reason.com in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the State of Arizona public financing of campaigns case

From a reason.com article, which doesn't offer reader commenting; for details, please read the entire article.

"The goals and essential features of Arizona's Clean Elections system are similar to those of the so-called Millionaire's Amendment, a provision of federal law that raised contribution limits for congressional candidates facing wealthy, self-financed opponents. The Supreme Court overturned that rule in 2008, concluding that it imposed an unjustified burden on freedom of speech. If anything, Arizona's system—which provides actual money, not just permission to take more of it from each donor—is even more objectionable. 

The likely demise of Arizona's law does not mean that public financing in general is unconstitutional. But at a time of fiscal reckoning, the last thing the government should be doing with taxpayer money is funding candidates who prefer forcibly extracting subsidies from their fellow citizens to seeking their voluntary support."

Now, for the sake of debate, let's ponder any U.S. Constitution reasoning for this decision.  Why should a citizen in our republican system of government need to approve the rescinding of a passed legislative act? What gives a federal court the right to rescind democratically a passed legislative act?  Or am I outside the bounds of this issue?

Thanks to Election Law Blog for a link to the article.

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"

Oral arguments conclude in US Supreme Court case regarding the State of Arizona's public campaign finance law

From a Huffington Post article, which includes reader commenting -- for details, please read the entire article.

"This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will, as I previously wrote, likely determine the constitutional bounds of public campaign financing programs across the country. In that case, McComish v. Bennett, the Court will rule on whether it is legal to provide publicly financed candidates with additional public funds when they are faced with heavy spending by privately financed opponents or independent expenditure groups."

As author Jessica Levinson notes later in the article, based on the transpired oral arguments, it looks likely that the US Supreme Court will vote 5-4 in favor of knocking down the State of Arizona's public campaign financing law.

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"

US Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of the state of Arizona's public financing law begins on Monday

 A Constitutional Accountability Center PAY 2 PLAY blog article, which offers reader commenting.

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"

Will the US Supreme Court in Fox v Vice Close the Door to Future Civil Rights Lawsuits?

From a People for the American Way "People For" article, which doesn't offer reader commenting:

 "Today, the Supreme Court is hearing hear oral arguments in Fox v. Vice, a case that threatens to choke off future civil rights litigation. People For the American Way Foundation has joined an amicus brief protecting the right of people to sue to protect their basic rights.

In a federal civil rights lawsuit, where the government or a government official is being sued, a trial court can sometimes order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees. The law allows this if (1) the defendant is the prevailing party and (2) the plaintiff's case was frivolous. In Fox v. Vice, the Supreme Court is being asked to interpret this law. The potential exposure to paying a defendant's legal fees serves as an obvious deterrent to bringing suit, and it's important, therefore that it be narrowly construed in order not to violate Congress's intent to empower people to vindicate their rights in the courts."

An American's civil rights is an integral part of our US Constitution's Bill of Rights, and many people have fought hard to improve voting rights across the country.  A court verdict mandating a plaintiff that loses a case to pay all of the winning defendant's legal fees, whether that case is deemed frivolous or not, would be a major obstacle or deterrent to many future civil rights cases.

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"

Utahns for Ethical Government sues the State of Utah for illegal petition administration

From a The Republic article, which offers reader commenting:

"A Utah public interest group sued the state Monday, claiming an ethics initiative is being illegally kept off the November 2012 ballot even though the group says enough signatures have been gathered to qualify it for inclusion.

Utahns for Ethical Government aims to force state elections officials to certify the signatures that officials have so far refused to do.

The group began collecting signatures in August 2009 to push the initiative that would create an independent ethics commission for legislators and other government officials, require fuller disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and prohibit transfers of campaign funds, among other things. "

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"

Voting Rights Project defends in federal court the Voting Rights Act Section 5 protections against the use of racially discriminatory voting practices

From a Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law article, without offering reader commenting, but having a link to the court case:

"On February 2, 2011, the Voting Rights Project participated in oral argument and on February 16, 2011, filed its third major brief in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, a challenge to the constitutionality of Congress' 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Project represents Shelby County resident Bobby Lee Harris, who intervened in the case to defend Section 5.  Since 1965, Section 5 has provided crucial protections against the use of racially discriminatory voting practices.  Section 5 currently applies across nine states and parts of seven other states. 

In its briefs and in oral argument, the Project has emphasized the broad discretion granted Congress to remedy racial discrimination in voting, and the lengthy record Congress established in 2005 and 2006 demonstrating the continuing prevalence of voting discrimination and the ongoing need for the Section 5 preclearance remedy."

Definition of Voting Rights Act of 1965: Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to improve voter registration and turnout among African‐Americans. It has been amended or reauthorized in subsequent years.

Howard Ball, David Schultz "Voting Rights Act of 1965"  The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Kermit L. Hall. Oxford University Press. 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  17 March 2011  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t184.e1278>

 
Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"