by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 4, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona Republican legislators are seeking cooperation from county election officials on a state law pertaining to elections.
Late last month, a coalition of Republican state House members wrote to county recorders and election officials around the state after an initial panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed a law on proof of citizenship requirements for State Voter Registration forms to go into effect.
The letter, which was signed by Republican members of the House Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee, called on these officials around the state to “reject Arizona’s state-specific voter registration form submissions that lack documentary proof of citizenship,” and to “remove foreign citizens from your voter rolls.”
These legislators highlighted the law that was allowed by the Ninth Circuit – A.R.S. 16.121.01 (C), which reads: “C. Except for a form produced by the United States election assistance commission, any application for registration shall be accompanied by satisfactory evidence of citizenship as prescribed in § 16-166, subsection F, and the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of citizenship. A county recorder or other officer in charge of elections who knowingly fails to reject an application for registration as prescribed by this subsection is guilty of a class 6 felony.”
They added, “This law, which the Legislature passed in 2022, is critical to the integrity of Arizona’s elections. It also prevails over the 2018 Consent Decree entered into by the Arizona Secretary of State and Maricopa County Recorder in League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona v. Reagan, No. 2: l 7-cv-04102- DGC (D. Ariz. June 18, 2018). Consequently, enforcement of A.R.S. § 16-121.0l(C) should ease your respective offices’ administrative burdens because you are no longer required to search the Arizona Department of Transportation database to search for evidence of citizenship on behalf of an applicant who does not supply citizenship documentation.”
Just days later, another panel on the Ninth Circuit reversed the order that had justified and warranted this letter to county officials.
The members who signed the letter were Representatives Jacqueline Parker, Alexander Kolodin, Justin Heap, Rachel Jones, and Austin Smith.
The most-recent decision from the Ninth Circuit is expected to quickly make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States in an attempt to obtain emergency consideration.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 3, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Around two weeks after its initial ruling allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voter registrations, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling from its motions panel.
That means that state voter registration forms may be accepted without proof of citizenship, as they have been since the LULAC Consent Decree went into effect over eight years ago.
The LULAC Consent Decree was the end result of a lawsuit against Arizona’s requirements of documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC). Under the consent decree, Arizona agreed to accept state voter registration forms without DPOC and register them as federal-only voters. Once a court approves a consent decree, it carries the same weight and enforcement of a final judgment.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) prohibits Arizona from requiring DPOC of voters registering with the federal voter registration form.
In the 2-1 ruling for Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the court determined that the motions panel overlooked specific considerations pertaining to election cases and “misunderstood the extent of confusion and chaos” such a change to election rules that the contested legislation, ARS 16-121.01(C), had brought.
The court stated that the state legislature’s new enactment of a DPOC requirement for state forms was an “upset [to] the status quo” because it altered voter registration rules shortly before the primary election last month, and well into the registration timeline for the upcoming election.
“The motions panel overlooked this fundamental principle of judicial restraint, resulting in manifest injustice to voters and election officials alike,” said the court.
The Ninth Circuit also wrote that the DPOC requirement caused elections officials to choose between violating the state law, a class 6 felony, or violating the consent decree provisions within the Election Procedures Manual, a class 2 misdemeanor. The court characterized this as a “manifest injustice” carried out by the motions panel.
“Elections officials are now subject to conflicting criminal penalties, orders, and policies. Identically situated voter registration applicants are treated differently depending on the voter registration application form they picked up,” said the court. “All Arizonans must now navigate an arcane web of shifting and confusing rules that will without a doubt dissuade some who are otherwise eligible and willing from exercising the fundamental right to vote.”
The court wrote that nothing would change the outcome of their ruling, unless the LULAC Consent Decree was modified or set aside.
“Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants offer no authority to suggest that a state legislature may nullify a final judgment entered by an Article III court which Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants have not sought to set aside, modify, or otherwise terminate,” stated the court.
The court also rejected the argument that striking DPOC would cause irreparable harm to either the Republican National Committee or lawmakers supportive of the DPOC requirement.
