,” Raphael told U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.

Wright Allen did not ask a question of any of the five lawyers who addressed her during the nearly two hours of arguments but said she will rule quickly on an issue that all agreed will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

“You’ll be hearing from me soon,” she said, emphasizing the last word.

At issue is a question the Supreme Court justices left unanswered in June in their first consideration of same-sex marriage: Does a state’s traditional role in defining marriage mean it may ban same-sex unions without violating the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians?

The case in Wright Allen’s courtroom marked the first time such a challenge has advanced so far in a state that was part of the Old South.

New Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) infuriated Republicans and conservatives in the state when he decided soon after taking office last month that he would not defend the ban.

The Arizona Republic: One step forward, two steps back on religious bigotry

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic's E.J. Montini addresses a point today that I have made many times over the years about the FAUXification of the news with their "fair and balanced" bullshit. O'Reilly unfair? Yes. But it shouldn't matter.

Fairness is a fallacy.

In politics, there is no such thing as fair.

* * *

Unfair questions can still get at the truth.

Fairness isn’t our problem.

Our problem, on a much larger scale, is willful ignorance.

Humans come with a built-in ability to disregard or disbelieve facts because they’ve been presented by people with whom we disagree philosophically, as if anything that contradicts our preconceived notions of a person or situation or issue cannot be true.

The media used to fight such notions. Now, some of us encourage it.

If there is a danger in the media these days it is not that we are unfair, it’s that rather than challenge a reader’s or viewer’s willful ignorance we embolden it. We treat the news, which changes daily, like a religion, which is based on longstanding consistent unshakeable beliefs.

* * *

Our problem isn’t fairness.

Our problem is that too many people in the media are allowing, even urging, audiences to turn a blind eye to unpleasant facts.

And, worse, doing so ourselves.

Too bad the editorial page editors of the Republic ignored Mr. Montini.

Religious Bigotry Bills Advance in House

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Daily Star's creative headline writer strikes again today. The headline in the Star reads Bill enhancing religious defense advances in Arizona Legislature. That's some spin there. These bills are about giving religious bigots a "get out of jail free" card to discriminate against anyone with whom they disagree supposedly based upon their "sincerely held religious beliefs" -- the new code word for "haters gotta hate."

I do believe that Howard Fischer intended the factually correct headline which appears in the East Valley Tribune. Bill to allow businesses to bar service based on 'sincerely held' religious belief moves forward in House. It's time for the Daily Star to reprimand or to fire the biased copy editor responsible for these politically biased creative headlines. Howard Fischer reports:

[A] House panel voted 5-2 Tuesday to give individuals and the businesses they own more rights to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs.

The vote by the Government Committee came despite comments from several individuals that the measure would allow anyone to claim a “sincerely held” religious belief as an defense in discrimination lawsuits.

“This bill allows anyone who should normally comply with state or local laws that are neutral to claim that those laws burden their religious beliefs,” said Rep. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix.

But Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, sponsor of HB 2153, said it protects business owners from being forced to do anything that would violate their faith, and Farnsworth lashed out at foes of the legislation for being intolerant of the religious views of others.

“This is pretty remarkable and ironic the screaming and yelling about tolerance apparently flows only one way,” he said. “They want the (religious) tolerance simply to be I'm going to tolerate their opinion and my opinion counts for nothing.”

Yes, people should tolerate "Fast Eddie's" religious bigotry, because "haters gotta hate."

Action Alert: Religious Bigotry bill on the agenda on Tuesday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of life's imponderable questions:

Why do the very people who believe an individual, association, partnership, corporation, trust, foundation or other legal entity (because "corporations are people my friend") possess a religious liberty to not comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious belief" to discriminate against gays -- or women, or other religious faiths, or people of color, or other nationalities, etc.

. . . are the very same people who do not believe in the religious liberty or moral conscience choice of a woman to make medical decisions in consultation with her doctor regarding her own body for contraception and abortion? Shouldn't a woman be allowed to invoke her "sincerely held religious belief" in exercising her constitutional rights to contraception and abortion by logical extension of this argument?

Maybe someone should try to get an answer to this moral dilemna from Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) on Tuesday when she is expected to testify in favor of Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's House version of the Religious Bigotry bill, HB 2153 (.pdf), in the Committee on Government, at 2:00 p.m. in House Hearing Room 4.

This bill is a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, as amended. Since religion is defined under his bill as an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" rather than that of a religious institution -- and the government cannot discriminate among religious beliefs under the First Amendment -- an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" that he or she may discriminate against persons of other religious faiths, or another race, ethnic origin, or sex would be permissible. Such a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.

