You are here: Home / Archives for Constitutional Law

“Conservatives” Angling for a NEW National Tax?

January 18, 2012 By 4 Comments

 

Right when we should be CUTTING spending (not just the rate of increase, but ACTUAL spending) and lowering taxes, certain elements of the RNC and “think tanks” are angling not just to keep existing spending and taxes going but ADD an entirely NEW federal tax for us to pay.

What the heck is going on, aren’t we in the midst of a teaparty?

=====
 
Is a European Style VAT Tax the GOP’s Answer to the Growing Federal Funding Crisis? 
 
With all the GOP candidates fussing over Mitt Romney and his track-record at Bain Capital, does it not strike anyone as odd that none of them are putting the screws to the Massachusetts Republican in debates over his unwillingness to rule out a European-style Value Added Tax (VAT)?
Mitt and VAT (Valued Added Tax)
While Romney says he doesn’t want to go down the path of European socialism, in a recent Wall Street Journal he did not rule it out and even suggested that it might be an option.
 
The lack of clarity on this subject is ominous given that a VAT is probably the only way to come close to funding the federal government at its current levels of outrageous spending. Since none of the other candidates are forcefully calling Romney out on the VAT issue, I suspect an eventual Republican betrayal on establishing a VAT tax is likely.
 
As a reminder, a VAT would tax goods at ALL layers of production, from their origin as raw material to manufacture to final product.
 
Rising levels of federal deficit spending create momentum toward the VAT “solution.” Debt-addicted central governments in Europe and the United States have no intention of dealing with the true causes of the financial crisis.
 
To get to a VAT from here, all the political class needs to do is wait around for a “responsible” Republican to come around and act as a tax collector for the welfare state. My point is the Big Government people have already established the new unsustainable spending baselines.   All they need now is a gullible Republican to come in and “do something.” Paralysis and dysfunction are their friends, because it will lead to a crisis that may well result in the imposition of the VAT tax.
 
=======
 
Interestingly, the imposition of a VAT by the federal government is currently illegal and unconstitutional.
 
So, how do they implement it?
 
 
So, what does “balanced budget” mean?  To you, me, the teaparty, and normal people it means to bring spending in line with revenues.  I.e. don’t spend more than you have.
 
But once you enter the twisted mind of a politician, “balanced budget” means RAISING REVENUE to match the amount of money you WANT TO SPEND.
 
Since
a) imposition of a VAT by the federal government is now illegal and unconstitutional,
b) congress and certainly our state legislature lacks any will or spine to CUT REAL spending (not just rates of increases), and
c) it requires a constitutional amendment to pass this new tax,
there is no other conlcusion to draw than this travesty certain state legislators want to desecrate our God-inspired constitution with will lead to anything other than a new federal tax to meet spending targets the government wants to achieve.
 
Frankly, any state legislator who believes otherwise is an idiot.  (Yes, I just called you that.  Embrace it.)  A real Republican would be withholding remittance of tax receipts to the federal government, not empowering the federal government to levy yet another tax from Arizonans.
 
The fact that Republicans are behind this one is disgusting and only proves that RINO hunting should be an active and ongoing endeavor by any real American patriot.
 
Our God-inspired constitution is just fine, thank you.    Leave it alone.
 
Teaparty, y’all!
 
Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Debt, Federal Budget, Spending, States Rights, Taxation

Rep. Quayle Statement on President Obama’s Unprecedented Power Grab

January 4, 2012 By 5 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2011
CONTACT: Richard Cullen

WASHINGTON (DC) Congressman Ben Quayle released the following statement Wednesday regarding President Obama’s “recess” appointment of Richard Cordray as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB):

“Today, in an all-too-familiar display of arrogance, President Obama appointed yet another unaccountable czar to head the new CFPB. This appointment circumvents Congress’s constitutional duty to approve appointments to high-level positions. While the President may make temporary recess appointments, the House and Senate are not in recess. Therefore, this move is outside the President’s constitutional authority and rejects decades of precedent that prevents the President from making recess appointments unless the Senate has been out of session for three days or more.

