Blog For Arizona

Legal challenges filed against Kansas, Arizona 'two-tier' voting system

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Eric Lach at Talking Points Memo reports Dual Attacks Take On Voting Restriction Efforts In Arizona, Kansas:

Just weeks after Kansas and Arizona made clear their intentions to move ahead with two-tier voting systems, legal efforts are being mounted to fight those plans.

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Kansas directly challenging the state's two-tier system, where voters who show no proof of citizenship would be allowed only to vote in federal elections, not state or local elections. At the same time, the Brennan Center for Justice and the League of Women Voters of the United States teamed up to join the ongoing federal case that prompted Kansas and Arizona to start flirting with two tiers in the first place.

The ACLU case is straightforward. Filed in the Third Judicial Circuit in Topeka, Kan., the complaint argues that two-tier voting "divides registered voters in Kansas into two separate and unequal classes, with vastly different rights and privileges." According to USA Today, nearly 18,000 voters in Kansas who registered for the first time this year can vote in federal elections but not in state or local ones because they have not submitted citizenship documents.

"It all comes back to voters' equality," the ACLU's Molly Rugg wrote in a blog post on Thursday. "Kansas cannot treat equally qualified voters unequally on the whim of the Secretary of State. If you are qualified to vote in the presidential election, you are certainly qualified to vote in Kobach's re-election bid next year."

In both Kansas and Arizona, plans for two-tier systems began in the wake of Supreme Court's June ruling in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the legal battle over Arizona's 2004 voter identification law. While the Supreme Court blocked the law, both Arizona and Kansas have focused on the wiggle-room the court left them. In August, the two states joined together to sue the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the agency which maintains the federal voter registration form, in an attempt to force the agency to add proof-of-citizenship language to the state-specific instructions on the federal form. (Each state has state-specific instructions on the federal form.) And in the meantime, officials in both states made preparations for two-tiered systems.

The mendacity of mini-me, Robert Robb

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this the other day in George Will and his mini-me, Robert Robb: "George Will's mini-me at the Arizona Republic is not a lawyer, but he frequently pretends to be one in his columns. Lucky for him he is not a lawyer . . ."

Mini-me wrote a dismissive column on the Arizona Court of Appeals decision striking down the new campaign contribution limits in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain, and real parties in interest (.pdf), a lawsuit brought by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, on the theories that it violates two citizen initiatives enacted by voters in the same year, the Citizens Clean Elections Act and the Voter Protection Act. Robb used to work for the Goldwater Institute, and his legal analysis parallels closely the legal arguments made by Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute in this case. Contribution limits: Read the law, not the tea leaves.

On Wednesday the mendacity of Robert Robb took a double-barrel shotgun blast from Thomas Collins, an attorney and executive director of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections; and Sam Wercinski, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network.

Collins: Clean Elections ruling follows the law:

In his Nov. 15 column, “Contribution limits: Read the law, not the tea leaves,” Robert Robb once again wrongfully attacks the Arizona Court of Appeals for following the law and upholding the Citizens Clean Elections Act that voters passed in 1998.

That court blocked House Bill 2593 in October. HB 2593 would increase the amount of political donations candidates can receive by nearly 10 times and eliminate altogether other limits that work to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in Arizona. Under Clean Elections, the court found, the new bill cannot apply to state and legislative campaign-contribution limits.

(Update) Wisconsin voter I.D. trial concluded, decision pending

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week the voter I.D. trial in Wisconsin federal district court concluded. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, Trial of two challenges to Wisconsin's voter ID law concludes:

The plaintiffs showed that tens to hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin residents lack one of the qualifying IDs, and many also lack the documents required to get the free ID the state supplies for voting — usually a birth certificate.

The witnesses detailed how they sometimes had to travel to other states to try to get certificates. Some voters, born in the South decades ago, never had formal birth certificates. In Wisconsin, the Vital Records division sometimes required a photo ID to get a birth certificate, a kind of Catch 22.

As evidence that the law was providing ways for everyone to vote, [Assistant Attorney General Clayton] Kawski noted that since Wisconsin began offering its free ID service, more than 217,000 have been issued, and in Milwaukee County mostly to minorities.

But plaintiffs' counsel argued that the numbers prove the disparity, that far fewer minorities have driver's licenses, passports or the other limited forms of ID that would allow someone to vote.

[John] Ulin compared the process to so-called grandfather clauses in the Jim Crow South that spared most white voters from onerous requirements meant to keep blacks from polls. Residents who have had driver's licenses probably got them, and continually renew them, without ever having to show a birth certificate, Ulin said, while minorities seeking photo ID for the first time must present one.

Mythbusters: No, 'illegal immigrants' are not voting in Arizona elections (but you already knew that)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In the reality-based community where facts matter, this is old news. But in the conservative media entertainment complex world of conspiracy theories, where Tea-Publicans routinely demonize Mexican immigrants and falsely claim that they are voting in elections to support voter I.D. requirements that have a disparate impact on the elderly, the poor, minorities and college students -- a form of voter suppression -- this is "new" news. The Arizona Republic today reports, Illegal immigrant vote-fraud cases rare in Arizona:

Arizona has spent enormous amounts of time and money waging war against voter fraud, citing the specter of illegal immigrants’ casting ballots.

State officials from Gov. Jan Brewer to Attorney General Tom Horne to Secretary of State Ken Bennett swear it’s a problem.

At an August news conference, Horne and Bennett cited voter-fraud concerns as justification for continuing a federal-court fight over state voter-ID requirements. And some Republican lawmakers have used the same argument to defend a package of controversial new election laws slated to go before voters in November 2014.

But when state officials are pushed for details, the numbers of actual cases and convictions vary and the descriptions of the alleged fraud become foggy or based on third-hand accounts.

An examination of voter-fraud cases in Maricopa County shows those involving illegal immigrants are nearly non-existent, and have been since before the changes to voter-ID requirements were enacted in 2004.

In response to an Arizona Republic records request, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office provided a list of 21 criminal cases since January 2005 in which the suspect was charged with a felony related to voter fraud. A search of court records found 13 other cases.

Of the 34 Maricopa County cases, two of the suspects were in the country illegally and 12 were not citizens but living in the U.S. legally, court records showed. One of the suspect’s legal-residency status was unclear from the records.

The GOP rigs the game

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A must-read article from Tim Dickenson at Rolling Stone, How Republicans Rig the Game:

Not only did Barack Obama win a second term in an electoral landslide in 2012, but he is also just the fourth president in a century to have won two elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. What's more, the party controls 55 seats in the Senate, and Democratic candidates for the House received well over a million more votes than their Republican counterparts in the election last year. And yet, John Boehner still wields the gavel in the House and Republican resistance remains a defining force in the Senate, frustrating Obama's ambitious agenda.

How is this possible? National Republicans have waged an unrelenting campaign to exploit every weakness and anachronism in our electoral system. Through a combination of hyperpartisan redistricting of the House, unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate and racist voter suppression in the states, today's GOP has locked in political power that it could never have secured on a level playing field.

Despite the fact that Republican Congressional candidates received nearly 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates last November, the Republicans lost only eight seats from their historic 2010 romp, allowing them to preserve a fat 33-seat edge in the House. Unscrupulous Republican gerrymandering following the 2010 census made the difference, according to a statistical analysis conducted by the Princeton Election Consortium. Under historically typical redistricting, House Republicans would now likely be clinging to a reedy five-seat majority. "There's the normal tug of war of American politics," says Sam Wang, founder of the consortium. "Trying to protect one congressman here, or unseat another one there." The Princeton model was built, he says, to detect "whether something got pulled off-kilter on top of that."

Wisconsin voter I.D. trial in court this week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Now that the election is over, it is time to catch up on matters not receiving media attention this week, like this federal court trial in Wisconsin challenging that state's voter I.D. requirement. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported earlier this week, Federal trial challenging Wisconsin's voter ID law underway:

Minorities and senior citizens testified Monday about costly and time-consuming difficulties they faced in getting photo identification as they pressed their case to permanently invalidate Wisconsin's voter ID law.