Virginia is for Lovers: Court hearing on same-sex marriage tomorrow

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports on the latest from Virginia, Race on same-sex marriage cases runs through Virginia:

The race to get the Supreme Court to decide whether it is unconstitutional for states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples may run through Virginia.

* * *

[T]he Virginia cases are moving quickly, and some lawyers are hopeful they emerge through the appeals process as favored vehicles for an ultimate decision by the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski ruled Friday that a suit brought by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers in Harrisonburg on behalf of four lesbians should become a class action covering Virginia’s estimated 15,000 same-sex couples who might want to marry. [Harris, et al. v. McDonnel, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virgina – Harrisonburg Division (Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00077)]

And Tuesday, in a courtroom just over 200 miles away in Norfolk, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen will consider for the first time Virginia’s startling reversal of the commonwealth’s legal position on same-sex marriage. [Bostic v. Rainey, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia – Norfolk Division (Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-395)]

New Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) said the state’s ban, approved by voters in 2006, is unconstitutional and cannot be defended.

Gov. Chris Christie's 'Sgt. Schultz defense' begins to unravel

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A few highlights from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's "Bridgegate" statement at his press conference on January 9, 2014. Full transcript:

• Well, let me tell you, everybody, I was blindsided yesterday morning. I was done with my workout yesterday morning and got a call from my communications director at about 8:50, 8:55, informing me of this story that had just broken on the Bergen Record website. That was the first time I knew about this. That was the first time I had seen any of the documents that were revealed yesterday.
• [T]the emails that I saw for the first time yesterday morning, when they broken in I believe the Bergen Record story, proved that that was a lie. There's no justification for that behavior. There's no justification for ever lying to a governor or a person in authority in this government. And as a result, I've terminated Bridget's employment immediately this morning.
• And I'll say one last thing, just so we're really clear. I had no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or it execution, and I am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here. Regardless of what the facts ultimately uncover, this was handled in a callous and indifferent way, and it is not the way this administration has conducted itself over the last four years and not the way it will conduct itself over the next four.

This is what is known as the "Sgt. Schultz defense," named after the Hogan's Heroes character Master Sgt. Hans Schultz, who had a recurring line in the show of "I see nothing!" or "I know nothing!"

Stop pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits: Repeal the remnants of SB 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's lawless legislature does not hesitate to piss away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court. It does this all the time, and frequently loses in court. The real losers in the end are Arizona's taxpayers who have to pay the attorneys fees and court costs for these ideological extremists.

Our lawless legislature -- the Tea-Publican leadership -- currently has three lawsuits in court challenging the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), the citizens initiative that created it, and the 2012 redistricting maps. This is a purely partisan endeavor that the Arizona GOP should be paying for out of its own deep pockets, not the taxpayers of Arizona.

The most recent example of our lawless legislature pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court is the continuing litigation over the remnants of SB 1070, most of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which came with a warning from the Court that it would strike down the remainder of the law when a proper case and controversy under the remaining provisions of SB 1070 reached the Court. The writing is on the wall.

This week, the legislature approved using taxpayer money to pay the court costs of Republican politicians -- some of whom are no longer in the legislature -- in response to discovery requests in the litigation over SB 1070. Lawmakers approve funds for SB 1070 defense:

Saying they were protecting the legislative process, the House and Senate voted along party lines Thursday to hire a lawyer to help them fight subpoenas over the state’s controversial 2010 immigration law.

The legislation sets aside up to $100,000 to contest a request by the American Civil Liberties Union for the personal emails and other correspondence between some current and former lawmakers and those who might have helped them craft or line up votes for SB 1070.

Nevada's defense of same-sex marriage ban crumbles in Sevcik v. Sandoval

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week in the case of SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, holding that prospective jurors may not be excluded from a jury because of their sexual orientation, has undermined the state of Nevada's defense of its same-sex marriage ban in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, 9th Circuit Docket No. 12-17668.

(Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, and SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories is controlling precedent in the same-sex marriage lawsuit recently filed in Arizona.)

Jess Wegman explains in Nevada’s Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage ‘No Longer Tenable’:

On Jan. 21, Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, filed a brief strongly defending the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, which is being challenged in federal court by a group of same-sex couples.

Three days later, she did an about-face.

The brief’s arguments, she said in a statement, were “likely no longer tenable” in light of a ruling issued by the federal appeals court in San Francisco on the same day the brief had been filed.

The statement reads:

Las Vegas, NV – Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto released the following statement regarding Nevada’s same-sex marriage case:

“A potentially significant case was decided by the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday of this week, the same day that a brief was filed on behalf of the State in Nevada’s same-sex marriage case. The Ninth Circuit’s new decision, entitled SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, appears to impact the equal protection and due process arguments made on behalf of the State. After careful review of the SmithKline decision these arguments are likely no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit.