“Disregarding Congress’s constitutional role is always unacceptable but especially when the agency in question is brand new, incredibly powerful and the product of terrible legislation. Protecting consumers is important, but due to the many flaws of Dodd-Frank, the new CFPB is unaccountable to Congress despite the fact that it will have unique authority over individual consumers. If there ever was an appointment that deserved scrutiny by Congress—and therefore the American people—it is this one. President Obama swore to preserve the Constitution not trample on it when it gets in his way.”

###

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Federal Government, Press Release Tagged With: ,

John Huppenthal Statement on Ruling that TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Program Violates Arizona Law

December 28, 2011 By 12 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 27, 2011

Statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on Administrative Law Judge’s Decision that the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies Program is in Violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 

Phoenix, AZ, December 27, 2011– Today, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal released the following statement on the decision of Administrative Law Judge Lewis Kowal that affirmed the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD’s) Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 as per his ruling from June 15, 2011:

“I was very pleased to receive Judge Kowal’s decision today affirming the ruling that I made on June 15 that TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112.

In my role as State Superintendent of Public Instruction I have a legal responsibility to uphold the law and a professional imperative to ensure that every student has access to an excellent education.

Upon taking office on January 3, 2011, I was faced with the immediate circumstance of the Tucson Unified School District being found in violation of A.R.S. §15-112 by the outgoing Superintendent. Instead of making a snap decision on the matter, the Arizona Department of Education, at my direction, conducted an intensive investigation, spanning many months, of TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Department (MASD) and its program.

In the end, I made a decision based on the totality of the information and facts gathered during my investigation – a decision that I felt was best for all students in the Tucson Unified School District. The Judge’s decision confirms that it was the right decision.

I will be issuing my final ruling regarding the matter in the near future after a thorough and deliberate review of the Judge’s decision.”

###

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Education, Elected Officials, Judicial, Liberals, Press Release, Race Relations Tagged With: ,

A MUST READ: How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

December 22, 2011 By 66 Comments

Excellent article posted by the non-profit, independent, investigative journalists, ProPublica. This is a MUST read if you’ve been following the machinations of the Arizona ‘Independent’ Redistricting Commission. If you don’t think it can happen here in Arizona, it already has just like it happened in California. Here is a segment of the article:

This spring, a group of California Democrats gathered at a modern, airy office building just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The meeting was House members only — no aides allowed — and the mission was seemingly impossible.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.

The question facing House Democrats as they met to contemplate the state’s new realities was delicate: How could they influence an avowedly nonpartisan process? Alexis Marks, a House aide who invited members to the meeting, warned the representatives that secrecy was paramount. “Never say anything AT ALL about redistricting — no speculation, no predictions, NOTHING,” Marks wrote in an email. “Anything can come back to haunt you.”

In the weeks that followed, party leaders came up with a plan. Working with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a national arm of the party that provides money and support to Democratic candidates — members were told to begin “strategizing about potential future district lines,” according to another email.

The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.

In one instance, party operatives invented a local group to advocate for the Democrats’ map.

California’s Democratic representatives got much of what they wanted from the 2010 redistricting cycle, especially in the northern part of the state. “Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to DC,” said one enthusiastic memo written as the process was winding down. “This is a huge accomplishment that should be celebrated by advocates throughout the region.”

(Read the entire article)

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Government, Journalism, Liberals, Political Parties, Political Science, State Government Tagged With: ,

Taking on the union freebies

December 9, 2011 By 1 Comment

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

In September, my colleague Mark Flatten released an investigative report showing that Phoenix and other Arizona cities spend millions of dollars every year to pay employees to perform union work on city time. Less than three months later, we are going to court on behalf of Phoenix taxpayers to put an end to the practice of union “release time.”

