Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

From the Brennan Center:

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which will decide whether Arizona voters had the power - through a citizen ballot initiative - to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the state’s congressional maps every ten years.

The case could invalidate congressional redistricting commissions in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, New Jersey, and Washington and, depending on how the court rules, also could throw into doubt the tie-breaking procedures used in four states to resolve legislative deadlocks over maps as well as redistricting commissions in New York, New Jersey, and Maine. A measure approved by Florida voters in 2010 to tighten redistricting standards also could be at risk.

The ramifications of the case extend beyond redistricting, however. The Arizona Legislature's constitutional challenge to the commission is based on the Constitution’s Elections Clause and contends that the clause should be read to mean that the “times, places and manner” of federal elections can be set only by state legislatures or by Congress. That clause governs not just redistricting plans but a wide range of laws related to federal elections. If Arizona’s independent commission is struck down as unconstitutional, dozens of other state laws also could be at risk. These include 21 state laws adopted by ballot initiative and another 45 that needed approval by voters via a legislative referendum or constitutional amendment. Examples of such laws include Mississippi's voter identification law, Oregon's vote by mail ballot elections, and Ohio's ban on straight party voting. In short, the ruling, expected in late spring or this summer, could be a blockbuster.

Does anyone else see a huge problem with elected officials being the only ones who draw the lines deciding who elects them? Hello gerrymandering! Partisan redistricting only provides a vehicle for the party in power to solidify its hold on a state and its Congressional seats. Not to mention the fact that bipartisan and non-partisan commissions are almost always more favorable to Democrats than partisan gerrymandering schemes hmm... Partisan gerrymandering dilutes the will of the people, serves to disenfranchise voters and favor politicians. The idea that the Supreme Court would consider banning alternative redistricting methods CHOSED BY THE VOTERS is ludicrous to me. But ya know, what do I know?

Gabby Giffords Steps Down

Required viewing. What an amazing woman.

What happened to her, the extremism, the hate, the distrust and disrespect for government and the violence in the face of political dialogue encompasses so much of what is wrong with our current discourse. On the other hand, her resilience, her personal story, her bravery, her dedication and even her decision to step down when and how she did exemplifies so much of what can be right. On a personal note, a young Jewish Democratic Congresswoman persevering in the face of obstacles hits particularly close to home. It is very rare to find a modern day political role model, but I believe I have found one in Rep. Giffords.

According to the Washington Post "Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.) must set a date for a special election primary 80 to 90 days after Giffords formally steps down, and a general election will be set for 50 to 60 days after the primary. So the primary election for Giffords seat will likely be held in late April with the general election in June." That Democrat will be getting a donation from a one Ms. Nancy Leeds.

I can't make this stuff up

Arizona State Senate President and author of the controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, Russell Pearce is facing a recall election.

First, I'd like to take a moment to appreciate that. Whatever problems we may have with our system of governance, we live in a country where voters can hold politicians accountable for their actions and, miraculously, activists in Arizona were engaged and organized enough to make that happen. Bravo to them and to United States for having this system! See what happens when you get involved?

Now, here's why this story is interesting. Pearce and his supporters are running a campaign so sleazy, I can't decide whether to laugh or cry. These illegal campaign signs, are just the tip of the iceberg. There is debate as to whether Pearce supporters were responsible for an attempt to intimidate his opponent, Republican Jerry Lewis, (no relation) by THROWING A PADLOCK AT HIS GROIN.

More substantially, Pearce's campaign was caught plagiarizing anti-immigration material from...wait for it...white supremacists. And, running a fake Mexican American candidate (particularly obnoxious considering his views on immigration) in an attempt to split his opponent's vote. See the yard sign above.

I would like to write some witty commentary for you, but some things just speak for themselves. Stay classy, Tea Party.

FEC does something non-controversial

Allowing Gabrielle Giffords to use campaign funds for increased personal security.

As you may remember the Congresswoman and her staff were attacked at a Congress on your Corner event back in January. Six people died and Rep.Giffords suffered extensive injuries.

“We all hope that the alarm is never triggered,” said FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub... “This was perhaps the easiest request that we have gotten in the last three years.”

Supreme Court Rules States Can't Offer Extra Public Funds to Encourage Spending Limit

The Supreme Court, sharply divided along ideological lines, struck down part of an Arizona campaign funding law, ruling that states and cities may not seek to "level the playing field" by giving extra public funds to candidates who agree to abide by spending limits.

Quite frankly, I'm too flu-y to comment right now, but I wanted to make sure I shared this since I think it brings up some interesting points. More later.

-Nance

Today in Voter Suppression

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reconsidering a three-judge panel's ruling that the state's proof of citizenship requirement conflicts with federal voter registration law that law allows people registering to vote to swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

I think my pro-voting/pro-access-to-voting/few-hurdles-to-voting-as-possible credentials are well enough secured, that I can say requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote does not seem like an undue burden.

Sure, we know where Arizona lawmakers' citizenship checking motivations come from and I certainly don't agree with those. But, if you are a person who is intentionally voting somewhere you shouldn't, you probably don't have any qualms about lying about it knowing you are very unlikely to get caught. If we're asking people to swear that they are citizens, they we obviously care about finding out, and if we care about finding out, why not do it right?

On the other hand this type of legislation would disproportionally affect poor people and young people since both groups are transient and less likely to have access to or knowledge of proper documentation. My friend Natalie points out that many domestic violence victims often won't have documentation because they have had to flee their abusers. Nor of course, would homeless people. These are all groups that don't need more barriers.

So I think where I stand is that in a perfect world we should require proof of citizenship to vote, but we also shouldn't be disenfranchising the aforementioned groups. So until we can solve the *shouldn't* by other means the *should* will have to wait.

Hero

Pictured above, Daniel Hernandez, the intern who may have saved Rep. Giffords' life.

Like all of my colleagues, I was horrified to hear about the shooting in Tuscon earlier this week, which killed a nine year old girl, a Federal Judge, and a Congressional staffer and wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Interestingly, different people in my life have speculated about the shooter's motivations as a reflection of their own lives. Activists seem to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement based on the violent rhetoric used during the 2010 elections. Two fellow campaign workers seemed to believe he had a vendetta against her staff. My mom seems to think it was antisemitism.

The incident hit particularly close to home for a lot of us because of the death of Gabe Zimmerman, Giffords' Community Outreach Coordinator. That easily could have been me or any one of my friends. I am positive I know people who knew him. There are now 4,230 people on the Staffers Honor Gabe Zimmerman facebook page.

My first reaction was "this is not how we should function in a democracy." As a society, we tend to vilify our politicians and abhor politics. We forget that politicians are public servants and that they are people. More often than not after telling someone what I do, I find myself defending the concepts of popular sovereignty and representative democracy in some form or another. Of course too many of our politicians are corrupt, but this doesn't discount the tradition, sacrifice, and service made by our representatives and their staffs. I miss living in an America where public service means something not just to the servants but the served.

A perfect example is Daniel Hernandez an intern who RAN INTO THE FIRE to save the Congresswoman's life.Words cannot express my admiration for this young man, or my sadness and frustration over the entire incident.

I don't generally like to mix my religion and politics at all, but I hope you will join me in praying for Rep. Giffords' recovery and the families of all the victims.