The federal trial that kicked off Monday involves two cases and is expected to last two weeks. A Dane County judge in a different case has already blocked the law, but opponents of voter ID are pursuing the federal litigation in an attempt to ensure the requirement never goes back into effect.

* * *

The trial began with a string of people describing the problems they had in trying to secure IDs for themselves or family members. Some of them have yet to be successful.

"I cannot express the amount of time, energy and frustration it required" to get a license for her mother, Debra Crawford testified.

Crawford's mother, Bettye Jones, was the lead plaintiff in one of the cases before the court Monday. Jones died in October 2012.

Jones was born in Tennessee and lived much of her life in Cleveland, Ohio. She moved to Brookfield in 2011 to be closer to family after her husband died.

She had to make multiple trips to a Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles office before she could get a driver's license last year because she did not have a birth certificate. Getting the license cost her more than $100 and took about 40 hours over several months, Crawford testified.

Crawford and others who testified Monday were questioned only briefly during cross examination by attorneys for the state. But in opening statements, Kawski stressed state officials have made exceptions in unique circumstances to accommodate voters who had difficulty acquiring IDs.

Unverifiable touchscreen voting machines rear their ugly heads in Virginia

by David Safier

As I write this, the Virginia race for Attorney General is too close to call, with the Democratic and Republican candidates separated by a few hundred ballots. Once a winner is determined, the loser will have the right to ask for a recount if the margin is less than one percent, which it probably will be. The problem is, a recount will mean little more than looking at the numbers spit out by the state's touchscreen computers.

Most Virginia voters use ATM-like computers to cast their ballots, with no paper trail. If a state uses paper ballots, then has them scanned by machines, the results can be checked by counting the paper votes one by one. But if it's all done by a touchscreen machine, all you have is the machine's word for it. If the computer overcounted or undercounted, if it switched some voters' choices from one candidate to another -- either because of a computer glitch or purposeful tampering with the software -- no one will ever know.

NPR 'Secret Persuasion' report with the Center for Responsive Politics

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

NPR with the Center for Responsive Politics has a two-part investigative news report into 501(c)(4) social welfare groups and how their donors can give unlimited amounts while remaining private and bypassing public disclosure laws.

Part 1: From Social Welfare Groups, A River Of Political Influence, by Peter Oversby.

Part 2: Secret Persuasion: How Big Campaign Donors Stay Anonymous, by Peter Oversby.

U.S. Supreme Court declines identical case to Arizona campaign finance case

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It would appear the U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ with U.S. District Court Judge James Teilborg's ruling in an Arizona campaign finance case. Portion of campaign finance law overturned:

In 2011, Galassini sent an e-mail to 23 Fountain Hills residents making them aware of the road-bond proposal, asking them to write letters to a local newspaper and naming two street-corner protests where recipients were encouraged to show up with signs to make passers-by aware of their opposition.

Galassini then received a letter from Town Clerk Bev Bender saying Galassini needed to file a statement of organization in the Town Clerk’s Office before any electioneering takes place “if any additional person or persons join the effort.” After receiving the letter, Galassini told Bender she would stop all e-mails and not hold a rally.

Galassini asked the court to declare unconstitutional the portion of state campaign-finance law that requires groups that speak about ballot issues and accept or expend less than $500 to file as political committees.

In his order, [U.S. District Court Judge James] Teilborg said the definition of political committee is “overbroad because it sweeps in a substantial amount of protected speech that the state does not have an important interest in regulating.”

CREW files complaint against a 'Kochtopus' dark money organization

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint today against the "Kochtopus" dark money organization Freedom Partners Chambers of Commerce, Inc. Press release from Crew:

CREW Calls on IRS to Clarify Rules for 501(c)(6) Groups and Investigate Freedom

Washington, D.C. — Following up on a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for its failure to properly regulate groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a rulemaking petition (.pdf) asking the agency to clarify regulations and rein in abuses by 501(c)(6) organizations.

Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code provides tax-exempt status for organizations such as business leagues, chambers of commerce, and boards of trade.  Recognizing “business league” to be an ambiguous phrase, in 1919, the IRS defined it as an “association of persons” with a “common business interest, whose purpose is to promote the common business interest.”  Taking advantage of the fact that the IRS has never provided guidance as to what activities serve the common business interests, 501(c)(6)s increasingly are serving as vehicles for wealthy groups and individuals to funnel anonymous or “dark” money to other tax-exempt organizations to influence elections.  Section 501(c)(6) groups reported spending more than $46 million on federal campaigns in 2010, and more than $55 million in 2012.

“If there’s a loophole in the tax code, it’s a sure thing that someone will take advantage of it,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan.  “If the IRS fails to act, Americans should expect to see an increase in the number of so-called ‘business leagues’ created to funnel money into our elections while cloaking the identities of their donors.”

Our lawless legislature wants its higher campaign finance limits now!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593 (new higher campaign contribution limits) in a ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain, and real parties in interest (.pdf).

Our Tea-Publican lawless legislature never tires of pissing away taxpaper dollars on litigation to defend its unconstituional acts, so naturally our Tea-Publican legislature has filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court challenging the preliminary injunction (the Court of Appeals sent the case in chief back to the trial court for a decision on the merits). The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Lawmakers ask state Supreme Court to reinstate new contribution limits:

Senate President Andy Biggs and House Speaker Andy Tobin asked the Arizona Supreme Court to lift an injunction against new campaign contribution limits passed by the Legislature.

Attorney Mike Liburdi, who represents Biggs and Tobin, argued that the Arizona Court of Appeals erred when it determined that voters intended to fix campaign contribution limits permanently when they approved the Citizens Clean Elections Act in 1998. He also told the high court that it should reinstate the higher new contribution limits contained in HB2593 because the old limits are unconstitutionally low.

The crux of the dispute over HB2593 is a provision in the Clean Elections Act that reduces the contribution limits from a separate statute by 20 percent. Opponents of the new limits argue that the voters intended that reduction to set new contribution limits in perpetuity.

* * *

The Court of Appeals sent part of the case back to the trial court, where it instructed Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain to hear arguments on whether Arizona’s contribution limits are unconstitutionally low. Liburdi asked the Arizona Supreme Court to determine whether the plaintiffs or the defendants have the burden of proof in those arguments.

(Update) The Washington Post looks at Sean Noble's 'Kochtopus' dark money organizations

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I'm still waiting on The Arizona Republic to do investigative reporting into the hub of "Koch Brothers Network" dark money political non-profit corporations operating out of Maricopa County. The media is supposed to be the 'watchdog of democracy,' not the media arm of the GOP.

Instead, the Republic's resident GOPropagandist Doug MacEachern wrote a love letter to the "Kochtopus," For liberals, Kochs and tea party are evil personified, and the Republic turned over its opinion page to one of the key players at the center of the California money laundering scheme, former House Speaker Kirk Adams, president of Americans for Responsible Leadership, who dismissed the California investigation as a "big old nothing-burger." Why anonymous is good. Hard-hitting investigative journalism response from the Republic: "What condiments go well on a nothing burger?" (actual question).

The Arizona Republic is useless.

Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger at the Washington Post today take a look at Sean Noble's 'Kochtopus' dark money organizations, California donor disclosure case exposes how nonprofits can play in politics:

[N]ew revelations in California provide an unusual look at one national network of such groups that helped move $15 million into ballot-initiative campaigns last fall while working hard to hide the identities of their prominent financial backers. A pair of conservative nonprofits at the heart of the effort were together fined a record $1 million after a year-long state investigation, while two political committees were ordered to repay the state for $15 million in donations they received.

* * *

Several of the advocacy groups at the center of the California case have played significant roles in national elections, including Americans for Job Security, Americans for Responsible Leadership and the American Future Fund. Those three groups have reported more than $68 million in campaign-related expenditures during the past two election cycles, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Because they are set up as nonprofit organizations rather than political committees, the groups are not required to disclose their financial supporters to the FEC.