Our case takes on the city’s contract with the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA), which provides an estimated $900,000 in annual release time for police union work, including lobbying. The provisions take six full-time officers off the streets – giving them full pay, benefits, and overtime for union work – in addition to providing thousands of additional release-time hours for the union to dole out at its discretion. Altogether, more than 40 police officers can be released from some or all of their law-enforcement duties by the union.

Only a few years ago, Phoenix voters agreed to raise their sales tax to hire more police officers and firefighters. Would they have done so knowing that much of the revenue would wind up as a union giveaway? Moreover, PLEA itself confesses that release-time means less money for police officer salaries.

Beyond endangering public safety, the release time is an unconstitutional subsidy. The Arizona Constitution prohibits gifts to individuals or private entities by subsidy or otherwise. In 1984, the Court upheld a school district’s release-time provision because the cost was minimal and the duties imposed were significant. Here the cost is massive and the benefits are negligible.

With cities and their taxpayers struggling in a tough economy, release time is an obvious place to save money. Union members should pay the costs of union activities — if they desire them. Passing those costs along to taxpayers is an illegal charade that should quickly end.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Cheatham v. Gordon

Goldwater Institute: Money for Nothing: Phoenix taxpayers foot the bill for union work

Goldwater Institute: Turken v. Gordon (CityNorth subsidy case)

Arizona Supreme Court: Wistuber v. Paradise Valley School Dist.

Filed Under: City Government, Constitutional Law, Government Reform, Judicial, Spending

AG Horne to Defend State Elections Law Before Arizona Supreme Court

December 5, 2011 By 4 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 5, 2011

PHOENIX (Monday, December 5, 2011) — Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne will argue Tucson v. Arizona before the Arizona Supreme Court at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 6, at the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale. You can watch live at http://azcourts.gov/AZSupremeCourt/LiveArchivedVideo.aspx (see instructions below)

The case centers on a 2009 state law, A.R.S. 9-821.01, a law requiring cities to have non-partisan elections and prohibit some at-large elections.

The prohibited system, now used in Tucson (but this statute would also prevent other cities from adopting that system) tends to disenfranchise voters in districts where the majority is different than the overall majority in that city. In a number of districts, the voters have been represented by someone who lost in their district.

Earlier, the state Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Tucson’s argument that this was purely a local matter and the Legislature had no right to pass laws on the subject. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, and Horne will argue that the State does have a legitimate interest and that the statute is valid.

Note: When you access the page, scroll down and you will see under “Upcoming Events” the Tucson v. Arizonacase. Next to the case you will see “case summary.” Once the argument goes live at 2:00p.m. “oral argument” will appear next to “case summary.” Select the “oral argument” text and the feed will appear.

WHO: AG TOM HORNE TO ARGUE TUCSON V. ARIZONA CASE
WHERE: THUNDERBIRD SCHOOL OF GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
1 GLOBAL PLACE
GLENDALE, AZ 85306
DATE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011
TIME: 2:00 P.M.

###

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Press Release, State Government Tagged With:

Constitutional Conservative Committee formed for Kirk Adams

December 5, 2011 By 49 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 5, 2011
CONTACT: Chad Heywood

Constitutional Conservative Committee formed for Kirk Adams 

East Valley – Kirk Adams for Congress today released Co-Chairman for his “Constitutional Conservative Committee.”

Well known Constitutional Conservative activists Bill Norton and Jared Taylor, have officially agreed to lead Kirk Adams Constitutional Conservative Committee. This committee will help organize patriotic events and will help give policy advice to the campaign.

Bill Norton and Jared Taylor are well known Constitutional advocates and teachers. They teach and promote Constitutional values and history in Arizona and across the country. They have also been integral components in putting on the largest Constitutional celebration in the country, known as Constitution Week USA, which attracts over 10,000 people each year.

Co-Chairman Bill Norton said about the committee, “I am happy to support Kirk Adams for Congress. Kirk is committed to protecting the Constitution and keeping the federal government limited within its proper role. We welcome those who share our values and who want to become a part of Kirk’s Constitutional conscience once elected. This committee will also take an active part in the campaign.”

