Supreme Court Strikes Down Restrictive Arizona Voting Law: VIDEO

In a surprise move, the Supreme Court today ruled 7-2 that Arizona cannot require voters to prove their citizenship when submitting voter registration forms.  The New York Times reports on the ruling, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia (yes--you read that right):

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a federal form displaced an Arizona law requiring various kinds of proof of citizenship.

The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove that they were citizens by providing copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or driver’s licenses, that are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

Today's ruling was centered around the concept of 'preemption,' under which the federal laws are generally seen to trump state laws.  Think Progress has more on the preemption issue, which Scalia ruled is especially pertinent in laws affecting federal elections:

As the Court points out, this broad view of the federal role in governing elections is consistent with the Constitution’s text, which provides that “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of a major component of the Voting Rights Act by the end of next week.

Watch an MSNBC analysis of today's ruling, AFTER THE JUMP...

Group Launches Campaign to Put Marriage Equality on 2014 Arizona Ballot

A campaign has been launched in Arizona to put marriage equality before the voters in 2014, Echo reports:

If it's successful, the Arizona Equal Marriage campaign organized by a Libertarian and a Republican could put Arizona in line to be one of the next states to approve same-sex marriage.

But first, the effort would need to collect at least 259,213 signatures of voters registered in Arizona to put the issue on the ballot in the Nov. 4, 2014, general election. To launch the effort, the initiative was filed with the Arizona Secretary of State's office on June 17.

Warren Meyer, a Phoenix small business owner, Libertarian blogger and author, and Erin Ogletree Simpson, a retired Tucson lawyer and chair of the Arizona Log Cabin Republicans, are spearheading the campaign in anticipation that the Supreme Court will return the issue of marriage equality to the states, Echo adds:

Meyer and Ogletree Simpson said their goal is to gather at least 400,000 to ensure that their proposal qualifies for the ballot. They said signatures will be gathered by volunteer and paid workers.

The initiative would alter the language of an amendment to the state Constitution approved by voters in 2008, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The new language would define marriage as between two people.

The initiative also proposes adding a paragraph that says religious organizations would not be required to officiate any particular marriage — language that the initiative's supporters said protects religious freedoms.

More at Echo mag....

The group's press release is here.

Poll: 55 Percent of Arizonans Favor Allowing Gays to Marry

A new Rocky Mountain poll reveals that a majority in Arizona support allowing gays and lesbians to marry, TPM reports:

The poll showed that 55 percent of Arizona voters favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, while just 35 percent said they are opposed.

Large majorities of women, Hispanics and voters under the age of 55 support same-sex nuptials. A plurality of voters over the age of 54 — 46 percent — supports gay marriage, while 40 percent of the group is opposed.

The full poll, AFTER THE JUMP...

Former Rep. Jim Kolbe to Urge Senate Panel to Adopt Gay-Inclusive Immigration Reform

Former Congressman Jim Kolbe will urge the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday to add gay partners to a comprehensive immigration reform bill which thus far excludes them, Politico reports:

Kolbe, the second openly gay Republican to serve in Congress, is one of 20 witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing. But he is the only one whose primary aim is to describe the challenges binational gay couples face, Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls said.

The 11-term congressman from Arizona is expected to talk about the hardship of the current system on his relationship with his partner of eight years, Hector Alfonso, a Panamanian native. Alfonso is now in the U.S. on a green card, but the couple were forced apart for a year because a previous visa expired and the federal government doesn’t grant any legal status to gay couples.

Kolbe is planning to marry on May 18, in Washington D.C.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ) two members of the so-called 'Gang of Eight', have both said adding gay couples to the comprehensive immigration bill would endanger its passage.

Kolbe signed the Republican SCOTUS brief opposing DOMA. In 1996, he was outed by The Advocate for having voted in favor of it.

Gay Son of Congressman Matt Salmon Talks About His Father, Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO

Matt R. Salmon, the son of Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), talks about his father and his father's public opposition of marriage equality, with KPNX.

Said Salmon: "It's hard for me to understand that people will jump to the conclusion that he's anti-gay, he's a bigot. When really, yeah he doesn't support gay marriage, but that doesn't make him a bigot at all."

Salmon also reveals that he was in 'reparative therapy' and the hardest moment he had in his relationship with his father was when he decided to stop doing it:

"It was probably while I was in college, at ASU, and I had just decided that I was no longer going to do reparative therapy, and it was hard for him. We still had a loving relationship but it was difficult for him to accept."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Bisbee, Arizona Gay Man Declares 'I am Not an Abomination'; State Will Sue to Block Civil Unions: VIDEO

Yesterday I reported that the tiny Arizona town of Bisbee had approved civil unions. Here's a video (via jmg) of the meeting leading up to the City Council's 5-2 vote to recognize them. In the video, several people get up and declare homosexuality an abomination, except for one couple.

Says one of the couple in a statement:

"I just have to clarify. I am not an abomination. The love that we share together and the life that we have built together is not an abomination. It's strange to have to say that. It's strange to be up here asking all of you that are married - you all have more rights than I do, and you'll have more rights even if this passes...It does feel strange to be up here begging for something that's so little...I really just want the same rights that all of you have right now and I want all the same rights that my parents have...This isn't an abstract issue of gay marriage. This is us. We're a couple. And we love each other. And we would like you to please unanimously vote to give us just a sliver of the rights that you have."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

And yesterday, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced he will take the city to court to block the decision, the Star reports:

Horne spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham says the planned lawsuit will be filed before the ordinance approved Tuesday night by the Bisbee City Council takes effect in 30 days.

The council approved the ordinance after three hours of testimony by residents of the former mining town in mostly rural southeastern Arizona.

Horne says he's not taking a policy stance against civil unions by planning to sue. He says the council acted outside its legal authority because state laws control things such as community property.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...