The details of the California scheme, revealed in interviews and a cache of investigative documents, show how political operatives casually shuffled around massive sums with little accountability. At one point, a consultant involved sent a text message requesting $11 million. The case also spotlights the extreme measures that operatives took to skirt disclosure regulations, passing along funds through a daisy chain of organizations without knowing which groups would get the cash or whether the money would end up where it was intended.

An inauspicious start to the Secretary of State race

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On the very same day that the current Secretary of State certified the referendum ("citizens veto") of HB 2305 -- the Voter Suppression Act -- to the ballot in 2014, the co-author of that bill, Sen. Michele Reagan announced her candicacy for Secretary of State. Awesome! Sen. Reagan enters race for secretary of state post:

State Sen. Michele Reagan formally entered the race for Arizona secretary of state on Tuesday, touting her experience in business and election matters. [Such as drafting voter suppression bills.]

* * *

She noted her experience this year as chairman of the Elections Committee.

That background, she said, makes her well-suited to be secretary of state, a job that includes overseeing elections and managing business filings.

We note your experience as chairman of the Elections Committee as well -- you are the face of voter suppression in Arizona. You also refuse to consider any bills that would bring transparency and disclosures to campaign finance laws to end the practice of "dark money" contributions from anonymous sources. You are a terrible candidate for Secretary of State.

Sen. Reagan will face a GOP primary against self-funded millionaire Wil Cardon, who lost a bid for U.S. Senate last year, and Rep. Justin Pierce, who is running Clean Elections because Wil Cardon accused him of a conflict of interest with his father Gary Pierce serving on the Arizona Corporation Commission. So much nepotism and sense of entitlement among rich kids.

Referendum ('citizens veto') of HB 2305, the Voter Suppression Act, certified for the ballot

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee:

Secretary of State Certifies Protect Your Right to Vote Effort to Overturn HB2305

Committee has nearly 111,000 signatures, 80% validity rate, to put measure on 2014 ballot

PHOENIX – Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett today certified that the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee’s referendum of House Bill 2305 will be on the 2014 ballot.  
 
Bennett confirmed that the Committee gathered just under 111,000 valid signatures -- far eclipsing the necessary 86,405 to qualify -- and that the Committee’s validity rate was an astounding 80 percent. A broad and diverse coalition of more than 25 non-profit civic engagement organizations worked to gather the signatures in just three months after the Legislature narrowly passed the controversial effort to get tough on voters in June.
 
 “Today was a big win for Arizona voters and voting rights, but it’s only part of the battle,” said Julie Erfle, chairwoman of the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee. “The public response to our effort has been overwhelming across party lines, and we are absolutely confident that Arizona voters will toss these unnecessary and self-serving voting roadblocks in the dumpster where they belong. It’s not right for politicians to try and game the system by putting up barriers to voters who might not support them, and by making criminals out of campaign volunteers. This blatant power grab has now been derailed, and I predict that House Bill 2305 will be an albatross and a curse for any politician who supported it.”
 
Erfle added that the majority of the signatures that the Committee gathered came from registered independents and Republicans.

Koch-blocker Doug MacEachern: 'No transparency and disclosures in campaign finances for you!'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic's resident GOPropagandist for the conservative media entertainment complex, Doug MacEachern, is a sad and pathetic creature. He lives in the conspiracy theory hate-filled world of talk radio and FAUX News. Like Sméagol in The Lord of The Rings, it has turned him into Gollum.

I recently took The Arizona Republic to task for its lack of investigative journalism into the dark money web of "Kochtopus" organizations operating out of the Phoenix area right under its nose. The media is supposed to be the 'watchdog of democracy,' not the media arm of the GOP.

Doug MacEachern appears to be the Koch-blocker editor responsible for preventing such investigative reporting, with GOPropaganda love letters to the "Kochtopus" like this recent opinion. For liberals, Kochs and tea party are evil personified:

The settlement reached Thursday in California over anonymous campaign contributions was one of those good-news, bad-news things.

The good news? Two nameless, faceless Arizona-based non-profits that funneled $16 million into California ballot-measure campaigns got their knuckles whacked, and hard.

The bad news is that the California public officials who negotiated the settlement, which included a $1 million fine, just couldn’t resist topping off their big victory with a cheap-shot partisan dig:

The two Arizona groups, they said, “operated as part of the ‘Koch Brothers Network’ of dark money political non-profit corporations.”

“Koch Brothers” — a reference to a couple of rich guys who dare contribute to conservative causes — is a well-worn, all-purpose liberal epithet for perceived conservative villainy. Everything about the word “Koch” sets liberal hair afire.

Nightmare scenario: no campaign finance limits

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig McDermott posted about the Court of Appeals ruling in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. v. The Honorable Mark H. Brain, and real parties in interest (.pdf) earlier in State appeals court blocks higher campaign contribution limits.

Howard Fischer from Capitol Media Services has a report in the Arizona Daily Star this morning (the online link is not working) captioned "Appellate court orders new review for campaign-finance limits," which lays out a nightmare scenario for anyone concerned about the corrupting influence of unlimited money in political campaigns:

In a formal opinion, the judges reaffirmed their earlier order keeping the current limits in place, saying there is evidence legislation pushed through by Republican lawmakers earlier this year increasing campaign donation limits violates a constituional provision.

But the court also sent the case back to the trial judge, directing Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain to consider claims by lawyers for Republican legislative leaders that the old limits -- the ones the appellate court just restored -- are so low as to violate the First Amendment rights of candidates annd donors. [A favorite argument of the Goldwater Institute.]

That raises the possibility the old limits could be declared unconstitutional. And if the new limits were improperly enacted, there might be absolutely no cap on how much individuals and political action committees could give, or how much candidates could accept.

California hammers Sean Noble's 'Kochtopus' dark money organizations

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

California's political watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission, has ordered "Kochtopus" front groups in Arizona that laundered campaign donations for two California political committees last year to forfeit the money to the state, and imposed fines totalling $1 million. Arizona GOP political consultant Sean Noble was the "Kochtopus" bag man for the Phoenix based Center to Protect Patient Rights, and is at the center of this political corruption.

The Los Angeles Times reports, Big penalties but limited disclosure in secret campaign donor case:

California political campaign committees that received money from a secretive network of conservative nonprofits last year, including $11 million from an obscure Arizona group, face hefty penalties from state regulators  . . . The penalties are equivalent to the amount of political donations that California officials say was not properly disclosed.

The Small Business Action Committee, which fought Gov. Jerry Browns tax-hike plan and supported a separate ballot measure aimed at reducing unions' political power, is being ordered to pay $11 million to the state.

A second committee, the California Future Fund for Free Markets, that backed the anti-union measure faces a $4.08-million penalty.

Both committees received money routed through the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, a nonprofit with ties to billionaire Republican donors Charles and David Koch.

State law says campaign committees that receive "laundered" political funds need to forfeit the money to the state. The penalties, totaling $15 million, can still be contested.

State officials say they have also reached a settlement with the two Arizona nonprofits -- the Center to Protect Patient Rights and Americans for Responsible Leadership -- involved in the $11-million donation received by the Small Business Action Committee.

The settlement requires the organizations to pay a combined fine of $1 million, but it does not mandate the release of donors' identities, a setback for California officials who have tried to require increased disclosure.

Ken 'Birther' Bennett wants the non-existent EAC to modify federal voter registration form

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this week, the Pew Data Dispatch examined The Cost of a Two-Tiered Election in Arizona.

I am guessing that Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett also read this report, because he has changed his mind about maintaining a dual voter registration system in Arizona. Bennett wants court to mandate modification to federal election forms:

Not willing to maintain a dual registration system, Secretary of State Ken Bennett wants a court to order the federal Election Assistance Commission to modify its voter registration forms to demand proof of citizenship.