Co-Chairman Jared Taylor said, “I have known Kirk for over 20 years. He loves the Constitution and works hard for our community. We are lucky to have Kirk represent East Valley families in Washington. I look forward to working with like-minded conservatives who want to join this committee and help Kirk succeed.”

Businessman Paul Marchant, a member of the committee had this to say, “I am glad to live in an area where we have great people and great candidates. Selecting a candidate who loves the Constitution and who values limited government is very achievable in the east valley. I have chosen to be a part of Kirk’s campaign because I know he sees that our generations number one priority is to reign in the federal government. He will work each day with only one interest in mind, saving the Republic for his kids and mine.”

Adams is a husband, father, and small businessman. After joining the state House in 2006, he became so frustrated by the unwillingness and inability of Republicans in the Legislature to stand up for their conservative principles that he launched a long-shot campaign to oust the veteran Speaker of the House. Adams shocked the Republican establishment and political class, winning the Speakership at only 35 years of age.

Adams turned the tide in the House and put Arizona back on the path to fiscal responsibility with an aggressive agenda of reform, courageously taking on some of the most challenging issues in Arizona. Adams, a lifelong East Valley resident, lives in Mesa with his wife JaNae their five children.

###

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Press Release Tagged With: ,

States damaging their own case with insurance exchange moves

December 1, 2011 By 4 Comments

by Diane Cohen
Goldwater Institute

On November 14, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the 26-state lawsuit against the President’s healthcare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Court granted 5 ½ hours for oral argument, including two hours of argument on the individual mandate and 1 ½ hours on severability, which addresses whether, in the event the mandate is found unconstitutional, the entire Act must be stricken as well.

The severability issue is a critical consideration for states like Arizona, which are suing over the law’s constitutionality while at the same time moving forward with implementing other parts of the law, specifically the law’s health insurance exchanges. This undermines the idea that if the mandate is found unconstitutional the whole law must be thrown out.

The federal district court that first heard the lawsuit brought by the states found the mandate unconstitutional and not severable from the remainder of the statute, and thus struck down the entire Act as unconstitutional. The judge explained that to sever the mandate from the remainder of the Act would require “reconfiguring an exceedingly lengthy and comprehensive legislative scheme,” including “going through a 2,700 page Act line-by-line, invalidating dozens (or hundreds) of some sections while retaining dozens (or hundreds) of others.”

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal court’s decision on the mandate, but disagreed on severability. The Circuit court held that the “stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Act’s provisions” and their “lack of connection to the Mandate” cut against non-severability. The Supreme Court will now decide the issue.

For its part, the Obama Administration has maintained that the mandate is closely linked to the guaranteed issue and community ratings provisions, and that they must also go if the mandate is found unconstitutional. The Goldwater Institute argued in its lawsuit challenging the Act that the establishment of health insurance exchanges and increases in Medicaid eligibility are also linked to the Act’s overall reform scheme and that the entire Act must be stricken.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the severability issue, states like Arizona must return federal exchange money they have received and cease from establishing health insurance exchanges. Efforts to stop the federal takeover of healthcare must not be placed in jeopardy by the states voluntarily complying with a law that they are at the same time challenging as unconstitutional.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Ten Resons Why Arizona Must Reject Health Insurance Exchanges

Arizona Republic: A welcome mat for ‘Obamacare’ in Ariz.

U.S. Supreme Court: Granting of Cert

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Federal Government, Health Care, Judicial, Legislation, State Government

NFIB Healthcare Bulletin: PPACA’s Pyroclastic Plume

November 29, 2011 By Leave a Comment


By Dr. Bob Graboyes – NFIB Research Foundation, Senior Fellow for Health and Economics

A thick volcanic plume is flowing over the 2010 healthcare law. Rumbles are heard from the U.S. Supreme Court which, in 2012, will issue a fourfold constitutional judgment. To one centrist scholar, the law’s constitutional frailty suggests chambers of operational dysfunction beneath the surface. An NFIB study estimates how that dysfunction will waft over small business and the rest of the economy. And a Treasury Inspector General’s report indicates that the law’s overhyped tax credit provides little shelter. As the law sags beneath the ash, NFIB suggests twelve ways that Congress could begin to replace the law with real reform that improves healthcare and cuts costs.