“[T]he RNC has not at any point explained why the use of the State Form to register applicants without accompanying DPOC to vote in federal elections, when identically situated applicants may register for at least federal elections without accompanying DPOC through the Federal Form even with a stay in place, inflicts an irreparable ‘competitive injury’ on the RNC,” said the court.
Counsel defending DPOC for state voter registration forms informed AZ Free News that they intend to file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court at some point within the next week.
The one judge to dissent from the Ninth Circuit Court ruling, Judge Patrick Bumatay, noted that his court had exercised an “irregular and strongly disfavored” power by reconsidering the motion panel’s order, usually reserved for actions by colleagues that amount to “a manifest injustice.” Bumatay disagreed. He said that the lawmakers and other Intervenor-Appellants have proved likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of interests, and public interest.
“With the political nature of this case, we should be especially careful to avoid the use of unconventional or disfavored procedures,” said Butamay.
Butamay contended that the LULAC Consent Decree wasn’t binding on the Arizona legislature. He said that such a perception of permanent judicial power over lawmakers presented separation-of-powers concerns. Further, Butamay argued that the NVRA doesn’t preempt the DPOC requirement, and that the state would face irreparable harm by having its statutory authority enjoined.
Further, Bumatay noted that the significance of this reverse ruling had nothing to do with merit of the claims, but the random assignment of the reconsideration.
“All the public can take away from this episode is that four judges of the Ninth Circuit have voted to partially stay the injunction here, while two other judges voted against it,” said Butamay. “The two judges prevail — not because of any special insight, but because of the luck of an internal Ninth Circuit draw.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 24, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders are wading into another legal fight.
Earlier this week, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson and John Logan. According to the legislators, the case involves “three homeless individuals in Grants Pass (who) filed this lawsuit to try to stop local and state governments from combating the public safety threats, the public health dangers, and the inhumane conditions associated with these homeless encampments.”
The city has received unfavorable opinions from the federal courts at both the district and appeals (Ninth Circuit) levels, leading to the appeal to the nation’s high court.
In their brief, Petersen and Toma assert that “the Legislature also has a pressing interest in homelessness because it confronts the realities of America’s homelessness crisis every day, including only a few blocks from the state capitol complex. Phoenix, Arizona, is home to one of the nation’s largest homeless encampments, commonly known as ‘The Zone.’ With hundreds of homeless residents, The Zone is a place of intense poverty, frequent crime (including multiple homicides), social instability, and poor living standards.”
The lawmakers opined that “the Ninth Circuit decided it was better at making policy than elected state legislatures and city councils.” They argued that the opinion from the Ninth Circuit “injects the federal courts into a policymaking area reserved for state and local lawmakers, entrenches a plainly incorrect and deeply damaging construction of the Eighth Amendment, and improperly interferes with state and local policymaking on the critically important issue of homelessness.”
President Petersen issued a statement in conjunction with his announcement, saying, “We’re talking about a humanitarian crisis that continues to spiral out of control in our state, thanks to bad court rulings, judicial overreach, and a litany of vetoes by the Governor. Lives and livelihoods are lost every single day that we continue to allow homeless encampments to grow in our communities. We must have clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court in order to holistically address the systemic issues contributing to homelessness, as well as the dire public safety and public health consequences created by allowing these encampments to remain. Once again, the Attorney General is absent, but the Speaker and I are committed to engaging for the betterment of Arizona.”
Senator John Kavanagh added, “Many of the street homeless population are seriously mentally ill, drug addicted or both. It is unconscionable that these vulnerable people are being allowed to live in squalid circumstances on the street where they may abuse drugs and become crime victims. This situation is a result of federal court rulings that some say prohibit the police from enforcing street camping bans even when shelter can be provided to the homeless person. It is imperative that the Supreme Court clarify lower court rulings, so that if homeless persons are offered shelter and refuse, they can be removed from the street by the police.”
One of Arizona’s newest legislators also weighed in on the issue and filing of the brief. Senator Shawnna Bolick said, “Homelessness is one of the top issues impacting Legislative District 2, putting law enforcement and private property owners into the direct fray due to the lack of leadership at Phoenix City Hall. My constituents want safe neighborhoods, not ones littered with used needles and drug paraphernalia often left overnight for their kids to encounter on the way to the bus stop to get to school. There are quite a few civil society groups stepping up, but it’s not enough. I hope the USSC does the right thing. Government exists for public safety, and Arizona’s Governor along with the Phoenix Mayor are failing their citizens.”
