9th Circuit Strikes Parts of Arizona Voter ID Law

Yuma Sun:  “Arizona is entitled to demand that people present identification before being allowed to cast a ballot, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.  In a split decision, the judges rejected arguments that mandating would-be voters show a driver’s license or other identification unfairly discriminates against Latino voters. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, said while challengers made that claim, they failed to present any credible evidence.  The court also brushed aside arguments that the requirement to provide identification, approved by voters in 2004, amounts to a poll tax.  But the judges said the state cannot strictly enforce another provision in that 2004 initiative that requires anyone who wants to register to vote to first provide acceptable proof of citizenship.”

DOJ Accues Arpaio Of Negotiating In Bad Faith

ABCNews.com:  “The Justice Department has cut off negotiations with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and officials with the Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff’s Office in its effort to install an independent monitor to rein in the unconstitutional tactics used by officers there.

Arpaio, who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” defied the Justice Department suggestion that it could sue the county and the sheriff’s office to force the issue.

“I am the constitutionally and legitimately elected Sheriff and I absolutely refuse to surrender my responsibility to the federal government,” he said in a letter the Justice Department today. “And so to the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say, ‘This will not happen, not on my watch!’”

In December, the Justice Department released findings in its investigation of Arpaio’s office, noting there were significant civil rights violations, including the use of excessive force, and other systemic problems.”

Arizona Court of Appeals Case Extends Arizona Home Buyers Deficiency Judgment Protection

Arizona Republic:  “Homeowners do not lose their legal protections against being sued for debt after foreclosure just because they have refinanced a mortgage, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.  In a unanimous decision, the judges overturned a lower- court ruling that said Michael and Kelly Pasquan are liable for more than $1.9 million. That is the difference between what they owed on their mortgage and the value of the home when sold.”

Go to Top