This office will conduct further review over the weekend in order to evaluate the State’s argument in light of SmithKline. We will be discussing this with the Governor’s Office next week.”

SCOTUS keeps injunction in place in Little Sisters until the 10th Circuit rules on the merits

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a temporary injunction on New Years' Eve in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, to an objection by an order of Catholic nuns who minister to the elderly that they do not want to sign EBSA Form 700 claiming an exemption for a religious organization, which would allow their employee health insurance provider to provide contraception coverage under the ACA "contraception mandate" to their employees.

The Little Sisters' health plan administrator, Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, also objected to the “contraceptive mandate” and said it would not incorporate it in the Little Sisters plan. Federal law exempts “church plans” from the ACA mandate, so there will be no contraception coverage in the health care plan.

The Little Sisters are objecting to completing paperwork.

The theory goes that even filing the EBSA Form 700 would make the Little Sisters a part of the scheme, and thus draw them into support for abortions or abortion-related services. (Somehow they equate contraception with abortion; not all contraception is an aborticide). It is an absolutist extreme position.

It is an extreme position not shared by American Catholics. Most American Catholics don’t consider birth control to be a threat to their religious belief. In fact, 82 percent of Catholics say contraception is “morally acceptable,” according to a Gallup poll from May 2012. Catholic support for birth control is a mere 8 points below the 90 percent of non-Catholic Americans who have no moral objections to birth control.

Government Watchdog: NSA spy program is illegal and should be shut down

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The big story today is that the independent federal privacy watchdog, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, has concluded that the National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal” benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down. No shit!

I said that back in 2005 when the New York Times first revealed the secret spy program of the Bush-Cheney regime. Congress, rather than impeach the Bush-Cheney regime for the most extensive violations of the U.S. Constitution ever, passed laws ex post facto to make the existing illegal spy program "legal" and to give it the imprimatur of congressional approval. The telecommunications companies that cooperated with the illegal spy program were given immunity from civil liability. "Nothing to see here, move along."

The New York Times reports today, Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End:

The findings are laid out in a 238-page report, scheduled for release Thursday and obtained by The New York Times, that represent the first major public statement by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress made an independent agency in 2007 and only recently became fully operational.

The report is likely to inject a significant new voice into the debate over surveillance, underscoring that the issue was not settled by a high-profile speech President Obama gave last week. Mr. Obama consulted with the board, along with a separate review group that last month delivered its own report about surveillance policies. But while he said in his speech that he was tightening access to the data and declared his intention to find a way to end government collection of the bulk records, he said the program’s capabilities should be preserved.

The Obama administration has portrayed the bulk collection program as useful and lawful while at the same time acknowledging concerns about privacy and potential abuse. But in its report, the board lays out what may be the most detailed critique of the government’s once-secret legal theory behind the program: that a law known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation, can be legitimately interpreted as authorizing the N.S.A. to collect all calling records in the country.

The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.”

Virginia is for lovers: Virginia AG says state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, will ask a federal court to strike it down

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The other day I posted that "Media attention is about to turn to the state of Virginia, where a high profile case led by the Prop. 8 "Dream Team" of David Boise and Ted Olson is scheduled for a hearing on January 30."

That day is today.

The Washington Post reports that Virginia's newly elected Attorney General Mark Herring is taking a page out of California's Prop. 8 litigation playbook, and announced today that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. He said Virginia will join two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike it down. Virginia’s Herring files brief opposing same-sex marriage ban:

The action, which Herring (D) made with the support of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), marks a stunning reversal in the state’s legal position on same-sex marriage and is a result of November elections in which Democrats swept the state’s top offices.

Democrats cheered the move as a victory for civil rights while Republicans blasted it as dereliction of the attorney general’s duty to defend the state constitution.

Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Tea-Publican members of the Arizona Legislature are challenging the constitutionality of the voter-approved 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). A hearing is set for oral argument in U.S. District Court before a three judge panel on Friday, January 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

Based upon case law precedents, this should be a no-brainer for the court in favor of the AIRC.

A nearly identical claim was made by the Florida Legislature against a citizens initiative, Amendment Six, for a state constitutional provision establishing standards for congressional redistricting. The Florida Legislature, as does the Arizona Legislature, asserted that the citizens initiative was contrary to the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4.