The General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, pointed to a recent post from California Governor Gavin Newsom about the issue of federal courts inserting caselaw into “local efforts to clear street encampments,” stating, “This humanitarian crisis is not a partisan issue. The 9th Circuit’s opinions harm the homeless and the Legislature’s ability to craft effective policies.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 22, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Second Amendment advocates recently had something to cheer thanks to a judicial decision from a federal appeals court.
Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion against the Center for Biological Diversity in a case that featured a legal question over lead ammunition. The United States Forest Service and the National Rifle Association of America were defendants in the matter.
The case has tarried in the judicial system since 2012, bouncing back and forth from the district and appeals court levels. The plaintiffs filed the legal pleadings over their contention that California condors were ingesting and perishing from lead ammunition left behind by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest.
“This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda,” said Michael Jean, the Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel with the Institute for Legislative Action.
According to the summary of the decision from the Ninth Circuit, “The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and others alleging that the United States Forest Service was liable as a contributor under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by failing to regulate the use of lead ammunition by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona.” The opinion added, “Although the Forest Service has broad authority to regulate hunting and fishing activities, it rarely exercises its authority to preempt state laws related to hunting and fishing; hunting activities are primarily regulated by the State of Arizona.”
U.S. District Judge Stephen M. McNamee, in his July 2013 ruling, highlighted that even if the plaintiffs received the opinion they were seeking, the California condor might very well still be at risk due to its migration habits. He wrote, “The Court also notes that the behavior and feeding habits of the California condor and other avian species make it unlikely that even if Defendant were to ban lead from being discarded within the KNF, the condor would no longer suffer from the lead poisoning that causes Plaintiffs’ alleged aesthetic injury. The California condor is known for long distance travel. Their longer trips consist of arching loops that reach from eastern Nevada, through southwestern Arizona, to the New Mexico border. They are also known to fly into Utah in pursuit of carrion. The condors could easily fly and subsequently feed outside the borders of the KNF and therefore outside of the area managed by Defendant. Plaintiffs give no indication that any of these other states ban the use of lead ammunition. Because of the extensive range of the California condor, it is likely that those birds that inhabit KNF will travel to those areas in search of carrion and ingest lead ammunition in the same manner as lead ingested within KNF borders.”
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Arizona Representative Austin Smith shared his thoughts on the Court’s opinion, saying, “The recent 9th Circuit decision is an important victory for hunters, sportsman, and shooting enthusiasts across Arizona. I’m pleased to see this attempt to regulate ammunition by the radical gun control and anti-hunting lobby failed. As a 5th generation Arizona hunter and angler, this will serve as great precedence in preserving our Second Amendment and hunting heritage on the Kaibab.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free News | Jul 27, 2021 | News
PHOENIX, AZ – The Arizona Attorney General Office is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an emergency injunction pending appeal, requiring federal agencies to return to “normal removal operations” and follow existing federal immigration law and resume deportations.
Arizona and Montana are suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and federal officials over the February 18, 2021 Interim Guidance that halts nearly all deportations and ICE arrests. After the Interim Guidance was issued, deportations outside of the “priority categories” dropped by 98 percent in Arizona (only 7 out of 325 “other priority” cases were deported). Additionally, immigration-related arrests have dramatically decreased. ICE officers average just one interior arrest every 2.5 months.
The Arizona Attorney General Office claims that the Interim Guidance is in direct violation of federal law for removals of aliens with final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), requires that ICE “shall” remove an alien, who has received a final deportation order, from the United States within 90 days unless another exception in § 1231 applies. Late last month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a separate case (Johnson v. Guzman Chavez) that “shall” means “must,” i.e. it is mandatory language.
Monday’s filing comes as June numbers show the border crisis is only getting worse. More than 188,000 individuals were encountered along the southwest border in June 2021. DHS has not publicly released removal numbers for several weeks.
