SCOTUS tosses AZ law requiring proof of citizenship to vote & UPDATE

Election integrity thrown a curve by high court

In a ruling this morning, the U. S. Supreme Court said individual states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system to register to vote.

Arizona’s voter approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” registration law was effectively tossed on its head by a 7-2 vote of the justices.

On March 18, 2013, Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne brought the issue of our state’s Voting Rights Act — requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote — to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he argued on its behalf. (Read his oral argument under link.) Our earlier post and additional background can be viewed here.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Justices Clarence Thomas (Bush) and Samuel Alito (G.W. Bush) dissented.

Scalia (Reagan) disappointingly joined by Chief Justice John Roberts (G.W. Bush) voted in concert with liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton), Stephen Breyer (Clinton), Sonia Sotomayor (Obama), and Elena Kagan (Obama). Justice Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) filed an opinion con­curring in part and concurring in the judgment

After the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004, Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The genesis of this issue goes back to 2004, when Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 to 830,467 – the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.

Although the case focuses on Arizona –  a border state that is the major portal for illegal alien trafficking, it has broader implications since four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have enacted similar requirements. Twelve other states are contemplating such legislation.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas, a Bush appointee to the court,  said “The Constitution authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”

This outrageous opinion neuters the ability of states to pass laws to inhibit non-citizens from getting on their voting rolls.

The U. S. Supreme Court’s 51-page decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. can be read here.

 
Note: Names of the presidents who made the judicial appointment are in parentheses.

AZ AG Tom Horne: US Supreme Court Decision Shows Ultimate Path for Arizona Victory

Attorney General Horne’s Press Release addressing today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision can be read here. Watch this just released video.

 

9th Circus Court overturns AZ law barring late term abortions

Last summer, we wrote that U.S. District Court Judge James A. Teilborg ruled HB 2036, titled Mother’s Health & Safety Act, “is constitutional,” denying the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Reproductive Rights’ request to stop the law from taking effect. The bill prohibiting most abortions after 20 weeks into a pregnancy was signed into law by Gov. Brewer.

The Court wrote “Given the nature of [abortion procedures], and the finding that the unborn child has developed pain sensors all over its body by 20 weeks gestational age, the Court finds that the State has shown a legitimate interest in limiting abortions past 20 weeks.”

“Furthermore, Arizona expressed concerns for the health of the pregnant woman, finding that the instance of complications is highest after 20 weeks of gestation. This additional legitimate interest further supports HB 2036 regulations on abortions.”

Today in a 44-page opinion, the liberal and appropriately nicknamed Ninth Circus Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s order, denying declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs and held that the Constitution does not permit the Arizona legislature to prohibit abortion beginning at twenty weeks gestation, “before the fetus is viable.”

The case Isaacson v. Horne, (link) was argued before a three member panel of Circuit Judges Mary M. Schroeder, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Marsha S. Berzon.

Has the ubiquitous and multifaceted maverick, John McCain, already enmeshed in granting amnesty to illegals, nosing into cable and satellite television offerings and being vexed by having to continually update his iphone apps, also found time to peddle his squishy abortion views to the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals?

SC Justice Thomas: Obama approved by elites, media

Justice’s integrity contrasts president’s political opportunism, America bashing

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his dignity and quiet contemplation on the court, rarely speaking from the bench during oral arguments. The NY Times detailed his practice here.

Yet he was open and revealing during an April 9th interview at Duquesne Law School in Pittsburgh, Penn., carried on CSPAN.  The conservative justice offered some candid insight into his thoughts about politics, the media and the election of Barack Obama.

When asked how he felt about the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, Thomas skillfully analyzed Obama’s presidency, saying he always knew it would have to be a person who was “approved by the elites and the media, because if it was someone who they didn’t agree with, that person would be picked apart — so, I always assumed it would be somebody the media had to agree with.”

He also said that he wasn’t interested in politics. “I just don’t like politics,” he said. “I like history, I like things of substance; I don’t understand politics.”

Thomas said he had only met Obama in passing, shaking his hand at the inauguration, but never engaging in an in-depth conversation.  It would appear the two men — political polar opposites – would have little to converse about.

Here is the haughty Obama during his recent trip to Mexico blaming American guns for the high crime and violence in Mexico. He conveniently forgot his Justice Department’s disasterous Fast and Furious gun-running program — given insufficient media coverage even after the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on the Arizona border by members of a Mexican drug cartel  – proving Justice Thomas’ point:

Flores v. AZ: Tim Hogan’s never ending case

Back in 2009, in a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major step toward ending what was then a 17-year legal battle in the Flores v. Arizona case. In their opinion, the justices wrote that lower courts erred by placing extraordinary focus on forcing Arizona to spend more money to assist English Language-Learner (ELL) students.