Republican members of Congress and the Florida House of Representatives appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals from a U.S. District Court summary judgment order in Diaz-Balart v. Scott, No. 1:10-CV-23968 (S.D. Fla.) upholding Amendment Six. They asserted that "Amendment Six is unconstitutional because it was enacted by citizen initiative rather than by the state's legislature in the ordinary 'legislative process.' Moreover, they asserted that Amendment Six -- even if properly enacted pursuant to Florida's legislative process -- imposes substantive requirements that far exceed the state legislature's Elections Clause powers."

CAP's latest assault on the constitutional right of privacy in health care decisions of Arizona women

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On the opening day of the Arizona Legislature this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Arizona's appeal from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the legislature's 20-week abortion ban as unconstitutional. The source of this anti-choice bill, Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), vowed to retaliate against Arizona women. Arizona cannot enforce abortion ban, Supreme Court rules:

Herrod signaled that her organization, which has been at the forefront of pushing lawmakers here to enact more restrictions on abortion, is not done yet.

"We are already taking the next steps to protect women and their pre-born children from the dangerous and deadly practices of the abortion industry," she said, promising details in the coming days.

One of CAP's foot soldiers in the Arizona Legislature, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Peoria), is the sponsor of HB 2284 (.pdf) which would, among other provisions, allow for the Christian Taliban to make unannounced "inspections" of abortion clinics to harass and intimidate abortion service providers and their patients. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Anti-abortion bill would permit unannounced inspections of clinics:

A Peoria lawmaker has introduced an anti-abortion bill that would allow health inspectors to examine clinics unannounced. The bill also would make it a crime to circumvent the state’s parental consent law.

The bill, HB 2284, introduced Thursday by Rep. Debbie Lesko, also requires abortion clinics to report whether an infant survived a procedure and what steps doctors took to save it.

The legislature's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood before the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last November the state of Arizona petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona legislature's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood of Arizona as a family planning service under Medicaid (AHCCCS) on the specious argument that it also separately provides for abortion services. Providing funding to the family planning services side of Planned Parenthood allegedly "indirectly" subsidizes the separately maintained and accounted for abortion services of Planned Parenthood.

State and federal law have long prohibited public funding of abortions, hence the separation of services and separate accounting by Planned Parenthood. Should the state of Arizona succeed on its specious claim, many areas of the state would lose family planning services because Planned Parenthood is the only provider in those areas. Planned Parenthood also provides wellness services for such things as cancer screening for cervical and breast cancers, and a host of other services. In effect, the Arizona legislature, at the behest of Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), would deny low income Arizona women access to basic health care and family planning services.

The case is Tom Betlach, Director, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, et al., v. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc., et al. (Docket 13-621). A responsive brief was due on January 21, 2014.

Virginia is for lovers: Marriage Equality cases on the docket

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked to put the Utah and Oklahoma marriage equality cases on a parallel track, as expected. Tenth Circuit is asked to put Oklahoma and Utah marriage equality cases on a parallel track. Briefs are due in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case of Sevcik v. Sandoval later this month.

Media attention is about to turn to the state of Virginia, where a high profile case led by the Prop. 8 "Dream Team" of David Boise and Ted Olson is scheduled for a hearing on January 30. Va. quickly emerging as key in gay marriage fight:

Almost overnight, Virginia has emerged as a critical state in the nationwide fight to grant gay men and women the right to wed.

* * *

Two federal lawsuits challenging the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage are moving forward, and a hearing on one of the cases is scheduled for Jan. 30.

With the recent court gains in Utah and Oklahoma, gay rights advocates are heartened by the new mood in Virginia. Symbolically as well, they say, the challenges of the state’s gay marriage ban resonate because of the founding state’s history of erecting a wall between church and state and a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple and a past taboo: interracial marriage.

“Virginia is one of several important battlefronts where we have the opportunity now to build on the momentum, embrace the public’s movement in favor of the freedom to marry and end the discrimination,” said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of New York-based Freedom to Marry, which seeks to have same-sex marriage bans struck down nationwide.

The Arizona Daily Star's creative headline writer strikes again!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I almost spit out my coffee this morning when I opened up the fishwrap newspaper this morning. The print edition headline on the front page of our sad small-town newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, reads "Setback for AZ's voting ID effort" -- on Martin Luther King Day, no less.

A quick Google search reveals that no other newspaper publishing this Howard Fischer report used this politically biased headline. Most used "Citizen proof request rejected by federal eelction commission." The Sierra Vista Herald used "State bid to change federal election law rejected." Hell, even our sad small-town newspaper did not use this politically biased headline in its online version: Panel rejects AZ's bid to require proof of citizenship for voting. All factual headlines.

The headline should read "A victory for voting rights," or "GOP voter suppression rejected."