The constitutional challenge: The U.S. Supreme Court announced on November 14 that in 2012, it will decide the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). From the many cases wending their way through the federal courts, the Supreme Court selected NFIB v Sebelius as the centerpiece of its deliberations. In March, the Court will hear arguments on four questions: (1) Is the unprecedented individual mandate constitutional? (2) If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, must it also strike down the entire law? (3) Does the Anti-Injunction Act require courts to wait until 2014 to consider constitutional challenges, since no penalties will be paid on the mandate until then? (4) Does PPACA’s massive increase in Medicaid unlawfully coerce the states into participating? A ruling is likely to come in June.

In 2010, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) joined with 26 of the 50 states to challenge the healthcare law’s constitutionality. A Florida federal court ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and ordered the entire law struck down, since it lacked a severability clause. The Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional but allowed the rest of the law to stand. NFIB appealed the second part of that ruling, arguing that without a severability clause, the entire law must fall. More information on NFIB’s lawsuit is available at www.nfib.com/lawsuit.

Operational dysfunction: In a penetrating column, Walter Russell Mead (Bard College) explored the deeper significance of the lawsuit: “Writing a bill that passes constitutional muster should be easy in a Congress so rich in lawyers and legislation writers.  Writing a bill that successfully improves American healthcare delivery while controlling costs, on the other hand, is hard.  Very, very hard.  If they did so poorly at the easy part of their task, the part where we can actually measure and monitor their success, what kind of mess have they made of the hard and murky parts that nobody, including the authors of the bill, really understands?”

Job losses: NFIB has supported healthcare reform for decades but strongly opposed PPACA because it failed to do what Professor Mead suggested was important: improving healthcare delivery while controlling costs. As an example, the NFIB Research Foundation has just released a job-loss study enumerating the damage that PPACA’s higher costs will do to small business. “Effects of the PPACA Health Insurance Premium Tax on Small Businesses and Their Employees,” by Michael J. Chow, estimates the job losses that will result from just one provision of the law – PPACA’s health insurance premium tax. Chow estimates that this tax “will reduce private sector employment by 125,000 to 249,000 jobs in 2021, with 59 percent of those losses falling on small business.” This tax falls heavily on small business while bypassing big business, labor unions, and governments; and it is only one of a constellation of cost-increasers that small business faces in PPACA. NFIB is spearheading a repeal coalition aimed at dropping this tax; toward this end, H.R. 1370 and S. 1880 have been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Credit oversold: At the same time, the most heavily-touted cost-decreasing measure in the law turns out to be a dud. PPACA supporters have argued that over 4 million businesses would benefit from a tax credit of up to 35% of the businesses’ health insurance costs (50% beginning in 2014). NFIB consistently said that the credit is fine for those who can make use of it, but that relatively few businesses would get much out of it. The preliminary figures are in now, and they are worse than NFIB’s pessimistic estimates were. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported that as of mid-October, only 309,000 businesses had claimed the credit for 2010 and that the average credit per business was around $1,346 – not much of inducement to offer insurance.

Twelve doable reforms: Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, the country will need real healthcare reform that improves healthcare delivery and moderates costs. Toward this end, NFIB has posted a set of twelve NFIB Healthcare Solutions that could begin the task of replacing PPACA. The proposals include (1) Tax parity between the group and individual markets; (2) Tax parity between insurance purchased by the self-employed and groups insurance; (3) Defined contribution health insurance; (4) More transparent measures of cost, options, and quality; (5) Public and/or private exchanges; (6) Interstate insurance purchasing. (7) More risk-pooling options for small businesses and individuals; (8) Mechanisms to get insurance for those with pre-existing conditions; (9) Greater insurance portability; (10) Greater latitude for consumer-driven health insurance products; (11) Wellness incentives; and (12) Malpractice reform. These reforms are just a start and did not touch on two big areas where reform is needed: healthcare delivery systems and entitlements.