In legal filings Wednesday, Bennett said he needs an immediate order to ensure that Arizona — and Kansas, which is seeking the same relief — are not denied “their sovereign and constitutional right to establish and enforce voter qualifications.” Without the order, Bennett said the state will forced to register "unqualified" voters. [Those who do not submit proof of citizenship under Arizona law.]

* * *

Bennett contends that [a dual voter registration system] will be “unduly burdensome.” So he wants a federal judge in Kansas who is hearing the case to order the Election Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement for the voter-registration forms it has for Arizona.

And Bennett and Kris Kobach, his Kansas counterpart, want that to happen soon, seeking a hearing on Nov. 12 or shortly thereafter.

The Referendum ('citizens veto') of the Voter Suppression Act - HB 2305 - headed to the ballot

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Good job people! Petition signature verification typically has a "bad signature" failure rate in excess of 40 percent. But even with the "strict compliance" standard in effect for a referendum of a legislative act, you managed a signature verification rate in excess of 80 percent! This is unheard of. Give yourself a pat on the back and an "attaboy!"

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Referendum effort against HB2305 has enough signatures to make the 2014 ballot:

The referendum effort against HB 2305, the law making sweeping changes to Arizona’s elections, has the necessary valid signatures to force a referendum election on the law during the 2014 election.

Though three counties are still validating signatures, the effort already has more than 100,000 signatures validated – well over the 86,405 necessary to force a referendum election.

According to figures provided to by the secretary of state’s office, 5,242 signatures have been deemed valid by county recorders’ offices across the state. By law, that figure is multiplied by 20 – the signatures sent to county recorders were a random sample totaling 5 percent of the total – giving the referendum effort 104,840 valid signatures, far more than the 86,405 needed to put the law on hold until voters weigh in on the 2014 ballot.

(Update) The GOP war on voting - women are the next bloc of voters targeted

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I flagged this story yesterday, but now we have a real-life example of a woman being disenfranchised of her vote by Texas' voter I.D. law solely because of how her name appears on photo I.D. And she is a judge.

Steve Benen reports When the war on voting meets the war on women:

Rick Hasen flagged a remarkable story out of Corpus Christi, Texas, where the state’s new voter-ID law – imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act – is causing problems for women who use maiden names or hyphenated names. A local district court judge experienced the problem first hand.

“What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.

Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver’s license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver’s license hasn’t changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a “voters affidavit” affirming she was who she said she was.

“Someone looked at that and said, ‘Well, they’re not the same,’” Watts said.

The GOP war on voting - women are the next bloc of voters targeted

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Voter I.D. laws have a disparate impact on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and college students by requiring a state-issued photo I.D. many do not possess, and requiring original documents, typically a birth certificate, in order to obtain the appropriate state-issued photo ID. The cost of obtaining original vital records document(s) is often prohibitively expensive to someone who cannot afford it. This works as an unconstitutional poll tax in my opinion, but our illustrious U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

Another bloc of voters for whom voter I.D. laws have a disparate impact are women who have married or divorced, but who have not updated their state-issued photo I.D. to reflect their name change. This is about to become an issue in Texas. Alex Palombo writes at the Huffington Post, What 19th Amendment?

It's a trend lately, that if a party is afraid of losing an election, they pass legislation barring key groups in their opponents' base from voting. And clearly, it's something Texas has taken to heart. Right after Wendy Davis declared that she was running for governor, Texas Republicans set out to disenfranchise women from voting, 19th Amendment be damned.

And the way they're keeping ladies out of the voting booth it is a doozy.

Tom 'banned for life by the SEC' Horne violated campaign finance laws

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After the tag team of Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery totally mucked up the initial investigation into Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and had their case dismissed for not following the law, a second investigation by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk has again concluded that Tommy Boy violated campaign finance laws. Arizona AG again found to have violated campaign law:

For the second time in a year, a county prosecutor has determined Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and his political-ally-turned-staffer Kathleen Winn violated campaign-finance laws during Horne’s 2010 run for office.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk on Thursday gave Horne 20 days to return nearly $400,000 in donations to an independent-expenditure committee, Business Leaders for Arizona, that Polk said illegally coordinated its efforts with Horne’s campaign.

* * *

Polk, in her order, said several e-mails and the timing of phone calls “provide convincing proof that Horne and Winn coordinated” on the development of the anti-Rotellini ad and on raising money to pay for the ad.

Therefore, Polk said, the cost of the ad must be counted as in-kind contributions to Horne’s campaign and not to the independent-expenditure committee.

Campaign laws forbid coordination between candidates and certain activities with independent-expenditure committees.

Pair of court decisions to cause confusion in campaign finances

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It has been an interesting week in the courts for campaign finance, and the picture is clear as mud.

The Arizona Court of Appeals this week overturned the new campaign spending limits in a bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Pierce, who announced this week that he is running for Secretary of State. An ignomious beginning to his campaign, dontcha think? His bill is unconstitutional, but that is not unusual for our lawless legislature.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported Court of Appeals blocks new contribution limits:

The Arizona Court of Appeals blocked Arizona’s new campaign contribution limits, reversing a trial judge’s ruling and putting a halt to a month of fundraising under the higher limits.

The court issued a preliminary injunction against HB2593 on Tuesday, about two hours after a three-judge panel finished hearing an appeal of a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling that allowed the new limits to take effect. The court did not explain its reasoning, saying only that Secretary of State Ken Bennett is barred from enforcing the new limits pending further order from the court.

Attorney Joe Kanefield, who represents the Citizens Clean Elections Commission in its challenge to the law, said he was thrilled with the decision.

“We have always believed that this law was unconstitutional. We’ve said that from day one. We said the while it was being debated in legislative proceedings,” said Kanefield, of the firm Ballard Spahr.

He argued in court that the Legislature violated the Voter Protection Act when it approved the new limits. Opponents have long claimed that because the Citizens Clean Elections Act, which has always been considered a voter-protected law, reduces the state’s contribution limits by 20 percent, the limits are subject to the Voter Protection Act.     It only allows the Legislature to amend voter-protected statutes with a three-fourths vote, and then only in a way that furthers the intent of the voters.

* * *

[T]he appellate judges appear to have sided with Kanefield, who said voters intended to regulate the limits as they existed in 1998, when the Clean Elections Act was passed.

Judge Richard Posner admits he was wrong about voter I.D. - implications for McCutcheon v. FEC

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the leading intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. He is a sought after speaker at conservative events.

Judge Posmer wrote the majority opinion for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Indiana voter I.D. case, and his majority opinion was the foundation for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008).

Rick Hasen at electionlawblog.com reports Breaking: Judge Posner Admits He Was Wrong in Crawford Voter ID Case:

Wow.

My transcription from HuffPostLive:

In response to Mike Sacks’s questions about whether Judge Posner and the 7th circuit got it wrong in Crawford case, the one upholding Indiana’s tough voter id law against constitutional challenge:

“Yes. Absolutely. And the problem is that there hadn’t been that much activity with voter identification. And … maybe we should have been more imaginative… we…. weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disfranchise people entitled to vote. There was a dissenting judge, Judge Evans, since deceased, and I think he is right. But at the time I thought what we were doing was right. It is interesting that the majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens, who is very liberal, more liberal than I was or am….  But I think we did not have enough information. And of course it illustrates the basic problem that I emphasize in book.  We judges and lawyers, we don’t know enough about the subject matters that we regulate, right? And that if the lawyers had provided us with a lot of information about the abuse of voter identification laws, this case would have been decided differently.”

New York Times on Arizona's 'two-tier' voter registration

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona Attorney General Tom "banned for life by the SEC" Horne and Arizona Secretary of State Ken "Birther" Bennett have conspired with nativist anti-immigrant activist and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to devise a "two-tier" voter registration system in their Neo-Confederate temper tantrum for "states' rights!" against the federal government. Creating two separate classes of voters based solely upon the registration form used violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and is an overt act of voter suppression.