EAC files its response in proof-of-citizenship 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). The Judge in his Order Remanding Matter to EAC for Final Agency Action (.pdf) gave the EAC until January 17 to respond to the order of the Court.

The EAC filed its response just minutes before the midnight deadline. Read the richly detailed 46-page EAC Final Decision on Proof of Citizenship Requests (.pdf). A bullet point summary of the EAC analysis follows:

• Congress specifically considered and rejected proof-of-citizenship requirements whn enacting the NVRA.
• The requested proof-of-citizenship requirements are inconsistent with the EAC's NVRA regualtions.
• The requested proof-of-citizenship requirements are inconsistent with the EAC's prior determinations.
• The Supreme Court's Inter-Tribal Council opinion guides the EAC's assessment of the states' requests.
• The states' requested proof-of-citizenship instructions would require applicants to submit more information than is necessary to enable election officials to assess eligibility.
• The requested changes would undermine the purpose of the NVRA.
• The requested proof-of-citizenship requirements are not similar to Louisiana's request for modifications to the state-specific instructions.
• The decision by the Federal Voting Assistance Program to grant Arizona's request has no bearing on the state's requests to the EAC.

CONCLUSION: "For the foregoing reasons, the Commission DENIES the States’ requests."

In short, go pound sand.

'Kochtopus' dark money organizations with Arizona ties have yet to pay $15M fine to California

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In other news you never see reported in Arizona's GOP-friendly media, California has yet to receive the $15 million in penalties imposed on "Kochtopus" dark money campaign organizations after an investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission into secret political donations last year by the Phoenix-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, run by GOP political consultant Sean Noble, tied to billionaire Republican contributors Charles and David Koch.

The Los Angeles Times reports, Two groups that used secret political donations haven't paid penalties:

State authorities have yet to receive $15 million in penalties they imposed on campaign groups after a headline-making investigation into secret political donations.

The money is owed to California's general fund, where it could support government programs.

Two Arizona nonprofits paid $1 million in fines for their role in hiding the source of political cash sent to California in 2012. But the two campaign groups that received and spent the money were ordered to pay $15 million and have sent nothing — seven weeks after the Nov. 30 deadline.

Bipartisan 'fix' to the Voting Rights Act filed in Congress

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ari Berman at The Nation reports, Members of Congress Introduce a New Fix for the Voting Rights Act:

Today Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) will introduce legislation to strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June invalidating a critical section of the VRA. The legislation, known as “The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014,” represents the first attempt by a bipartisan group in Congress to reinstate the vital protections of the VRA that the Supreme Court took away.

* * *

The Sensenbrenner-Conyers-Leahy bill strengthens the VRA in five distinct ways:

1: The legislation draws a new coverage formula for Section 4, thereby resurrecting Section 5. States with five violations of federal law to their voting changes over the past fifteen years will have to submit future election changes for federal approval. This new formula would currently apply to Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Local jurisdictions would be covered if they commit three or more violations or have one violation and “persistent, extremely low minority turnout” over the past fifteen years.

The formula is based on a rolling calendar, updated with a current fifteen-year time period to exempt states who are no longer discriminating or add new ones who are, creating a deterrent against future voting rights violations. It’s based on empirical conditions and current data, not geography or a fixed time period—which voting rights advocates hope will satisfy Chief Justice John Roberts should the new legislation be enacted and reach the Supreme Court.

The new Section 4 proposal is far from perfect. It does not apply to states with an extensive record of voting discrimination, like Alabama (where civil rights protests in Selma gave birth to the VRA), Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, which were previously subject to Section 5. Nor does it apply to states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that have enacted new voting restrictions in the past few years.

Federal Court in Oklahoma Rules in Favor of Marriage Equality

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In the reddest of the Red States, Oklahoma, the U.S. District Court has struck down that state's discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, and ruled in favor of marriage equality. Oklahoma’s Ban on Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules:

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that the state’s constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the federal Constitution, the latest in a string of legal victories for gay rights and one that occurred in the heart of the Bible Belt.

The state’s ban on marriage by gay and lesbian couples is “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit,” wrote Judge Terence C. Kern of United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, deciding a case that had languished for nine years. The amendment, he said, is based on “moral disapproval” and does not advance the state’s asserted interests in promoting heterosexual marriage or the welfare of children.

“We’re jubilant, we’re over the moon,” said one of the plaintiffs, Sharon Baldwin, 45, who has lived with her partner and co-plaintiff, Mary Bishop, 52, for 17 years.

The two both work as editors at The Tulsa World newspaper and had just arrived at work on Tuesday afternoon when the city editor told them of the decision.

“We’re taking the day off,” Ms. Baldwin said.