At the time, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote, the Court of Appeals “improperly substituted its own policy judgments for those of the state and local officials entrusted with the decision.”

Flores was sent back to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to consider whether Arizona had complied with civil-rights law by improving both English-learner programs and K-12 education policies.

The case was argued by Arizona’s then-Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne. He served in that capacity from 2003 – 2011. Horne was elected Arizona Attorney General in 2010. He and Jim Weiers, then-Speaker of the Arizona House were listed as petitioners.

The majority opinion was issued by Justice Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer filed the 47-page dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter. If you’re so inclined, the Supreme Court’s 89-page opinion can be read here.

Fast forward to 2013. The lawsuit has reached the ripe old age of 21. And whad’ya know? A federal court decision last month upholding the state’s English Language Learner programs is being appealed by Tim Hogan of the left-of-center Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. The case is now renamed Flores v. Huppenthal. Associate Justices Souter (replaced by Sonia Sotomayor) and John Paul Stevens (replaced by Elena Kagan) have retired.

Today the State Superintendent of Public Instruction is fomer state senator John Huppenthal. He contends ELL students are making progress in the English program. Most test out of the program within three years. He believes the state will prevail in the lawsuit.

Tim Hogan remains, still representing the plaintiffs. Of his career-long case, Hogan has this to say. “We just think the district court judge has gotten the law wrong.”

The Center for Law in the Public Interest refers to itself as a “non-profit.” Obviously Hogan has been making a living from this long-in-the-tooth case.  What’s the funding source?

The daily’s coverage of this ongoing bonanza can be read here.

Judges: hike “court fees” to fund our benefits

Phoenix voters recently passed two pension reform ballot measures aimed at curbing benefits for new city employees. Although the union-supported plans were more cosmetic tinkering than meaningful actions, they shed light on seriously underfunded and economically unsustainable retirement plans. 

Now we hear that the judiciary wants to be spared from similar reforms. The issue was dire enough to bring Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca Berch and Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Judge Norm Davis down the street to the state legislature to urge the Arizona Senate Finance Committee to exempt judges from a bill that would create a more streamlined 401(k) style retirement plan for future Arizona elected officials — which includes the judiciary.

The Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan (EORP), the most generous of Arizona’s public pension systems, is significantly underfunded and carries a high price tag for taxpayers. To keep the program in place for future recipients, the judges came up with a bit of mathematical wizardry — increased court fees –  to subsidize the benefits of future elected officials and judges. These outrageous mandatory surcharges, among the highest in the nation, already add an incredible  83% on top of imposed fines and penalties. Fees, fines and surcharges assessed against criminal defendants are statutory and are imposed statewide. The 23-page fee schedule can be seen here.

The daily reports, the judges provided few specific details during Wednesday’s hearing on the ultimate cost of their plan. They also declined to provide details to a reporter after the hearing. A group representing the judges plans to meet privately Monday with legislators who are pushing for pension reform to craft a deal without public input.

“I’m not here to talk about the details,” Justice Berch told the committee. “Frankly, I think the details ought to be hashed out not in a committee meeting but in a private meeting afterwards.”

The news report also states that for the fiscal year that ended June 30, public funds paid into the trust for elected officials totaled $21.7 million, while contributions from politicians themselves totaled $6.8 million.

A knotty problem indeed.  And one that should not be shouldered by those folks engaged in already costly court proceedings.  The judges and other politicos might just have to chip in a bit more to ensure their own futures.

SCOTUS: Read AG Horne’s Prop. 200 oral arguments

Monday Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne brought the issue of our state’s Voting Rights Act — requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote — to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he argued on its behalf. Our earlier post and additional background can be viewed here.

The genesis of this issue goes back to 2004, when Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 to 830,467 – the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, on the ballot as Proposition 200.  The intent of the sound measure was to insure that only valid citizens participated in elections. On the heels of its passage, a lawsuit challenging the law was filed by liberal activist groups.

The complete 75-page transcript of the oral argument in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc. can be read here.

Audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after conference. We intend to post the audio when it becomes available.