Today the New York Times takes notice, After Court Ruling, 2 States Plan 2-Tier Voting System:

Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, Arizona is complying — but setting up a separate registration system for local and state elections that will demand such proof.

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top posts in both states will be on the ballot.

The states are using an opening left in June by the United States Supreme Court when it said that the power of Congress over federal elections was paramount but did not rule on proof of citizenship in state elections. Such proof was required under Arizona’s Proposition 200, which passed in 2004 and is one of the weapons in the border state’s arsenal of laws enacted in its battle against illegal immigration.

The two states are also jointly suing the federal Election Assistance Commission, arguing that it should change the federal voter registration form for their states to include state citizenship requirements. While the agency has previously denied such requests, the justices said the states could try again and seek judicial review of those decisions.

Apparently Sean Noble is not on the outs - at least with the AZ GOP

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have posted at length about the political corruption of GOP operative and "Kochtopus" bag man Sean Noble. The national news media also has done some exceptional reporting on Sean Noble. It is only our GOP-friendly Arizona political media that fails to report on his political corruption. A cover-up?

The Daily Beast reported in an Exclusive: California Grand Jury Probing Shadowy Money Groups: The circuitous routes apparently used to funnel the $11 million into the state were deemed “the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money laundering in California history” by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Most recently the Huffington Post reported, Sean Noble, 'Wizard' Behind Koch Brothers' Donor Network, Now On The Outs.

Apparenlty Huffington Post's assessment was wrong. The AZGOP Campaign School today in Phoenix features Sean Noble. What, is he going to teach them how to set up a series of interconnected bogus 501(c)(4) organizations in order to launder campaign cash from undisclosed "Kochtopus" donors?

Update on the Referendum ('citizens veto') of HB 2305, Voter Suppression Act

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State's Office completed its review of the petitions for the referendum ("citizens veto") of HB 2305, the Voter Suppression Act. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reported, Secretary of State knocks 2,300 signatures from HB2305 referendum effort:

The coalition fighting the election law approved by the Legislature this year filed 139,161 signatures that passed the first round of verification from the Secretary of State’s Office.

The office tossed 237 petition sheets containing more than 2,300 signatures for technical reasons. An unreported number of individual signatures were also thrown out for technical reasons, said Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

* * *

The remaining signatures must have an overall validity rate of roughly 62 percent in order to force a referendum against the law. Referendum backers like Robbie Sherwood, spokesman for the Protect Your Right to Vote Campaign, are confident enough of the signatures will be validated to make it happen.

“To lose less than 5 percent (on the first review) we thought was very good, and we were very happy with that. Certainly it’s not over, and we’re not counting our chickens before they hatch, but we’re confident we’ll have the signatures,” he said.

The Secretary of State’s Office announced Monday that it is sending a random 5 percent sample of the 139,161 signatures to each of the state’s 15 county recorders, who will check the validity of signatures from their counties.

Within 15 days of receiving the 5 percent sample, each county must calculate the percentage of valid signatures from registered voters in the county and return the petition sheets, along with the total validity rate, back to the Secretary of State’s Office.

Arizona GOP voter suppression efforts follow the lead of Kris Kobach

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Nativist anti-immigrant lawyer Kris Kobach, the athor of Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) and SB 1070 (despite disgraced former Sen. Russell Pearce's claims of authorship to the contrary), has a plan to get around the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June striking down the proof of citizenship requirement to register to vote in Arizona's Prop. 200 and a similar law in Kansas, where Kobach unbelievably is now Secretary of State. Kris Kobach's Bold New Plan to Keep People From Voting:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has become a national figure by advising other states on how to implement anti-immigrant and voter suppression measures, has come up with a new creative way to make it harder for Kansans to vote: barring those who register to vote with a federal form from casting ballots in state elections.

Back in June, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona elections law that required those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship beyond what is required by federal voter registration forms. In Kansas, Kobach has been struggling to deal with the implementation of a similar proof-of-citizenship law, which has left the voting status of at least 12,000 Kansans in limbo.

These voters, many of whom registered with the federal “motor voter” form at the DMV, were supposed to have their citizenship information automatically updated, a process that was delayed by a computer glitch. Kobach then suggested that these 12,000 voters be forced to cast provisional ballots – a suggestion that the state elections board rejected.

Now, the Lawrence Journal-World reports, Kobach has a new idea to deal with the problem that he created. The paper reports that Kobach is considering a plan to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case by creating two classes of voters. Under this plan, those who register with a federal form would be allowed to vote only in federal elections until they produced the state-required citizenship documents. Those who meet the state registration requirements would then be allowed to vote in state-level elections.

First Monday in October: SCOTUS preview

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are a number of controversial cases already on the U.S. Supreme Court docket for its 2013-2014 term, none more so than "Son of Citizens United," the McCutcheon v. FEC case to be argued tomorrow. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog.com has a preview:

Today is the first Monday in October, which means that this morning the Justices will return to the bench for the first time since they issued a series of historic rulings at the end of June.  In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage looks ahead at the new Term, which he characterizes as one that “gives the court’s conservative bloc a clear opportunity to shift the law to the right on touchstone social issues such as abortion, contraception and religion, as well as the political controversy over campaign funding”; at BuzzFeed, Chris Geidner lists his eleven cases “that could change the U.S. in the coming year.”

The editorial board of The New York Times weighs in on the new Term as well, emphasizing that, although “[n]o case yet promises the high-profile splash of rulings on national health care, voting rights or same-sex marriage, . . . in many of them, long-established Supreme Court precedents may be at risk.”  And in the ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky focuses on the Court’s October sitting, concluding that there is “every reason to believe that October Term 2013 will again involve decisions that affect not only the law and legal system, but each of us, often in the most important and intimate aspects of our lives.”

Tomorrow the Court will hear oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which it will consider the constitutionality of aggregate limits on campaign contributions.  Lyle previewed the case for us last week, while Carolyn Shapiro has a video preview at ISCOTUSnow.  The case is also the focus of the Room for Debate page of The New York Times, where debaters include Richard Hasen (who also has extensive links to coverage of the case at his Election Law Blog), Ilya Shapiro, Bradley Smith, Ciara Torres-Spellicsy, and Elizabeth Wydra; other coverage comes from Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice, who observes that the Court in Citizens United “made clear it has no qualms about setting corporations free to spend freely on political campaigns,” and contends that “[a]ll signs suggest those five justices are likely to have no qualms about unleashing McCutcheon and other well-heeled contributors as well.”  And at the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, Elizabeth Wydra describes McCutcheon as a case that “could make it even harder for Congress to address one particular issue: the corrupting influence of money in politics.”  Finally, in anticipation of the oral argument in McCutcheon, the latest installment in C-SPAN Radio’s series on historic oral arguments looks back at the oral argument in Colorado GOP Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC.

The Sun Center for campaign finance disclosure / political corruption in Arizona

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A group of watchdog organizations rolled out a new multi-state effort to share information and best practices on campaign finance legislation today, the first step in an effort to force organizations that spend millions on political activity to disclose their donors. New multi-state group pushes campaign disclosure:

California's top campaign finance watchdog announced Thursday a collaboration among multiple states to share information on enforcing disclosure rules.

The 10-state effort, which also includes New York City officials, was a goal of Ann Ravel, the chair of California's Fair Political Practices Commission who is soon leaving for a spot on the Federal Election Commission.

Ravel has repeatedly expressed her concern the federal government isn't doing enough to force disclosure of campaign donations, requiring states to step into the vacuum.

“For the first time, states and cities are banding together to share innovative ideas, strategies and legislation related to campaign finance,” she said in a statement Thursday. 

The collaboration (http://fppc.ca.gov/SUNCenter/) is called States' Unified Network Center, or the SUN Center.

The Tea-Publican tyranny of the minority is because of the Hastert Rule

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The so-called Hastert Rule, the "majority of the majority" to bring a bill to the House floor, is frequently cited by Tea-Publicans. It is an extra-constitutional and undemocratic GOP Caucus rule.