Conclusion

Those who wrote this law ought to go to bed each night fearing two things. Their lesser fear should be that the Supreme Court overturns PPACA, leaving their vision of healthcare reform as dead as Pompeii. Their greater fear should be that the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law, for then they will spend the next generation explaining the destruction they brought upon American healthcare and the American economy.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Federal Government, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Jobs/Labor, Judicial, Legislation, Small Business

Does “transparency” trump the First Amendment

November 29, 2011 By 2 Comments

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Almost two years ago, in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the government from forcing any corporation, union or other association to channel their money through a political action committee in order to make independent expenditures. Arizona responded by thumbing its nose at the decision.

Under the guise of requiring disclosure of independent expenditures, the state enacted a law that effectively forces any corporation, union or limited liability company that exists “primarily” to influence elections to channel its independent expenditures through a political committee. Now, in the name of transparency, the Arizona Secretary of State is engaged in a headlong effort to enforce compliance with this unconstitutional regulatory regime.

Independent groups are right to resist. Applied to independent expenditures, Arizona’s political committee regulations are essentially the same as those struck down in Citizens United. Both threaten civil or criminal penalties merely for raising and spending money to talk about politics.

To avoid such sanctions, both sets of regulations require forming and registering an elaborate political organization, complete with segregated accounts, appointed officers and responsibility for regular financial reporting, as well as exposure to audits by governmental agencies. This forces groups who want to engage in political speech to develop an expertise in volumes of campaign finance laws, related regulations, and agency interpretations of regulations.

As a result, both sets of regulations minimally impact well-funded, politically-connected groups, but heavily impact the least sophisticated, the least connected, and the most underfunded.

Neither the federal government nor Arizona have the constitutional authority to require such high regulatory hurdles for independent groups engaging in free speech. The First Amendment does not allow “transparency” to become a banner under which the government silences independent voices.

American citizens have a constitutional right to spend money expressing their support or opposition for candidates. That right is not forfeited when they organize a corporation, union or limited liability company to serve as the means of pooling their resources.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations

A.R.S. § 16-902 (2011): Arizona Political Committee Regulations

A.R.S. § 16-901 (2011): Arizona Statutory Definitions

A.R.S. § 16-919 (2011): Criminal Sanctions for Contributions other than to Independent Expenditure Committee

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech

Lawsuit Demands End To Clean Elections Commission’s Illegal Self-Promotion

November 21, 2011 By 8 Comments

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX — A lawsuit filed today claims that the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission’s acts of self promotion – done in the name of voter education – violate state statute.

The suit was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court by the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation on behalf of No Taxpayer Money for Politicians – the ballot committee supporting a constitutional amendment for the November 6, 2012 election to end public funding for political candidate campaigns.

From the complaint:

Defendant officers and employees of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission have engaged in a pattern of illegally spending tax dollars on an unauthorized advertising campaign to promote the Commission and to oppose the repeal of public funding for political candidate campaigns.  Plaintiffs seek to enforce the commission’s limited statutory authority, which does not include public spending for self-promotion and which mandates the amount of spending for voter education to be 10% of the commission’s budget for limited activities.

Carrie Ann Sitren, an attorney with the Institute, said the suit was the latest in a series of battles to protect voters’ rights.

“Last time, we went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect democratic elections and get government’s heavy thumb off the scale,” she said. “Now, under the false flag of ‘voter education,’ the commission is trying to ensure its survival by campaigning with taxpayer money.”

Named defendants in the case include: Todd Lang, executive director of the commission, as well as Lori S. Daniels, Louis Hoffman, Timothy J. Reckart and Thomas J. Koester, commissioners. Also named are commission employees Michael Becker and Colleen McGee, as well as commission Chairman Jeffrey L. Fairman. All are being sued in both their official capacity and personal capacity.