AZ AG Horne argues Voting Rights Act to SCOTUS

Protecting the integrity of elections

Today is the day that Arizona’s argument supporting voter integrity will be heard, as Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne takes the case State of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona before the justices of the United States Supreme Court at 10 a.m.  He will be allotted thirty minutes to make his presentation.

As a review: In 2004, Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 – 830,467 –  the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, on the ballot as Proposition 200 — a commonsense measure intended to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting in elections. On the heels of its passage, a lawsuit challenging the law was filed by liberal activist groups.

After Arizona citizens passed the referendum, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the first part of the referendum was pre-empted by Federal law. This ruling came in tandem with an intentionally misleading brief from the Civil Rights Division of Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Hans A. von Spakovsky writing for National Review provides excellent background.

Sandra O’Connor — the left-of-center “cowgirl from Arizona,” who duped conservative Ronald Reagan in 1981 when he appointed her to the U.S. Supreme Court — sat on the Ninth Circuit panel that gutted the law.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne requested an “en banc rehearing” of the matter, in which an 11-judge panel reconsiders the ruling issued by the three-judge panel. He personally argued the case. The Court ruled that requiring voter I.D. on Election Day is permissible, but that Arizona could not ask for evidence of citizenship when people register to vote. Instead, the Court ruled that Arizona would have to trust the signature on the form affirming they are citizens.

This March 4, 2013 commentary by Attorney General Tom Horne was originally printed as a “My Turn“ piece in the daily. Titled “Preclearance of voting laws now irrational,” it provides key information regarding the Arizona’s voting rights issue.

Yesterday, that same newspaper ran “High court should help Arizona protect elections,” by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett — whose office oversees elections — in which he writes, “…citizenship is the foundation from which eligibility is derived. Proposition 200 protects election integrity by ensuring voter eligibility. Requiring evidence of citizenship at the time of registration is an important safeguard against non-citizen voter fraud. Otherwise, the only protection would be the applicant’s sworn statement that they are a citizen. Do we believe that someone who would falsely claim citizenship on the federal voter-registration form would also commit voter fraud in an election? Is that fair to the voters who legally cast a ballot? Don’t they have a right to a fair and fraud-free election?

Our political process depends on a system of elections that empowers citizens with the ability to exercise their most fundamental of rights: the right to vote. It is the role of government to provide voters with a sense of confidence in the voting system.”

Secretary of State Bennett is correct. Godspeed Attorney General Horne.  Arizona’s citizens are fortune to have these two principled men serving in state office.

Debra Milke conviction overturned: Latest 9th Circus travesty & UPDATE

 Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announces intention to appeal

In what has to rank as one of the most outrageous rulings from the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel on Thursday threw out the murder conviction of a woman sentenced to death in the notorious and vicious plot that took the life of her own 4-year-old son.

In 1989, Debra Milke, whose live-in boyfriend James Styers was not interested in dealing with the child, arranged for Styers and his friend Roger Scott to take little Christopher to the desert outside Phoenix, where he was shot three times in the back of the head. Milke had told the little boy, dressed in his favorite outfit, he was going to the mall to see Santa Claus.

During the trial, prosecutors described a plot by Milke and the two other defendants to collect a $50,000 life insurance policy taken out on the child.

German-born Milke, 48, is one of three women on Arizona’s death row. The two men are both on death row in Arizona State Prison in Florence. Scott confessed during a police interrogation, later leading detectives to the boy’s body in a desert wash.

The three-judge panel was comprised of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski — who wrote the opinion, and Circuit Judges Jerome Farris and Carlos T. Bea. The 60-page opinion can be read here.

Kozinski was nominated by Ronald Reagan. Farris, by Jimmy Carter, and Carlos Bea by George W. Bush.

Debra Milke’s prison data base can be viewed here. James Styers’ can be viewed here. Roger Scott’s is here.

The ruling reversed a U.S. District Court judge’s previous ruling and ordered the lower court to require Arizona authorities to turn over all relevant personnel records for former Detective Armando Saldate Jr., accused of violating the suspects’ Miranda rights during interrogations. Once the material is produced and defense attorneys have reviewed it, prosecutors will have 30 days to decide whether to retry Milke. In the event they don‘t, she will be released from prison.

Maricopa County prosecutors had not read the ruling and had no immediate comment on the decision, according to a spokesman. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the case gauging the possibility of filing an appeal.

We’ve previously written about the antics of this most overturned court in the nation. Here, here, here, and here.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne released the following statement today regarding the decision of a three-member Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel to throw out the death sentence and murder conviction of Debra Milke:

“We will be appealing this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court takes the appeal, I will argue it personally as I have done in two previous cases over the past five months. In my last case, the Supreme Court accepted my argument and overruled the Ninth Circuit’s decision unanimously.