The Hastert Rule empowers a Tea Party minority to engage in a tyranny of the minority. Byron York writes at the Washington Examiner, How 30 House Republicans are forcing the Obamacare fight:

There are 233 Republicans in the House. Insiders estimate that three-quarters of them, or about 175 GOP lawmakers, are willing, and perhaps even eager, to vote for a continuing resolution that funds the government without pressing the Republican goal of defunding or delaying Obamacare.

On the other side, insiders estimate about 30 House Republicans believe strongly that Obamacare is such a far-reaching and harmful law that the GOP should do everything it can --- everything --- to stop it or slow it down. That includes precipitating a standoff leading to a government shutdown. "This isn't just another bill," Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., one of the most vocal of the 30, told me. "This isn't load limits on turnip trucks that we're talking about. This is ... an extremely consequential bill that will impact every American, and that's why you have such passionate opinions."

Another 20 to 30 GOP members sympathize with that position but might be willing to compromise, except for the fact that they fear a primary challenge from the Right.

In the continuing resolution fight, it is the 30 most committed members, along with their 20-30 allies in the next-most-committed group, who are setting the House Republican agenda. The ones pushing for a fight over Obamacare, even if it leads to a shutdown, are controlling what the House does.

Department of Justice aggressively pursues voting rights cases against GOP voter suppression

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports that GOP-led states are moving aggressively on voting rules:

Emboldened by the Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a growing number of Republican-led states are moving aggressively to tighten voting rules. Lawsuits by the Obama administration and voting rights activists say those efforts disproportionately affect minorities.

Last week, a three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled 2-1 to allow the Department of Justice to intervene in the Texas redistricting lawsuit. The Court ruled (.pdf) that "after Shelby County, circumstances changed significantly, since §3(c) became an issue for the first time."

"The parties recognize the importance of the §3(c) claims. Certain Plaintiffs “posit that this particular VRA claim will be critical in resolving the issues in this litigation.” Docket no. 788 at 2. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ briefing on §3(c) illustrates the fact that issues concerning the proper construction and application of §3(c) are unsettled and highly disputed. And the parties recognize that “there is limited judicial guidance available on the application of Section 3(c).” Docket no. 788 at 9. The United States has a direct interest in the construction and application of §3(c) that was not present until after the Shelby County ruling. Therefore, the interest that the United States seeks to protect is not the same interest that was present from the inception of the litigation."

Today, the Department of Justice sued the state of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina over "the worst voter suppression law" in the nation. Read the complaint Here (,pdf).

'Son of Citizens United' in the Supreme Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The first Monday in October marks the opening of the 2013-2014 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court. We are a week away from the Court hearing oral arguments in "Son of Citizens United," McCutcheon v. FEC, a challenge to the overall contribution limits for individual donors to candidates and parties.

Political scientist Norm Ornstein writes at The Atlantic, If You Thought Citizens United Was Bad, Wait for This Supreme Court Case:

On October 8, the Court is going to take up the next big campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC, a challenge to the overall contribution limits for individual donors to candidates and parties, limits that were institutionalized in the Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976 that undergirds Court jurisprudence on campaign finance.

McCutcheon refers to Shaun McCutcheon, who has given a lot of money to Republicans and joined with the Republican National Committee to bring the suit. Their argument starts with the idea that Citizens United’s reasoning — that limits on independent spending by corporations violated the First Amendment — should also apply to limits on what individuals can contribute, in the aggregate, to candidates and parties. Undergirding the argument is the idea that since the Citizens United ruling, parties and candidates have been put at a disadvantage compared with corporations, other groups, and individuals who are allowed to flood political campaigns with money through independent expenditures. Now, the argument goes, we need to compensate by freeing up the parties and candidates to raise more money.

AIRC Update: Arizona Daily Star op-ed condemns Arizona Legislature's lawsuit

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about the filing of the latest GOP lawsuit assault on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) back in August, AIRC Update: Tea-Publican deadbeats sue the AIRC with your tax dollars to overturn Prop. 106 that created the AIRC.

Last Friday, the Arizona Legislature filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and requested consolidation of the hearing with a trial on the merits. Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog posted a good summary. More GOP Legislative Contempt for Arizona Voters...:

Last Friday, attorneys acting on behalf of majority Republicans in the Arizona Legislature filed a brief asking a federal court to essentially immediately and permanently nullify the Congressional district map currently in use.

...Arizona State Legislature hereby moves this Court to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of Article VI, part 2, section 1 of the Arizona Constitution insofar as it takes the power to establish congressional districts away from the Legislature and conveys it to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission; as well as the use of any federal redistricting maps created by the Commission; and additionally moves to consolidate the hearing on this motion with the trial on the merits.

* * *

In explaining their rationale (as irrational as it may be), the GOP counsel states:

In 2000, a voter-generated referendum, Proposition 106 (hereinafter “Prop. 106”), removed the Legislature’s constitutional role in that process and granted it instead to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (hereinafter “IRC”), an unelected, nonrepresentative body.

"Voter-generated referendum" is the code they want to use to hide -- or at least minimize -- the fact that it was really an actual legislative act** conducted by citizen initiative. Technically, yes, the citizens acting in a legislative capacity DID relieve the Legislature of its role in redistricting. I've been over that issue hundreds of times. Case law as cited in the AIRC briefs in this lawsuit makes it crystal clear.

I explained at length in my post above why the case of the Tea-Publican legislators seeking to overturn Prop. 106 in their contempt for the will of the voters is not supported by case precedent and is lacking in merit.

The law of unintended consequences bites J.D. Mesnard in the behind

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) desires to be the next Speaker of the House in the Arizona Legislature in 2015. Of course, Republicans would have to maintain their majority first, but hey.

J.D. Mesnard is currently co-chairing a legislative task force on reforming Arizona's income tax as a vehicle to ride to the speakership. He has run into a couple of embarrassing problems recently which demonstrate that he is not ready for prime time.

First, his legislative task force on reforming Arizona's income tax. The Arizona Capitol Times reports, Doing no harm: Tax overhaul effort stalls over vague goals, concerns about middle class:

After four weeks and three meetings of a task force with intentions to reform, tweak, or overhaul Arizona’s personal income tax system, the members of the group don’t seem closer to deciding what, exactly, they want to accomplish.

It’s an issue that Rep. J.D. Mesnard, a co-chair of the task force and the driving force behind it, has attempted to address at several points in the past few weeks, most recently at the outset of a meeting on Sept. 19.

“I keep getting asked the question, ‘What are we trying to do?’ and my response has always been, ‘Whatever we can to make the system better,’” Mesnard, R-Chandler, told the task force. 

But that’s precisely what lawmakers, economists, tax experts and business leaders can’t seem to settle on, as members of the task force bring their own unique perspective to the state’s tax code and what’s good for taxpayers and the Arizona economy.

“We seem to still be searching for who we are and what we’re doing,” said Rep. Bruce Wheeler, D-Tucson. “And it was made clear today from members on both sides that we need some clarity as to what direction we’re going, because I can’t answer that question.”

AIRC Update: Are Nixon's Plumbers back in business?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I don't know . . . the cops may want to interview G. Gordon Liddy to see if he alibis out. This sounds an awful lot like Nixon's White House Plumbers. I wouldn't put anything past the Tea-Publican operatives who are behind the effort to destroy the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC). Thieves steal computers from redistricting panel:

Burglars hit the offices of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission over the weekend, stealing portable computers, paperwork and a staffer’s personal effects.

Ray Bladine, the commission’s executive director, said staffers discovered the burglary Monday morning, when they arrived at work. The burglar or burglars entered through a ground-floor sash window on the north side of the commission’s office, which is in a 120-year-old Queen Anne-style building. An alarm system apparently did not work.

“Some of the files were turned over on the floor,” Bladine said. “All of the portable computers but one were stolen.”