The suit asks the court to declare the commission illegally expended public funds and attempted to influence the outcome of an election; enjoin the commission from continuing the illegal conduct; order repayment of the illegal public expenditures; and assess fines and penalties pursuant to statute.

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Judicial, Press Release

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin: AIRC Process Flawed

November 19, 2011 By Leave a Comment

In case you missed it: Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin calls out the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission for drafting unconstitutional, gerrymandered maps in the 4th Special Session.

YouTube Preview Image
Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Statement by Speaker Andy Tobin on Reinstatement of Colleen Mathis

November 18, 2011 By 10 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 18 2011

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (Nov. 18, 2011) – Speaker Andy Tobin released the following statement today in response to the Arizona Supreme Court’s Reinstatement of the Independent Redistricting Commission chairwoman:

“I am extremely disappointed that the Court has chosen to reinstate a biased czar to the Independent Redistricting Commission. By placing Ms. Mathis back at the helm of the Commission, the Court has substituted its opinion for the voice of the people through those they have actually elected to represent them. The Court has removed the last remaining check and balance on an unelected and unaccountable body that has spent months blatantly and proudly violating open meeting laws, meeting in secret, ignoring voter mandates and placating the Democrat Party and the Obama administration. If this Commission is not put to a stop, the Court’s decision means more secrecy and more gerrymandering from a body that has shown a disdain for the Constitution. Moving forward, I am putting all options on the table in an effort to protect our state from being hijacked by a partisan ploy to demolish the democratic process.”

# # #

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Ethics, Judicial, Liberals, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Arizona Supreme Court Reinstates Colleen Mathis as Chairman of Redistricting Commission

November 17, 2011 By 73 Comments

Early this evening, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a ruling reinstating the so-called ‘Independent’ Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

This is a victory for leftists and Strategic Telemetry who were attempting to manipulate the Arizona Constitution to gain political power by leveraging data to the left’s advantage.

Three members of the commission decided to disregard the mandates outlined in the Arizona Constitution and solely utilize the element of competitiveness to draft Arizona electoral boundaries.

The law states the following under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1:

(14) The independent redistricting commission shall establish congressional and legislative districts. The commencement of the mapping process for both the congressional and legislative districts shall be the creation of districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state. Adjustments to the grid shall then be made as necessary to accommodate the goals as set forth below: 

A. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the United States voting rights act; 

B. Congressional districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable, and state legislative districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable; 

C. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous to the extent practicable; 

D. District boundaries shall respect communities of interest to the extent practicable; 

E. To the extent practicable, district lines shall use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts; 

F. To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.

The two Democrats and Independent member, Colleen Mathis, established “F” – the competitive provision – as the main criteria in drafting the maps.

This was a blatant redistribution of votes.

With Mathis now reinstated, the commission can move forward working to further divide and leverage minority power against the rest of the State of Arizona.

We would assume that Governor Brewer is furious over the court’s action (A statement was just released.)

This may also set the stage for a constitutional crisis.

This also should give the legislature further motive to move quickly to enter a special session with the exclusive objective of referring a repeal of the law that gave us the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Legislature has until November 30th to pass a referendum in order to place it on the ballot on the same day of the Presidential Preference Election on February 28th.

If you support repealing the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and restoring this authority to 90 elected accountable people instead of 5 un-elected un-accountable people, contact the Arizona Legislature and let them know.

Time is running out for the legislature to act.