In this case, Ms. Milke was found to have arranged the killing of her own son, a four-year-old toddler, because he was too much of a burden and interfering with her life. After dressing him up and telling him he was going to the mall to see Santa Claus, Milke was convicted of sending her young son off to be shot, execution style, in a desert wash.

This is a horrible crime. The Ninth Circuit’s decision needs to be reversed, and justice for Christopher needs to be served.”

AZ AG Horne victory: Judge upholds ethnic studies ban

Sanity prevails

Federal District Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima has ruled on Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) appeal of the ban on the ethnocentric Mexican American Studies (MAS) Program, upholding the ban. The law was held to be constitutional, with one minor exception, Section (A)(3).

Judge Tashima said objections did not “meet the high threshold to establish a constitutional violation.” The 31-page ruling can be read here.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, was formerly the two-term elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction when this issue arose. Horne, who personally argued the case in U.S. District Court in Tucson, issued this statement after the decision was announced: “This is a victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”  His complete statement can be read here. The order was enforced the last day of Horne’s term and enacted by incoming Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, whose name appears on the ruling. A search of his website lacked any press release regarding this defining issue for his office.

As Superintendent, Horne protested the program and was instrumental in passage of HB 2281 which “prohibits a school district or charter school from including courses or classes that either promote the overthrow of the United States government or promote resentment toward a race or class of people.” (Complete bill information here).

Interestingly, Horne had an unlikely ally in his efforts: The Arizona Republic.  On Jan. 4, 2011, the newspaper ran an editorial rightfully calling the data used to buttress the claims “repeated constantly by [the program’s] defenders that students perform better academically as a result of taking ethnic studies classes and that they go on to college more often” — “academically unsupportable.” Further the newspaper stated that officials who make such claims “are acting irresponsibly in doing so.” The editorial goes so far as to say the results “appear rigged.”

Enforcement of the law resulted in cancellation of TUSD’s racially discriminatory Mexican-American Studies Program after an independent Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the program presented material in a “biased, political, and emotionally charged manner.” The ALJ also stated: “Teaching in such a manner promotes social or political activism against white people, promotes racial resentment, and advocates ethnic solidarity instead of treating people as individuals.”

Readers can refresh their memories regarding this ongoing and radical saga here.  Horne was killed in effigy by students as a thuggish mob of La Raza Studies supporters tried to shout down the Attorney General.

9th Circus Appeals Court supports illegal day laborers’ free speech

In his 35-page opinion, published Monday, Judge Raymond C. Fisher, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling against a section of SB 1070, concluding that the law infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed right to commercial speech accorded illegal alien day laborers congregating on Arizona streets soliciting work.

The daily newspaper doesn’t disappoint. In the single initial sentence in the República’s report, Arizona’s nationally copied immigration law is described using the word “controversial” that is stuck on the keyboards of the reporters and always accompanies any mention of SB1070 or its requirements.

Here is the conclusion in the case Valle Del Sol v. Whiting: “Laws that limit commercial speech must not be more extensive than necessary to serve a substantial government interest. The district court correctly determined that, though Arizona has a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, the day labor provisions fail Central Hudson’s requirement that restrictions on commercial speech be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction are satisfied. We therefore affirm the preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the day labor provisions.”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s spokesman Matthew Benson said the governor is conferring with her legal team to decide whether to appeal. “The governor thinks this is an important tool to give law enforcement,” Benson said.

The injunction was first imposed in February 2012 when Phoenix-based U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled that statutes prohibiting potential employers from stopping their cars to hire and pick up day laborers soliciting work are unconstitutional.

Judge Fisher and Judge Bolton are both Clinton appointees.

Last December Gateway Pundit reported that the Mexican government filed court documents against Arizona’s SB1070, claiming the law punishes those who harbor illegal aliens and urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block part of the Arizona immigration law.  In the most arrogant of legal filings, attorneys for Mexico claimed the provision of SB1070 “poses a real threat to Mexico-U.S. bilateral relations.”

Here is Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne responding to Mexico’s outrageous attempts to block our law. Horne says, “If a federal court can invalidate an otherwise valid state law on the grounds that a foreign country disagrees with it, and therefore we’re interfering with the federal monopoly on foreign relations, state sovereignty is suffering a terrible damage and this is a very dangerous kind of argument.”