He said he didn’t suspect any political motivation for the break-in, although the commission has been at the center of heated partisan debate for more than two years and is the subject of three ongoing lawsuits challenging the new political boundaries it drew for Congress and the Legislature. The state Department of Public Safety’s major-crimes unit is investigating.

(Update) Lawsuit to challenge the initiative to bankrupt the City of Tucson - stick a fork in it, it's done

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You can stick a fork in it, it's done. State high court rejects pension initiative appeal:

The Arizona Supreme Court declined to make an expedited ruling on the Committee for Sustainable Retirement Benefits appeal to overturn an appellate court decision that booted the initiative from the November ballot.

The Supreme Court said they would review the appellate court decision at a later date, but the deadline to make this year’s ballot was Monday at 5 p.m.

As I previously posted:

Here is the question the Tucson media has yet to demonstrate any interest in answering. Paul Jacob and his Liberty Initiative Fund specializes in ballot measures. Jacob did not pick Tucson at random for this pension initiative. Someone in Tucson brought this guy to town for this initiative. The individuals fronting for the Committee for Sustainable Retirement -- Joseph LaRusso, sales director for Western Emissions, Inc., and Jack Heather, a CPA, PLLC -- are not the individuals responsible for bringing this out-of-state agitator to Tucson. That would be someone among the usual suspects in the GOP hierarchy in Pima County.

The Tucson media has an obligation to discover and to report who is really behind this Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201), and to find out what is driving this plot to financially bankrupt the City of Tucson and to turn us into Detroit. Start digging, the public is entitled to know the answers.

The local Tucson media is covering up for the usual suspects in the GOP hierarchy in Pima County by failing to report on who is really behind the Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201). The coward ought to come forward and take ownership.

Here is the question the Tucson media has yet to demonstrate any interest in answering. Paul Jacob and his Liberty Initiative Fund specializes in ballot measures. Jacob did not pick Tucson at random for this pension initiative. Someone in Tucson brought this guy to town for this initiative. The individuals fronting for the Committee for Sustainable Retirement -- Joseph LaRusso, sales director for Western Emissions, Inc., and Jack Heather, a CPA, PLLC -- are not the individuals responsible for bringing this out-of-state agitator to Tucson. That would be someone among the usual suspects in the GOP hierarchy in Pima County.

The Tucson media has an obligation to discover and to report who is really behind this Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201), and to find out what is driving this plot to financially bankrupt the City of Tucson and to turn us into Detroit. Start digging, the public is entitled to know the answers.

The local Tucson media is covering up for the usual suspects in the GOP hierarchy in Pima County by failing to report on who is really behind the Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201). The coward ought to come forward and take ownership.

Two blockbuster reports on the 'Kochtopus' dark money financing

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When last we heard about the Arizona-based "Kochtopus" dark money group Center to Protect Patient Rights, founded by GOP operative Sean Noble, Peter H. Stone at The Daily Beast reported an Exclusive: California Grand Jury Probing Shadowy Money Groups:

A grand jury is now involved in a high-stakes California probe that is looking into whether a PAC and three so-called dark-money groups—including one with ties to the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch—broke a campaign disclosure law by funneling $11 million from secret sources to influence ballot initiatives in the state’s 2012 election, The Daily Beast has learned.

* * *

One of the three groups that allegedly channeled the funds to California was the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, founded in 2009 by Koch operative Sean Noble, who has emerged in recent cycles as a big player in conservative political and fundraising circles. Noble has spoken at least twice at the billionaire brothers’ biannual conferences aimed at tapping other wealthy conservatives for their favorite projects, and he has been a key strategist at small Washington meetings with other GOP allied groups such as the Karl Rove-founded American Crossroads.

“Sean is the wizard behind the screen” for the Kochs and their network of wealthy donors, said one GOP operative familiar with Noble’s political work.

(Update) The Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) has been struck by the Court of Appeals

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Baseball sage Yogi Berra was right! "It ain't over 'til it's over."

The Plaintiffs challenging the petitions of the Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) filed an appeal from Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner's order on September 3, 2013. (2 CA-CV 2013-0120).

On September 12, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs/appellants, rejected the cross-appeal by counsel for the initiative committee, and remanded the case back to Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner with instructions to grant the injunctive relief requested by plaintiffs to prevent Prop. 201 from being printed on ballots:

Having considered the briefs filed by the parties and the oral arguments before this court in this expedited election appeal, see Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 8.1, this court has determined that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiffs/appellants/cross-appellees’ challenge as to the validity of certain signatures obtained by circulators of City of Tucson Initiative Petition 2013-1004. We further conclude the cross-appeal raises no issues warranting relief. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court which is directed by 2:00 p.m., September 12, 2013, to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs/appellants/cross-appellees and to enter an injunction pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(C). A written opinion will follow. 

That mandate for injunction does not yet appear on the Pima County Superior Court docket for this case.

Protect Your Right to Vote delivers 146,000 signatures for referendum

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The "citizens veto" (referendum) of the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, has more than enough signatures to qualify for the 2014 ballot. Thanks to all the many hundreds of volunteers for your hard work and dedication in collecting signatures during a blazing hot Arizona summer.

Your right to vote is sacrosanct, and those GOP legislators who sought to suppress your right to vote need to be defeated at the ballot box, and HB 2305 "vetoed."

The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee has posted the following press release: Protect Your Right to Vote delivers 146,000 signatures to refer HB2305 to the ballot:

PHOENIX – The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee today delivered approximately 146,000 petition signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State to put the Legislature’s attempt to get tough on Arizona voters to a vote of the people. An unprecedented coalition of more than 25 non-profit civic engagement organizations joined together to stand up for Arizona voting rights and put House Bill 2305 on the Nov. 2014 ballot. The Legislature passed the bill -- which changed almost 20 separate areas of election law with virtually no public testimony-- by a near party-line vote in June. The Committee is confident it has enough valid signatures to exceed the 86,405 threshold to put the referendum on the ballot, said Chairwoman Julie Erfle.

“Voters will have their say after all,” said Erfle. “It was wrong for career politicians to try and influence elections by putting up roadblocks for voters who might not agree with them and to make criminals out of dedicated campaign volunteers. As we gathered signatures, even in the heat of an Arizona summer and in the face of efforts to block our signature drive, we were inspired by the willingness of Arizonans to stand up for voting rights. We found strong support from voters of all political stripes, persuasions and backgrounds. That does not bode well for the authors and supporters of HB2305, including many Arizona legislators.”

(Update) HB 2305 signature filing and press conference today

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from Protect Your Right to Vote Committee:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sept. 10, 2013 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Robbie Sherwood
(480) 246-7944
[email protected]

Protect Your Right to Vote to deliver signatures referring HB2305 to the ballot

The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee, a broad and diverse coalition of more than 20 organizations working together to put House Bill 2305 to a vote of the people, will deliver petition signatures to the Secretary of State office Wednesday afternoon. Chairwoman Julie Erfle and representatives from participating organizations will be present and available for media interviews.

What: The Protect Your Right to Vote Committee will file petition signatures to the Secretary of State office. Numerous volunteers from more than 20 different organizations contributed to the effort since signature gathering began on July 1. More information about HB2305 can be found here.

Who: Volunteers from more than 20 organizations will be on hand to deliver the collected signatures. Committee chairwoman Julie Erfle and other Committee leaders will be available for a photo and video opportunities, and to answer questions regarding the effort to repeal HB2305.

When: 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Where: Lobby of Arizona Executive Tower, 1700 W. Washington St., 1st floor.

HB 2305 signature filing and press conference

Postd by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Advocacy Network announces an HB2305 Signature turn in/press event:

HB 2305 Signature filing and Press Conference

We are headed to the ballot!

Be part of history making and join Arizona Advocacy Network and partners
to file the signatures

to refer the anti-voter bill HB2305 to the ballot

Join us and represent the breadth of our coalition!

Meet us inside the Capitol executive tower at 1:00PM to be a part of this event

We will need a few people to come at 12:30 to help unload all the boxes into the building. Please let us know if you can come earlier!

Arizona Secretary of State Office, 1700 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007

(Update) Special Action challenge to the consolidated elections bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In 2012, Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) sponsored HB 2826 (consolidated election dates; political subdivisions), a bill providing for the consolidation of elections in the fall of even numbered years only. The law would apply to elections in 2014 and thereafter.

On August 13, 2013, Judge James E. Marner of the Pima County Superior Court struck down HB 2826 after trial of this matter to the court in City of Tucson v. State of Arizona et al. (Case No. C20126272). Judge Marner ruled in favor of the cities of Tucson and Phoenix, and against the Arizona legislature. The 10 page ruling is Here.

There is some dispute as to whether the judge's ruling applies only to the party litigants to the lawsuit, the cities of Tucson and Phoenix, or whether the legal reasoning of the ruling extends to all charter cities.

The parties have 30 days to file an appeal, but so far, no notice of appeal has been filed. This is somewhat surprising given the legislature's desire to impose consolidated election dates, and the question surrounding the scope of the court's ruling.

In a related matter, in the final hours of the 2013 session Rep. Michelle Ugenti "logrolled" two unrelated matters, her home owners association bill with Sen. Kimberly Yee's election reforms bill -- which, among other things, required cities to conform their election dates to the state elections calendar -- into a single bill, SB 1454. This violated Arizona's constitutional "single-subject" rule. See Chapter 254 Session Laws for the provisions. SB 1454l was also subject to a lawsuit.

The media might want to take a closer look at Ben Buehler Garcia's campaign finance report

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have been reviewing the campaign finance report of Tea-Publican Tucson City Council candidate Ben Buehler Garcia, and there are some "irregularities" that I am still working on.

But just for fun, here is one from page 20 of BBG’s report that really stands out:

If you have trouble reading this, it says:

Arizona, Leadership
6512 Desert Fairways Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85253

Say what now? That zip code is not in Tucson. It is in Paradise Valley, Arizona. And do you know who lives at that address? The Arizona Secretary of State knows:

That's right, the "Deuce," state Treasurer Doug Ducey, who is running for governor in 2014. This would explain listing his "occupation and employer" (required campaign finance disclosure) as "Help Help Help Help." You're going to need it Deuce, with fraudulent campaign finance reporting claiming that you are a Tucson resident, and not disclosing your name, occupation and employer, as required.

Oooh, I can't wait to see what other nuggets of shoddy campaign finance reporting I am going to find in BBG's report.

Final weekend for the 'people's veto' (referendum) of the Voter Suppression Act - HB 2305

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee:

(Update) Lawsuit to challenge the initiative to bankrupt the City of Tucson - appeal filed

Posted by azblueMeanie:

As the great baseball sage Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

The Plaintiffs challenging the petitions of the Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) filed an appeal from Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner's order on September 3, 2013. (2 CA-CV 2013-0120).

Pursuant to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ Notice of Filing Appeal and Notice of Expedited Election Matter Pursuant to ARCAP Rule 8.1(c ) and Request for Scheduling Conference Pursuant to ARCAP 8.1(f),a scheduling conference was held on September 4, 2013. Order below the fold:

How the model pension initiative (Prop. 201) is faring in California

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Yesterday I posted about Tucson and Cincinnati confront the same model pension initiative (Prop. 201): "[T]he ballot language was written by Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law based on measures recently passed in San Diego and San Jose, Calif."

The Los Angeles Times reported in June 2012, 2 big cities OK cuts to worker pension costs:

Landslide victories on ballot measures to cut pension costs in two major California cities emboldened reform advocates, who said they expect a flurry of copycat initiatives. . .

In San Jose, nearly 70% of voters Tuesday approved a plan that gives workers the choice between increasing their pension contribution to 13% of their pay, currently 5% to 11%, or switching to a lower-cost plan with reduced benefits. It also steeply cuts benefits for new hires and tightens rules for disability retirements.

In San Diego, where pension cuts already have been implemented, voters opted to eliminate pensions for new workers. By a 66% to 34% margin, voters Tuesday endorsed Proposition B, which provides newly hired city employees with a 401(k) program, but preserves traditional pensions for new police officers.

* * *

Local pension measures have enjoyed resounding success at the ballot. Before Tuesday's vote, 18 measures to alter a pension system had passed, and only two had failed, both in San Francisco. On average, those measures passed with 62.7% of the vote, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a pension-reform advocacy group.

Tucson and Cincinnati confront the same model pension initiative (Prop. 201)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I mentioned in passing in Tucson City Council Election Preview that the Virginia-based ballot initiative activist Paul Jacob, and his Liberty Initiative Fund, according to his website, is supporting a group called Cincinnati for Pension Reform, which launched a petition drive hoping to gather the 7,443 voter signatures required to place a pension reform charter amendment on this November’s city ballot.

The Tea Party-backed amendment that would semi-privatize Cincinnati’s ailing pension system gathered enough signatures earn a place on the November ballot. German Lopez for the City Beat blog at the Cincinnati Enquirer on August 12 wrote, Pension Amendment Earns Spot on November Ballot:

City officials acknowledge the issues with the current pension system, but they claim the tea party-backed amendment would exacerbate cost problems and reduce payments to future city retirees.

“Under the guise of ‘reform,’ a well-financed out-of-state group is pushing an amendment that spells economic disaster for the future city retirees and the city’s budget,” Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls said in a statement. “Current and future retirees need an income they can live on. This amendment is a budget-buster for retirees and the city.”

City Council condemned the amendment in a resolution unanimously passed on Aug. 7.

Complete your HB 2305 petitions this week and turn them in by this weekend

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have seen some emails and Facebook posts containing incorrect information about the citizens referendum ("citizens veto") of HB 2305, the Voter Suppression Act. The deadline to file the petitions with the Secretary of State is Thursday, September 12. However, because the petitions have to be checked for completeness, the signatures verified against the voter registration records, and organized for delivery to the Secretary of State, you should make every effort to complete your petitions this week and to deliver them to your local county Democratic Party headquarters or the Protect Your Right To Vote Committee (protectourvoteaz.org) by this weekend. (Information below the fold).

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports that Election law referendum organizers say they’re ‘on track’:

The deadline is approaching fast but organizers of a citizen referendum drive against a wide-ranging elections bill say they’re on track to get enough signatures to put HB2305 on the 2014 ballot.

Arizona Libertarian Party Vice Chair Barry Hess, a member of the coalition attempting to refer HB2305 to the ballot, said the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee has collected and verified nearly 86,405 signatures, the number it needs to put the law on hold and force a public vote in the November 2014 election. He said he fully expects the committee to exceed its goal of 120,000 signatures, to provide a cushion against invalid signatures.

“We’re going to the ballot,” Hess told the Arizona Capitol Times. “We are close enough that there’s not a question, with verified signatures.”

(Update) Lawsuit to challenge the initiative to bankrupt the City of Tucson

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On August 16, 2013, Judge James E. Marner ruled in the case of Yolanda Parker et al. v. City of Tucson et. al. (C20134029), the lawsuit to challenge the sufficiency of the initiative petitions filed by the Committee for Sustainable Retirement, the local front group for ballot initiative activist Paul Jacob and the Liberty Initiative Fund. You can read the 13 page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ruling Here (.pdf).

Judge Marner disqualified a large number of signatures. The Tucson City Clerk was ordered to remove invalid petition sheets and to recalculate the number of signatures eligible for verification and submit the appropriate number of signatures in the form of random sample to the Pima County Recorder's Office by no later than August 23, 2013. Upon receipt of the newly calculated error rate, the Tucson City Clerk was to recalculate the projected number of valid signatures as mandated by A.R.S. §19-121.01 and certify the initiatve as either qualified or disqualified to appear on the ballot.

Counsel for the Committee for Sustainable Retirement, Lisa Hauser, filed a Motion For Stay and Motion For Reconsideration on August 22, 2013. You can read the motion Here.