Lets restore this important authority to those who will not manipulate the law using slick Democrat consulting firms.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures, Conservatives, Conspiracy Theories, Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Judicial, Legislation, Liberals, Political Parties, Political Science, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , ,

NFIB v. Sebelius: Supreme Court Will Hear NFIB’s Health-Care Lawsuit

November 14, 2011 By 2 Comments

Small Businesses Closer to Final Resolution on Constitutionality of Burdensome New Law

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 14, 2011 — The Supreme Court of the United States today announced that it has chosen, among numerous cases on the same topic, the challenge brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) as the case the Court will rule on to determine the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner and Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB’s Small-Business Legal Center, issued the following statements in response to the news:

“Only 18 months after its passage, the new health-care law has been brought to the steps of the Supreme Court by America’s small-business owners. For the small-business community, this comes not a day too soon,” said Dan Danner. “The health-care law has not lived up to its promises of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees, alike. The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation’s highest court.”

“This law not only failed the self-employed and small-business employees in practice, it has failed them in principle, forcing upon them an unprecedented mandate that infringes upon the individual rights that, truly, all Americans hold so dear,” added Karen Harned. “After months of uncertainty and frustration, small-business owners are finally within the reach of some clarity on how this law will ultimately impact their lives and their livelihoods. We are confident in the strength of our case and hopeful that we will ultimately prevail. Our nation’s job-creators depend on a decision being reached before the harmful effects of this new law become irreversible.”

More information about NFIB’s lawsuit is available at http://nfib.com/lawsuit.

NFIB/Arizona Comment: NFIB v. Sebelius “a crossroads for the nation”

PHOENIX, Ariz., Nov. 14, 2011 — From Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business:

“It is nearly impossible to understate the importance of this case. The stakes are enormous. The Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius will represent a crossroads for the nation. Do we go the route of European social democracy and overweening government intervention in our lives or do we return to the path of free markets and limited government?”

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C,. and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Federal Government, Health Care, Judicial, Press Release, Small Business Tagged With:

In defense of anonymous speech

November 8, 2011 By 25 Comments

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

As often happens during election season, the media has been up in arms about “secret funds” being spent by independent groups on messages meant to support or oppose candidates.

They should get a grip. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of speech, not witch-hunts led by the political establishment under the banner of “transparency.”

Our nation was founded on anonymous free speech by independent groups. Under pseudonyms, the Founders deliberately hid their identities as they engaged in coordinated advocacy of the ratification of the Constitution in 85 pamphlets. The pamphlets were crucial to rebutting the arguments of those who opposed the Constitution.

Without anonymity, the arguments advanced by the Founders could have been evaded with ad hominem attacks. Anonymity forced the opposition to grapple with ideas on their merits. This resulted in a better debate, which the Founders won on the strength of their ideas.

The marketplace of ideas is enhanced, not diminished, by the freedom to engage in anonymous speech. Broadside government attacks on anonymous speech threaten to suppress the marketplace of ideas, which ultimately threatens the media as much as any independent group.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Arizona Republic: Throw a light on secret funds

Library of Congress: The Federalist Papers

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech

Arizona Republican Party Statement on Removal of AIRC Commissioner

November 4, 2011 By 9 Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2011
CONTACT: communications@azgop.org

PHOENIX – The Arizona Republican Party issued the following statement regarding the removal of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commissioner, Colleen Mathis:

“Governor Jan Brewer and Republican members of the Arizona Legislature have our full faith and support in their recent action to immediately correct the gross misconduct that has occurred on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.  Governor Brewer exhibited extreme patience in allowing Commissioner Colleen Mathis more than enough time to perform her duties and abide by the Arizona Constitution. That time ran out yesterday when Ms. Mathis was removed from her position in accordance with the consitutionally-mandated direct oversight authorized to Governor Brewer. The Governor and Legislature had no other choice but to act swiftly to restore and preserve the integrity of the redistricting process.”

“Until yesterday’s action by the Governor and Legislature, communities across the state were in danger of losing democratic representation or even worse, being disenfranchised as a unique community. That political disaster appears to have been averted.”

“The Arizona Republican Party will stand firmly with Governor Brewer in her effort to correct this gross misconduct and to restore the confidence of all Arizonans in our constitutionally-required electoral process. We are especially grateful for her courage in placing the law above politics and partisanship.”

###

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Political Parties, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »