Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Muslim Woman Running for Senate Faces Verbal Attacks

Democrat Deedra Abboud is running for senate in Arizona. She is hoping to run against Republican Senator Jeff Flake. But recently, she has been verbally attacked because she is Muslim. Abboud is an attorney in Phoenix and has reportedly endured harassment ever since she announced her campaign this spring. Recently, she posted a Facebook status talking about religious tolerance, and people responded by attacking her religion. “Nice try but your first love is Satan (AKA Allah) and your second love is to a litter box your ‘people’ come from,” one user wrote. “BAN ISLAM IN THE USA…WE HATE YOUR FILTHY DEATH CULT,” another one said. Abboud is originally from Arkansas but moved to Arizona and converted to Islam 19 years ago. After the comments became publicly known, even Senator Flake came to Abboud’s defense. “Hang in there,” he wrote. “Sorry you have to put up with this. Lots of wonderful people across AZ. You’ll find them.”

To clarify,he’s not “a flake” but Senator Flake,a Republican.
Hats off 4 standing against bigotry where others would have exploited the opp. https://t.co/HCITu7XPBQ

— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) July 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a draft recovery plan for endangered Mexican gray wolves on Thursday. An Arizona district court ordered the FWS to complete the plan by the end of November.

The last time the FWS revised the recovery plan for the Mexican wolves was 1982. The new recovery plan focuses on increasing wolf populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico.

“At the time of recovery, the Service expects Mexican wolf populations to be stable or increasing in abundance, well-distributed geographically within their historical range, and genetically diverse,” a FWS statement said.

The recovery plan provides for the establishment and maintenance of “a minimum of two resilient, genetically diverse Mexican wolf populations.” According to the plan, the Mexican gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status when there are at least 320 wolves in the U.S. and 170 wolves in Mexico.

Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that threshold is “far fewer wolves than the number scientists have said is necessary for a viable population.” Robinson also criticized the plan for not including regions that scientists have said would be “essential to their long-term survival,” including the Grand Canyon.

Before becoming endangered, the Mexican gray wolf, or “el lobo,” roamed northern Mexico and throughout Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican gray wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, and was absorbed into the endangered species listing of the gray wolf in 1978. Efforts to reintroduce wolves to the wild began in the late 1990s.

According to the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field, there are currently only about 100 Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates have supported efforts to release more captive wolves into the wild. However, they met opposition with ranchers and rural leaders who worried that the wolves would attack livestock and wild game.

In June 2016, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish brought a case against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the FWS, and certain government officials for releasing two Mexican gray wolf pups in New Mexico without a state permit. New Mexico, along with 18 other states, argued that the Endangered Species Act required the federal government to work with them to determine how species would be reintroduced inside of their borders. The district court enjoined the defendants from releasing any Mexican gray wolves into New Mexico without a state permit.

In April 2017, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish had failed to present sufficient evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the release of the wolves. The appellate court reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded the case to the district court.

Following the FWS’s release of the recovery plan draft this week, Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, called the plan a “backroom deal” that restricts the wolves from moving in suitable habitats. He also noted that President Donald Trump’s planned border wall will cut off access for wolves trying to pass between the U.S. and Mexico and make the wolves “incapable of beating the clock of extinction.”

“Future generations should have the chance to hear wolves howl on the landscape,” Bird said. “Scientists–not politicians who had undue influence on the recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves–should be making decisions about how best to protect endangered species and their habitat.”

The FWS will hold information meetings in July where members of the public will be able to submit comments on the draft recovery plan in Flagstaff, Arizona; Pinetop, Arizona; Truth or Consequences, New Mexico; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. People can also submit comments on the document online.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Wildlife Officials Draft Court-Ordered Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray Wolf appeared first on Law Street.

Arizona’s 2018 gubernatorial race is already garnering a lot of national attention thanks to Noah Dyer and his unorthodox approach to campaigning…complete and utter honesty!

Arizona Gov. hopeful Noah Dyer wants honesty in politics–on everything: https://t.co/HJk9AG3Uri pic.twitter.com/g97pRAfTkY

— Slate (@Slate) February 23, 2017

Rather than wait for his campaign rivals to dig up any unsavory oppo research on him, the Democratic candidate is committed to transparency.  So much so, that under the “Scandal & Controversy” tab of his campaign website Dyer outlines the “nitty-gritty” details of his personal finances, divorce, and even his sex life in the hope that his honesty will win over voters.

“Think about how much time political campaigns spend digging up dirt on their opponents,” reads Dyer’s website. “Noah is confident that all time spent this way is wasteful and unfortunate. It is his belief that the cleverly disclosed scandals that come out of the woodwork in the midst of campaigns mainly serve to divert and distract away from meaningful dialogue.”

By serving up his dirty laundry on a “silver platter,” Dyer believes his would-be constituents will realize these facts have no bearing on his ability to serve as governor.

And Dyer seemingly doesn’t hold anything back. Under the section titled “Sex” it reads:

Noah has had both deep and casual sexual experiences with all kinds of women.  He is an advocate of open relationships.  He’s had group sex and sex with married women.  He has sent and received intimate texts and pictures, and occasionally recorded video during sex. Noah has always been forthright with his partners.  All of his relationships have been legal and consensual, never coercive, or abusive, and he condemns such behavior. Noah is unapologetic about his sexual choices, and wishes others the same safety and confidence as they express themselves.

Woah….!

via GIPHY

He also reveals that he has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt, occasionally fights with his ex-wife, and was technically homeless at one point in his life.

The jury is still out on whether or not this campaign strategy will work in his favor (most likely not), but he’s already getting some praise on social media.

I’m not able to vote in Arizona, but if I were, #NoahDyer would have my vote. Sounds like a man of the people. 10/10 campaign strategy.

— Taylor Hedric (@TaylorHedric) February 24, 2017

Cheers to honesty!

via GIPHY

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Arizona Governor Candidate Just Aired His Entire Sexual History appeared first on Law Street.

A state lawmaker in Arizona on Thursday proposed a bill that would prohibit colleges and universities from hosting classes, activities, or events that “promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people.” HB2120, proposed by Representative Bob Thorpe, a Republican, would also grant the state’s attorney general the power to withhold up to 10 percent of state aid to institutions that failed to comply with the regulations.

Thorpe said he is primarily concerned with schools “finding ways to divide people and put wedges between people,” instead of simply teaching historical facts. While conversations about different modes of thought, and about America’s stain of racial discrimination should be encouraged at institutions of learning, “let’s just ensure they’re accurately discussed,” Thorpe said. “What I don’t want is somebody to be treated negatively and poorly because, for example, they are a Green Party member or they’re a Democrat or they’re a Republican.”

In 2010, the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would have banned the Mexican-American studies curriculum at Tucson public schools. But the bill was challenged in federal court, and in a 2015 ruling, judges said the bill was a form of discrimination, and could be unconstitutional. That case is currently awaiting trial. Thorpe’s proposal would expand upon the 2010 bill, including in its ban certain activities and events, rather than just courses.

Arizona Rep. Bob Thorpe wants to ban all activities from college campuses in the state which “are designed… https://t.co/097tPVaAiB

— Ric Hudgens (@rdhudgens) January 13, 2017

As an example of the sort of programs or classes that he would like to do away with, Thorpe pointed to the University of Arizona’s “privilege walk.” The voluntary event is designed to “help participants to acknowledge their privileges, contextualize their own experiences, and learn about their peers.”

Thorpe acknowledged that this is the first draft of his bill, and that it will be revised. He also said his opposition to certain topics being taught in Arizona schools is tied to taxpayer dollars. “I’m not saying in my bill these classes cannot occur,” Thorpe said. “What I’m saying is taxpayers should not have to pay for them.”

Journalist and civil rights activist Shaun King was not too pleased with Thorpe’s bill. “All of this is completely and utterly disgusting,” he wrote in an op-ed for the New York Daily News. “That an aloof lawmaker wants to actually oversee and monitor individual activities and events to prohibit students and staff from discussing economic and skin privilege in this country is not just petty, it’s deeply problematic.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Ban “Social Justice” in Arizona Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, and welcome to the first ICYMI of 2017. Check out our top three articles this week, and enjoy the start to your year.

Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients Granted DUI Defense Options

Arizona medical marijuana cardholders now have a better ability to defend themselves if they are charged with a marijuana DUI. The Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors must present sufficient evidence that an individual was actually impaired at the time of the arrest. Read the full article here.

U.S. Returns 10,000 Acres of Land to Okinawa

The U.S. military handed back nearly 10,000 acres of land to Okinawa on Thursday, the largest land transfer since the U.S. occupation of the Pacific island ended in 1972. Belonging to the 19,300-acre Jungle Warfare Training Center in the northern part of Okinawa, the land equaled 17 percent of the American-owned land on the island, according to the military. Read the full article here.

John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Arizona medical marijuana cardholders now have a better ability to defend themselves if they are charged with a marijuana DUI. The Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors must present sufficient evidence that an individual was actually impaired at the time of the arrest.

The ruling overturned a man’s marijuana  conviction, after the defense argued he should have been able to present evidence that he wasn’t impaired. Nadir Ishak was pulled over by police in 2013 after he was seen drifting into another lane. According to the officer, Ishak admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier that morning and was exhibiting body and eye tremors during the test. Ishak was acquitted of the charge of driving under the influence but convicted for driving with marijuana in his body. However, the judge determined there wasn’t enough evidence to support that conviction.

“[A]ccording to evidence here, there is no scientific consensus about the concentration of THC that generally is sufficient to impair a human being,” appellate Judge Diane Johnsen wrote.

The appeals judge determined that defendants can defend a conviction “through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by providing their own testimony and evidence on whether they were impaired.”

According to the Associated Press, the ruling was made possible thanks to a 2015 Arizona Supreme Court decision that determined patients could use their medical marijuana cards as a defense, but not as immunity. Cardholders can try to prove that they didn’t have enough THC, marijuana’s major psychoactive component, in their system to impair their ability to operate the vehicle safety.

This decision is seen as a major setback for prosecutors since Arizona, unlike some other states, has no laws outlining the legal limit of THC that may be absorbed in the blood before an individual is determined to be impaired.

While this decision doesn’t mean medical marijuana cardholders cannot be convicted of DUIs, it does grant users more freedom in protecting their right to a prescription. Patients must decide for themselves if medicating with  cannabis before driving is worth the risk of a potential arrest.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients Granted DUI Defense Options appeared first on Law Street.

While people anxiously awaited the results of the 2016 presidential election, Marijuana legalization–one of the nation’s top categories of ballot measures–had a strong and decisive night. Four states joined Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 years and older. Find out how America voted below!

Arizona

“Arizona” courtesy of Gordon Wrigley; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Results: Rejected

Proposition 205 would have legalized recreational marijuana for those over 21. It would have also created a 15 percent sales tax on marijuana that would be distributed to public health and education services.

Analysis: Arizona rejected Prop 205 with 52 percent voting against the measure and 48 percent voting in favor, as of Wednesday morning with 98 percent of the votes reported.

Opponents took issues with the measure’s caveat that would have created a monopoly on the marijuana industry in Arizona. Others argued that the legalization would increase drug trafficking and cause an increase in teen use and deadly car crashes tied to marijuana.

For more information on marijuana legalization state by state, click here for “The State of Weed.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Election Results: How Did States Vote on Recreational Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

Is controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s time in office almost up? On Tuesday, news broke that the federal government will file criminal contempt-of-court charges against Arpaio for ignoring orders from a judge. Arpaio was ordered to stop his anti-immigration policies in Arizona, but didn’t comply.

Two days later, activists from a movement called Bazta Arpaio stood outside of the Phoenix sheriff’s office holding a balloon modeled to look like Arpaio in handcuffs. Their organizer Del Palacio said: “The community is excited. They know that this is the best chance we have to get him out of office. Momentum is on our side.”

Today Joe Arpaio goes to court for violating a judges order. Who the criminal now, Joe? #bAZtaArpaio #NoMoreHate @CASEActionAZ pic.twitter.com/mDpT6Tiln2

— Hugo Soto (@HugoSotoLA) October 11, 2016

The group is urging Hispanic people to vote against Arpaio, both to kick him out of office and also with the hopes that it will increase voter participation. The sheriff is seeking a seventh term, and has also been campaigning for Donald Trump, so the new criminal charges came at a pretty bad time for him.

Members of the Bazta Arpaio group said that he has abused their community for a long time and it is time to get him out of office. They will focus on door knocking and campaigning in Latino neighborhoods and will also drive around a red bus spreading their message.

Berta, an organizer w #baztaarpaio and one of Arpaio’s victims, encourages voters to kick him out of office nov. 8 pic.twitter.com/VFzKX14nxN

— Tania A. Unzueta (@_LaTania) October 13, 2016

The court process has been going on since 2008, when some civil rights groups filed a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. This led to findings of a pattern of racial bias and in 2013 Arpaio was told to stop his immigration-enforcement operations. These included racial profiling of Hispanic people at traffic stops, patrols in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, and detaining people solely based on their perceived immigration status.

In May of this year the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, found Arpaio was guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring his orders. The official charges were announced on Tuesday. Arpaio has said he didn’t defy the orders on purpose. But if found guilty, the 84-year-old self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” could face six months in jail.

In his statement on the case, Arpaio blamed Obama for being corrupt and the DOJ of charging him for political reasons.

Here is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s two-part statement about the corrupt DOJ charging him for enforcing our immigration laws. It’s a MUST read. pic.twitter.com/7LhZQXectZ

— Jeremy Nolt (@RealJeremyNolt) October 11, 2016

According to experts, this is more of a symbolic move from the judge. “He’s really taking a stance that ‘Sheriff Joe’ is not above the law. That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior–even if you’re a very popular sheriff,” said criminal justice professor Cara Rabe-Hemp.

Arpaio is an outspoken Trump supporter who joined the fight to find out the “truth” about Obama’s birth certificate. He has also become known for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outside. No matter how the election in November goes, Del Palacio and other activists have their minds set on not letting him get re-elected as sheriff. “Regardless of what happens in the trial, we’re going to remain focused to ensure that his tenure ends on November 8” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Arizona Voters Come Together to Remove “America’s Toughest Sheriff”? appeared first on Law Street.

The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) has long been the seemingly make-it-or-break-it test that prospective law school students take. For years, it’s been a simple rule: if you want to go to law school, you take the LSAT. But the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law is breaking away from that mold–the school is accepting students who submit the Graduate Records Examinations (GRE) as well.

Arizona made its announcement about the GRE in February, and immediately saw backlash. The Law School Admission Council, which is in charge of the LSAT test, allegedly considering ousting Arizona from its membership–although the Council now states that its actions in regards to Arizona were “misinterpreted.” In addition to administering the LSAT, the Council offers a number of other admissions-related services, so it’s not really a membership that Arizona would have wanted to lose. The Council did decide to let Arizona retain its membership. Other law schools backed Arizona’s attempt to break from the norm–approximately 150 deans signed a letter supporting Arizona’s “effort to broaden its applicant pool.”

So why does Arizona want to let in applicants that don’t take the LSAT? There are a few reasons, including the fact that the American Bar Association (ABA) has never been clear that the LSAT is the only test that prospective law school students should or can take. According to Carrie Jung of NPR:

The American Bar Association says law schools must require a standardized test that’s valid and reliably predicts student performance, ‘but it doesn’t say that standardized test must be the LSAT,’ says Marc Miller, the Arizona law school dean.

Arizona commissioned a study which came to the conclusion that the GRE is a reliable way to measure applicants. And Arizona’s administration makes some good points about the accessibility benefits of the GRE–there are a lot more opportunities to take the GRE than the LSAT, and Arizona is hoping that increased accessibility leads to more a diverse pool of applicants.

Arizona’s admissions website now clearly states that submitting a GRE score instead of an LSAT score is allowed, and while it’s the first school to make this move, there may be others following suit. According to NPR, the University of Hawaii and Wake Forest are also considering opening admissions to GRE-takers as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No LSAT, No Problem: University of Arizona’s Law School Begins Accepting GRE appeared first on Law Street.

Going to a Trump campaign rally is kind of like going to a WWE match.

The rallies tend to draw a certain kind of crowd, they’re big on theatrics, and there’s a strong possibility that at some point there could be some real violence.

In fact, a Trump rally in Tucson, Arizona erupted into violence Saturday when a white anti-Trump protester carrying a sign that read “Trump is Bad for America” was allegedly sucker punched and kicked by a black Trump supporter.

Despite this, Trump declared his rallies “lovefests” on Sunday, telling ABC’s “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos, “We don’t condone violence. And I say it. And we have very little violence, very, very little violence at the rallies.”

Trump may be okay living in denial, but Twitter isn’t.

The alarming number of attacks on protestors at Trump rallies have inspired users to begin mocking the Republican presidential frontrunner using the trending hashtag #SaferThanATrumpRally.

So in no particular order here are 15 things that are apparently way safer than going to a Trump rally.

Marrying OJ #SaferThanATrumpRally pic.twitter.com/OO5Lc96nCL

— MJ (@MJGWrites) March 21, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pretty Much Everything is #SaferThanATrumpRally appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Vanessa Hudgens and her beau Austin Butler may be in trouble with the law after an Instagram photo the “High School Musical” star posted shows their first names carved into some distinctive Arizona red rock. Authorities believe that the defaced rock in question is located in or around Sedona in the Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest. Put simply: you are not supposed to carve things into these rocks–and if it’s determined that Hudgens and Butler did so, they could be on the hook for a $5,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Actress Vanessa Hudgens comes under fire for photo showing names carved into rock in AZ.https://t.co/ejBgJaLbeDpic.twitter.com/Cbzqa9Xmjf

— FOX 12 Oregon KPTV (@fox12oregon) February 16, 2016

If they did carve their names into one of the famous Arizona red rocks, Hudgens and Butler may have broken a law that criminalizes “damaging natural surfaces or property of the United States.” While the Instagram post with the carved rock has since been taken down, when it was still up it featured the caption “Happy Valentine’s Day boo boo bears.” Additionally, other pictures of Hudgens and Butler from their romantic vacation with the hashtag #SedonaDreams remain on Instagram.

The incident is now allegedly under investigation. Brady Smith, a Coconino National Forest spokesman said he is not sure whether or not the investigators have managed to locate the rock on which Hudgens and Butler scratched their undying love, especially given that it could be essentially anywhere within the 250-square mile Red Rock Ranger District. They are also apparently looking for more evidence on social media, and trying to locate any witnesses.

Hudgens and Butler probably shouldn’t be too worried–it’s doubtful that they’ll actually face any jail time for their carvings. But they may have to pay a fine, which could range from $100-$5,000, and they may end up with misdemeanors on their records. While there apparently aren’t any signs that expressly tell visitors not to carve into the rocks, it stands to reason that it’s common sense not to deface national land. Hudgens and Butler, therefore, may have to pay for that lack of common sense in this instance.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vanessa Hudgens Suspected of Defacing Arizona Red Rock appeared first on Law Street.

In a close vote, Phoenix City Council members voted last week to ban the opening prayer at city council meetings, in an effort to block a group of Satanists who offered to lead the next service.

According to The Arizona Republic, in a 5-4 vote on Feb. 3, the city council decided to switch from an opening prayer to a moment of silence instead of allowing the Satanic Temple to give the invocation at the Feb. 17 meeting. This decision caused controversy and criticism by many who viewed this as a win for Satanists.

@HuffingtonPost Duh, that’s EXACTLY what the Satanists wanted in the first place. Way to play right into their hands, Phoenix.

— Jess Gofa-Kierselv (@noplaneson911) February 5, 2016

“If they don’t want to accept, constitutionally what must happen is that all voices must be taken down from the public forum,” Stu de Haan, a member of the temple, said to The Arizona Republic. “It’s basically all voices must be heard or none at all.”

When news of the Satanic Temple’s intent to give the prayer was made public, it went viral. More than a hundred people packed the city council meeting last week, with many offering emotional testimony opposing the Satanists.

“I am not for the silent prayer,” said Pastor Darlene Vasquez during the meeting, reported The Arizona Republic. “I want those who believe in the one true God to pray. It breaks my heart to hear what is going on.”

However, the Satanist group has argued that the public’s view is skewed. According to de Haan, the group does not believe that Satan exists, but rather they believe in Satan in less literal terms. On the Satanic Temple’s website it says that they strive for “benevolence and empathy among all people.” They are described as non-theists, contrary to popular belief. 

“This is what that Satanist group wants,” Councilman Sal DiCiccio told The Arizona Republic. “A moment of silence is basically a banning of prayer. It’s to agree to the Satanic goal to ban prayer.”

PHX votes to ban prayer 5-4. Sad day for Phoenix

— Sal DiCiccio (@Sal_DiCiccio) February 4, 2016

Mayor Greg Stanton was one of the five members of the council who voted in favor of the moment of silence.

“The First Amendment to the Constitution is not ambiguous on this issue,” Stanton told The Arizona Republic. “Discriminating against faiths would violate the oath that all of us on this dais took. I personally take that very, very seriously.”

@HuffingtonPost – Good…one less way that religion will find its way into the public forum. #SeparateChurchAndState

— WhenRightIsWrong (@Right_All_Wrong) February 5, 2016

“This is an issue that will come up in homogeneous communities when a member of a minority religion takes advantage of the invocation and it tends to generate a backlash,” Gregory Lipper, a senior attorney at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Washington Post. “Most local governments are used to a steady drumbeat of Christian clergy delivering Christian prayers. We’ve seen this same issue with Muslim prayer-givers and Wiccan prayer-givers around the country.

The group decided to move to neighboring cities, asking if the Satanic Temple could give the opening prayer at other city council meetings.

The Satanic group is scheduled to give a similar opening prayer at the Scottsdale City Council meeting on April 5, according to city spokesman Kelly Corsette.

Scottsdale is only a little over 20 minutes away from Phoenix, and the closest of the cities they decided to reach out to. The other cities the temple had submitted requests to were Tuscon, Sahuarita, and Chandler.

Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane told The Arizona Republic that the city is inclusive of different religions and that the point of the invocations is to facilitate positive discussion about the community.

@NYDailyNews wouldn’t be a city council meeting without satanists !

— john kennedy (@GaspejohnJohn) February 4, 2016

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Satanic Temple Pushes Phoenix to Ban Prayer at City Council Meetings appeared first on Law Street.

During the early morning hours of September 8, Maya Donnelly was awaken by a crash that she believed was just thunder. Later that morning she looked in her garage and noticed pieces of broken wood and signs that Hulk, their large German Shepherd, had been making a mess. Donnelly went outside to get a closer look at things and to her surprise there was a mysterious package wrapped in black plastic. Donnelly stated:

I went out to investigate, and sure enough, I looked up to see the hole, and then my eyes trailed down and the big dog’s house was destroyed. It made a hole in that hard plastic doghouse and the bundle was inside…

Donnelly lives with her husband and three teenage daughters in Nogales, Arizona, near the U.S.-Mexico border. Because of the large amount of smuggling that occurs near the border area, she immediately assumed that the package was drugs and called the police. When the police arrived, they revealed that Donnelly was correct. The package contained 26 pounds of marijuana and was worth nearly $10,000.

Nogales Police Department officers searched their property and other nearby areas for additional bundles but nothing was found. The officers then took possession of the drugs.

Nogales family woke to find a bail of marijuana fell through their roof. http://t.co/Y0gsVpCwCT pic.twitter.com/ZG7pqlJWRZ

— KVOA News 4 Tucson (@KVOA) September 27, 2015

Police are trying to determine if the bundle was transported by an aircraft or a pilotless drone. Authorities told Donnelly that an ultralight aircraft smuggling marijuana from Mexico had probably let part of its load go early by mistake. These aircrafts are one of the tools of the local drug smuggling trade. Nogales Police Chief Derek Arnson stated, “Someone definitely made a mistake, and who knows what the outcome of that mistake might be for them.”

In the United States, ultralight aircrafts are classified as “vehicles” and not aircrafts. They are not required to be registered nor is the pilot required to have a pilot license or certificate, thus making it easy to smuggle drugs. Arnson told Nogales International,

Ultralights, we’ve seen those on occasion. They’ll take a couple, two, three bundles. You can hear those kind of buzzing. They come at nighttime and they don’t land, they just drop and go back to Mexico.

Now, I’m sure some people may be surprised by the Donnellys’ integrity in calling the police and not keeping the bundle to make a profit.

Let 26 pounds of marijuana fall on my house. The last thing Ima do is call the police…the last.

— Bria (@BriaMaria92) September 28, 2015

Despite their friends joking to them that they could have kept the package and illegally sold the drugs, the family did not want to feel any guilt about the situation. “That’s what everybody says: ‘Why did you call 911?” Maya Donnelly stated. “But how can you have a clear conscience, right?”

The Donnellys do not feel any less safe after the incident and doubt that anyone will come looking for the drugs since the bundle is now in police custody. Arnson agreed, but placed patrols in the Donnelly’s neighborhood for now just to be safe. Although the family will have to pay an estimated amount of $500 in roof repairs and a new home for their dog, they are just happy that the package did not come through another part of their home and that no one was harmed.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Surprise: 26 Pounds of Marijuana Crash Through Arizona Home appeared first on Law Street.

Residents of Phoenix, Arizona, and its suburbs are on edge after a series of shootings, possibly by a sniper, on busy Interstate-10. In the past 11 days, there have been 10 shootings, and although no fatalities have been reported, the pressure is on to find the culprit, or culprits.

The odd series of shootings began on August 29, when three different vehicles were struck by bullets while traveling down Interstate-10. Then, another vehicle was hit the next day. Shootings have continued at a relatively consistent rate since then–convincing most onlookers and the law enforcement in the area that these aren’t just random occurrences.

So far, there has only been one reported injury. A 13-year-old girl was cut by glass after a bullet pierced the window of a car she was riding in, shattering the window. But, that doesn’t mean that these attacks should be viewed as benign–potential future harm is a big concern.

For many, news of a “sniper” brings immediate memories of the DC, or “Beltway” Sniper, John Allen Muhammed, and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo. The DC Sniper terrorized the greater Washington D.C. area in 2002, killing ten people and injuring three more. However there are important differences between the two cases–so far the Phoenix shooter has been aiming at cars only, along the highway, while the DC Sniper went after pedestrians and those outside of vehicles as well. While that doesn’t mean that the Phoenix shootings aren’t incredibly concerning, they don’t warrant too serious of a comparison.

Officials who investigated the DC Sniper have also noted some serious differences between that case and the current Phoenix mystery. Arthur Roderick, who was involved in the DC Sniper investigation pointed out to CNN that whoever is shooting in Phoenix appears to have used different weapons, indicating that there may be multiple shooters, or a copycat. In addition, the stretch of Interstate-10 on which the shootings have occurred is much smaller than the region in which the DC Sniper operated, indicating it might be easier to narrow down suspects.

That being said, pressure is certainly on to find the shooter, or shooters, if the theory of a copycat being involved is true. The shootings are being labeled as “domestic terrorism” by Arizona authorities, with Arizona Department of Public Safety Director Frank Milstead stating:

Anytime that you have multiple shootings against American citizens on a highway, that’s terrorism. They’re trying to frighten or kill somebody.

Given that there doesn’t appear to be any connections between the victims, besides the fact that they were all traveling along the same stretch of highway, it’s difficult to guess any sort of motive. Milstead’s assessment that these shootings are being committed from the motivation of causing fear or unrest seems likely. But for now, this remains an odd, open case, that will hopefully be solved soon to bring peace of mind to the greater Phoenix area.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with the Phoenix Highway Shootings? appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday marked an important day for the Arizona State University community; particularly those associated with ASU’s Law School. Since its inception in 1965, the Sandra Day O’ Connor College of Law has remained where ASU’s main campus is, in Tempe, Arizona. However the construction of the new $129 million law school building in downtown Phoenix has been underway since July 2014. On June 9, the final beam was hoisted atop a six-story building under construction, attesting to the fact that the initial plans for the building’s completion by 2016 are still very alive.

Dozens of residents, council members, community leaders, law school faculty, and many more crowded at the foundation of the structure on Tuesday. One by one they signed their names and the date on a large piece of steel meant to complete the final piece of the foundation. The crowd cheered away as if at a Cardinals vs. Seahawks game as the massive section was hoisted up by crane and carried to its place six stories up.

Located in downtown Phoenix, the new location of the law school could not be more ideal. With more than 12 major law firms located within walking distance of the new campus, students will have even more networking and job opportunities than ever before. In a press release, the school’s president, Michael M. Crow, stated the following:

Having the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in downtown Phoenix fits perfectly with ASU’s mission of building strong learning and career connections with media, health care, corporate and government organizations for the more than 11,500 students at the downtown campus.

The new location is set to have high-tech equipment and state-of-the-art facilities with the goal of taking teaching and learning to a new level. Amid the 280,000 square foot structure, students can expect a brand new Ross Blakely Law Library, two think tanks, multiple centers with cross-disciplinary focus, and also the new ASU Alumni Law Group, the first teaching law firm associated with a law school. The new law school will also feature one large lecture hall for undergraduate students, as well as cafes and restaurants on the first floor.

Funding for the new law school comes from a combination of donors and alumni, as well as $12 million and land from the city of Phoenix. Local Phoenix attorney Leo Beus and his wife Annette donated $10 million to the effort.

As witnessed Tuesday on site, the majority of the ASU community is thrilled about the new location for the Sandra Day O’ Connor Law School. Despite having established a well known presence and fostered a home within the learning environment for thousands of students throughout its 50 years at Tempe, those affiliated with the school view the construction as a positive change. Many alumni expressed that as long as the College of Law maintains the same standards and ensures that the Armstrong name is honored–the current law school sits in Armstrong Hall– the new location for the law school is a big leap forward.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona State’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School Finds New Home in Phoenix appeared first on Law Street.

In Colorado, there is a famous city called Boulder. World-class geology professors teach at the University of Colorado Boulder, and the state’s concert venue Red Rocks is known across the nation. So, naturally, Colorado takes rocks very seriously.

This brings me to dumb Colorado law number one: one may not mutilate a rock in a state park. I’m not entirely sure what is considered “rock mutilation.” Carving your initials into a rock? Do pebbles count? Oh, the confusion! In the city of Boulder, it is illegal to roll or throw rocks on public property. This law also raises a lot of questions. What if you are rolling snow to make a snowman and there is a rock in the ball of snow? Does that count? Can you throw a pebble at a window to get someones’ attention like they do in the movies?

Because of the presence of llama farms in Boulder, lawmakers felt it necessary to ban llamas from grazing on city property. This law also applies to other domestic animals, in case you’re wondering. No need to worry about a missile being thrown at your vehicle while driving in Alamosa, Colorado, as that is illegal there. And if you frequently need to pee in Alamosa, make sure you are always near a restroom, as there is a law banning public urination.

Colorado is famous for a lot of things, including recreational marijuana and skiing. If you decide to take a skiing or snowboarding trip to Vail, you’d better be pretty good at it, as it is illegal to crash into obstacles on a ski slope. So, if you are a little less than pro level, I’d recommend venturing elsewhere lest you have a run in with the law.

Now it’s time to poke some fun at Arizona laws. Obviously, Cocaine is illegal in the state, yet lawmakers also felt the need to make the manufacture of imitation cocaine illegal, as well. What about baking soda companies, or other companies that make white powdery substances? Doesn’t that technically count as “imitation cocaine?”

You should also be careful what you write or draw on a flag in Arizona. If you place any mark on a flag likely to cause a physical retaliation, you will be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor. The state also cherishes its cacti. If you cut one down, you’re looking at up to 25 years in prison. Also, if you happen to come across a camel there, don’t shoot! Camel hunting in Arizona is illegal. This law may sound dumb, but there actually are camels in Arizona. The U.S. Army once experimented with camels in the desert there but they eventually gave up. The remaining camels were set free, and are now protected.

In summary, be careful with rocks in Colorado and don’t cut down cacti in Arizona or kill any camels and you should be okay. Join me next time for the dumbest laws of New Mexico and Texas!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Colorado and Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

A particular viral video has been making its away across the blogosphere and has started to creep into mainstream news. What this video purportedly displays is a man committing clear “voter fraud” in Arizona. Here’s the video if you want to watch for yourself:

Although to be completely honest, it’s quite a dull almost nine minutes. All it is is a hispanic man putting ballots into a reader that he carried in in a box. Clear voter fraud evidence, right?

Wrong. It’s actually a man named Ben Marine, who works for Citizens for a Better Arizona. CBA is a progressive group that was actually founded in response to that god-awful “Papers Please” law that Arizona tried to institute a few years back. CBA succeeded in recalling Arizona State Senate President Russell Pierce, who was the driving force behind that law. Since then, CBA has worked as a grassroots-type organization. One of its stated goals is to increase voter participation in the Latino community. One of the ways they’ve done that has included voter drives to try to bring in those who requested absentee ballots.

CBA can legally gather people together to collect their absentee ballots, and deliver those sealed ballots, which have been sent to real people, to the ballot box. Drives like this make it easier for those who work or have other commitments and can’t always make it to the ballot box themselves to vote. Given the fact that elections are on Tuesdays, this is a common problem. Absentee ballots, early voting, and voter drives make it easier for those people to make sure their voices are heard. According to Arizona law, it’s entirely legal. The Arizona elections rules state:

After they have securely sealed the voted ballot inside the early ballot return envelope,
voters may voluntarily give their voted early ballot to a person of their choice for delivery
to the Recorder or a polling place. The designated person shall not tamper with the
envelope or the ballot and shall not deliberately fail to deliver the ballot to the Recorder
or a polling place within the voter’s county of residence.

So, CBA’s ballot collection would be illegal if Marine had tampered with the envelope or the ballot, but there’s literally no evidence to suggest that. All that the video shows is someone working with the CBA dropping off absentee ballots. Furthermore, Marine is actually registered to be able to drop off ballots.

Of course, a few different stories are being told about what actually happened. A.J. LaFaro, who chairs the Maricopa County Republican Committee called Marine  “a vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug that has no respect for our laws. I would have followed him to the parking lot to take down his tag number but I feared for my life.” That must have all happened off camera, of course.

First of all, how stupid would Marine be if he was committing voter fraud in that video? He’s wearing a shirt from the organization he works for, his face is easily identifiable, and he makes no effort to hide what he’s doing. If he was legitimately committing voter fraud, it would be the lamest attempt at doing something illegal I’ve ever seen.

But more importantly it’s this kind of fear-mongering that has led people to believe that voter fraud is actually a legitimate problem, even though there’s been almost no evidence to suggest so. An incredibly extensive study this summer published by the Washington Post found a grand total of 31 cases of voter fraud since 2000. And most of it was done by individuals, not a systemic effort by a group. But when you circulate a video like this with the inflammatory headlines like, “Liberal Activist Caught on Video Stuffing Hundreds of Ballots,” it’s gratuitous clickbait, it’s fear-mongering, and it’s silly. How about we all just concentrate on winning elections by appealing to the public with popular platforms, and changes that will positively impact constituents’ lives? Apparently, I shouldn’t be holding my breath for that.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Denise Cross Photography via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona Man Does His Job Dropping Off Ballots, Panic Ensues appeared first on Law Street.

You can’t make everyone happy all the time. That’s an old principle that Arizona is learning this week as its new revenge porn law draws ire, outrage, and even a few lawsuits. Most critics are claiming that the law is way too broad and will criminalize people for things that probably don’t qualify as revenge porn.

Revenge porn is absolutely a real problem. There are countless stories of women whose jilted exes, or men they rejected, submit nude photos of them to be ridiculed by the denizens of the internet. Or the women whose faces are flawlessly photoshopped onto naked bodies. Or the women who have their emails hacked, and their nude photos stolen for no apparent reason other than that the hacker wanted to shame, ridicule, or ogle them.

Revenge porn has made headlines recently because its victims have gotten notably more high profile. Two releases of nude photos in the past month have targeted celebrities such as Jennifer Lawrence, Gabrielle Union, and Ariana Grande. Sometimes a threat of revenge porn is enough to make headlines. After Emma Watson’s inspirational speech on feminism earlier this week, internet trolls have been threatening to release nude photos of her…because speaking out about inequality is clearly a crime punishable by public humiliation and degradation.

It’s within this context that Arizona passed a new revenge porn bill this week. The idea behind the bill is good, truly. But the execution is a little rough. As Wired summed it up:

The law makes it criminal to disclose, display, publish, or advertise any images of a person who is ‘in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities’ if the person who shares or publishes the images ‘knows or should have known’ that the person depicted in the image did not consent to ‘the disclosure.’

The worry is that this could criminalize a whole bunch of stuff — for example a picture of a woman whose breast is partially exposed while breast feeding, or a historical book that includes a nude photo, or that iconic image of the “Napalm girl” from the Vietnam War, or hundreds of other things that certainly aren’t revenge porn. It also will cause problems for book stores and libraries, as they’ll have to make sure that everything they receive, including magazines, have pictures with specific consent. While they probably do, the off chance that this law could be accidentally broken will probably make book sellers air on the side of caution.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has now filed a suit against the Arizona law. The organization claims that the law violates the First Amendment. Legal Director of the Arizona ACLU Dan Pochoda, stated,

On its face it will affect a goodly amount of protected speech that has nothing to do with the prototypical revenge porn scenario. There’s a reason why so many media folks, bookseller folks, have joined (the lawsuit,) because a number of things they do in a normal course would be criminalized by this law.

On Arizona’s part, it really does get an A for effort. In an environment where many people are not only accepting but encouraging the release of the nude photos of those young female celebrities, it’s important that states take serious action against revenge porn. But the issue with this law is that it seems to fundamentally misunderstand what revenge porn is.

Revenge porn isn’t just about the sharing of nude photos without explicit consent — that seems to be more of a copyright issue. Revenge porn is about the intent behind it, and that’s usually revenge. It’s used to put a woman in her place, or shame her for being sexual, or put her in a compromising position with family and friends and work. It’s not necessarily about the nakedness, it’s about the vulnerability and helplessness that comes with it. So while Arizona’s law is a really, really great start, it fails to focus the criminalization, and instead criminalizes everything. Some narrowing could fix these problems; let’s hope that Arizona gets that and focuses on what really matters: making sure those who legitimately distribute revenge porn are punished.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona’s Well Intentioned Revenge Porn Law Totally Misses the Point appeared first on Law Street.

In Arizona, if you are within 75 miles of the Mexican border, you might just come across a “temporary” border control checkpoint. The goal of these checkpoints is to help control drug trafficking and stop illegal immigration. But the legality of these checkpoints, and what the Border Patrol agents are actually allowed to do is far from clear. The American Civil Liberties Union has now filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 15 individuals who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated at checkpoints in Arizona.

Of the individuals involved in the ACLU complaint, the majority say they were never asked about their identity, the supposed purpose of the checkpoints. Some of the complainants claim they were held for over half an hour for not giving the Border Patrol officer consent to search their cars. Other complaints include a gun being pulled on a individual, and the Border Patrol agents attempting to take someone’s cell phone. If these allegations are true, they most likely violate the existing laws on checkpoints.

The highest court of the land has only ruled on interior checkpoints once, almost forty years ago, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Amado Martinez-Fuerte was transporting two illegal immigrants when he was stopped at a fixed interior checkpoint in Southern California. When asked, the two illegal immigrants admitted to their status. Martinez-Fuerte reacted by suing, saying that the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. SCOTUS ruled that his rights were not violated, because if there is a reasonable collective suspicion, then individuals can be searched in the interest of public safety. The court stated that Border Patrol agents could briefly question and ask people for identification, without individual suspicion, if they’re at reasonably located checkpoints. The court did not give the Border Patrol the right to search vehicles or occupants without probable cause. The question in Arizona today is if the Border Patrol is abiding by this ruling.

It seems like this administrative complaint may lead to a new look at our laws. These checkpoints have expanded their focus to include more work in drug control, instead of just looking for illegal immigrants. This is problematic because Martinez-Fuerte only serves as a precedent for checkpoints searching for illegal immigrants. Currently at checkpoints, vehicles are examined by drug-sniffing dogs. In Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dogs could be used during a routine traffic stop, but no court has explicitly ruled that they can be used at Border Patrol checkpoints.

Furthermore, in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that using these checkpoints for general law enforcement acts violates the Fourth Amendment. James Duff Lyall, the attorney who filed the complaint stated:

The restrictions in the Martinez-Fuerte ruling don’t mean that agents have to turn a blind eye to obvious evidence of drugs or crime, but if you have cases where people are not even being asked about residency status, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of these checkpoints.

In 1976, the Supreme Court made the Martinez-Fuerte ruling because they felt that in an area with a high number of illegal immigrants, it was not unreasonable to have ID checkpoints on major roads. Using that logic as precedent, I think that it could be argued that due to the large amount of narcotics crossing the border, it is not unreasonable to have cars drive through a checkpoint where drug-sniffing dogs are present. However, there’s no legal basis for that argument yet, and this is not an excuse for the unreasonable searches that the ACLU is alleging are taking place. If the point of these checkpoints is to find drugs, a car should only have to stop for a few moments while the dog sniffs, and then be allowed to move on. Anything beyond that, or a simple examination of a person’s ID, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol in Arizona needs to realize this if they want to keep operating their checkpoints.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken & Sharon Lotts via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Interior Checkpoints in Arizona Draw Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

At least, that would be the advice of political hopeful Scott Fistler, two-time loser for public office in Phoenix, Arizona. Oh wait, sorry — I mean Cesar Chavez, formerly known as Scott Fistler. While known as Fischer, Chavez ran and lost twice, yet he stuck to his guns and, determined, decided his luck would change if he changed his political affiliation and name for the low, low price of $319. Thus, another Cesar Chavez, no relation to the civil rights activist, was born! They don’t even look alike, except perhaps if you squint in a certain light. To avoid future confusion, I will, from here on out, refer to Fistler as “Chavez the Second.” Hopefully Fistler at least knows whose name he stole…

Chavez the Second figured he would fare better with his new and oh-so-original name in a heavily Hispanic, Democratic congressional district. According to Fox News, Chavez the Second’s campaign website featured photographs of frenzied supporters holding “Chavez” signs, which are obviously scenes from the streets of Venezuela at rallies for its late president Hugo Chavez. Whoops.

Chavez the Second explained his reasoning in black-and-white terms to the Arizona Republic. “It’s almost as simple as saying Elvis Presley is running for president. You wouldn’t forget it, would you?” You’re right, Chavez — we certainly wouldn’t.

He went on to tell everyone why he went against another name. “If you went out there running for office and your name was Bernie Madoff, you’d probably be screwed.” Hm, yes… logical.

This seems like a pretty bizarre move, but then again, Chavez the Second has always gone a bit against the grain. The 35-year-old’s favorite book happens to be The Sneetches by Dr. Seuss. That would be normal if he were, say, 30 years younger. I can hear the original Chavez, one of the founders of the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, rolling over in his grave. Chavez the First championed the cause of better treatment, pay, and working conditions for field workers and is considered a hero in the Hispanic community.

Ironically, after going to so much trouble to run for office as a Democrat, Chavez the Second missed the deadline to appear on the ballot. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that hundreds of signatures that Scott Fistler gathered to get on the Aug. 26 ballot were invalid, thus disabling him from running. He had the chance to appeal this decision, but missed the deadline. That’s what happens when you get distracted and procrastinate — thanks for reminding us of this important life lesson, Chavez the Second!

Chavez the Second’s own family members are peeved by his name change. His grandson, his own flesh and blood, filed a legal complaint about his grandfather, claiming that the name change would defraud voters.

It’s hard to imagine how he could have possibly lost twice in the first place considering his goals as a politician should he ever win: “Just show up there and act presentable. It’d be kind of like the first day of kindergarten,” he said. Well, at least on the first day of Kindergarten it probably seemed normal when he was seen reading “The Sneetches.”

One can only speculate what he will do if the name Cesar Chavez doesn’t pan out. Probably run as an Independent and change his name to Winnie the Pooh. That would appeal to everyone, I imagine. I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t vote for a loveable, cartoon bear. Ah, it’s refreshing to know the direction in which politics is headed…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Joel Levine via wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lost Your Bid for Congress? Change Your Name! appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Unlike most of the world I don’t start my day off with a morning cup of Joe. I tend to just jump right into whatever I have going for the day minus the caffeine jolt. I know, it’s a little weird. But all of you who survive your days because of a great cup of coffee should take into consideration that, most likely, that cup of coffee you are drinking is from one of the greatest companies in the United States.

I’ve had my love affair with a venti White Chocolate Mocha with an extra shot of espresso, but too many of those and a massive anxiety attack will cause anyone to stop with the coffee for a while. Starbucks makes a mean cup of coffee and you can have it any way you want it, that’s the point of their existence. Until now. I was intrigued the other day when I heard the announcement that Starbucks would be paying for any employee who works 20 hours or more to go back to school. It was even more interesting to discover that it would be online and at Arizona State University. I find it odd that there is a specific school that Starbucks has teamed up with in order to get their employees a higher education. Why Arizona State? Isn’t Starbucks a Seattle-based company? Wouldn’t they want to promote a Washington state school? These are all valid questions but then I realized, why am I asking such silly questions. I just graduated from Arizona State with my Master’s.

Arizona State is a great school, the curriculum is sharp and to the point. Not to mention I had the greatest experience with the professors. Most college professors are extremely liberal and I did have a few moments of uneasiness when things were said about the Republican Party or conservatives in general but I was allowed to voice my opinion and it was well received. So of course Starbucks would want to pick Arizona State and the online program has such an extensive selection that you could pretty much become a doctor or lawyer through their online program.

Although I have personal reasons for thinking this is a great idea, I wonder how many other people would agree. I mean there are those who may not like the idea of an online education or attending Arizona State, but I feel like this is a great partnership between Starbucks and ASU. I don’t think, though, that Starbucks is taking into account what their employees might want out of their own education. Some may not feel comfortable with the online method of learning or they may learn better in a classroom. Though an online education is just as good as being in a classroom, some just don’t do well with it. There is a certain kind of person who can succeed with the online program and that is usually someone who is very dedicated and organized. Online classes are in no way easier then classroom courses; in some instances they are even harder. With that being said it is a great step in the right direction for a company to promote education and to want to help their employees become better in their own personal lives.

All in all I say kudos to Starbucks and Fear the Fork!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Jun Seita via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Starbucks and Arizona State Team Up in Exemplary Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

As a student considering attending law school in a couple years, I can’t help but hope that the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law is starting a trend. The law school recently announced that they were slashing their out of state tuition by over 25 percent, lowering their yearly tuition from $38,841 to $29,000 for nonresident students. There are several reasons why this might become a trend, but the main one is that law school enrollment is down and many law schools are losing money. These schools have to respond to a changing market. And the University of Arizona is doing a truly laudable job with their response.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia certainly thinks that shifts like Arizona’s will become a trend. Scalia, in his commencement address to William and Mary Law School graduates, bluntly dismissed any “law school in two years” concept.  According to Scalia, law is not a trade but a profession, and there is no way to learn all that needs to be learned in just two years. He thinks that a student must have a wide base of knowledge in the many types of law and requires three years of study. However, he also thinks that law schools are currently overvalued. The solution to Scalia, therefore, is for law schools to lower prices rather than offer two-year programs.

Scalia also has plans for how law schools will survive the loss in revenue. He thinks that there are too many law professors and that they get paid too much. Some law professors get paid twice as much as federal judges, despite a less intense workload. In Scalia’s eyes, it would be reasonable to pay law professors less and expect them to teach more.

So is Scalia right and is Arizona a part of the beginning of a trend for law school tuition decreases? It’s hard to imagine that they are not. Based on an Arizona Board of Regents report, Arizona’s law school is now 30 percent cheaper than the average cost of other law schools. Dean Marc Miller told The Arizona Daily Star that, “we’re responding to the market in changing times. It will have more students looking at us more seriously early on.” If the dean is correct, and saving over ten grand in tuition draws students to Arizona in high numbers, other schools will have to follow suit.

Arizona is not the only law school to lower its tuition recently. Roger Williams Law School, Brooklyn Law School, and Iowa Law School have all made similar moves. The cuts have ranged from 15 to 18 percent, although Arizona offered the highest cut in terms of percentage. If these schools experience an increase in applications and enrollment, all law schools, except perhaps the elite ones, will have to lower prices to compete.

As a potential law student, the two-year law degree is very tempting and if it was an option I think I would have to take it. I would imagine most law students would choose that route. It means one less year of school and saves you $30,000-$50,000. That being said, I understand Scalia’s argument and would not be disappointed if the two-year program never came to fruition, especially if costs go down. If Arizona did not reduce cost, but adopted a two year program, it would cost an out of state student $77,682. Under the new reduced cost plan, it will cost a student $87,000 for three years. That bill is still more than a hypothetical two-year program, but the overall savings might make it worth the third year, especially if it enhances your ability to be a lawyer and earn money.

The University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School is Getting Cheaper in Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, spoke out against the measure, and various groups lobbied the governor to veto the bill. Both of Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, tweeted that they hoped Brewer would veto the measure. Thankfully, the veto came on Wednesday, February 26.

It seems unusual for an executive to veto legislation coming from a legislature dominated by their  own party. Arizona’s government is dominated by the GOP, both in the state legislature as well in the governor’s office. However, this was no ordinary bill: in fact, even some of the original supporters and drafters were having second thoughts about the potential consequences of the radical legislation. They noted that the bill’s final product was not what they originally intended and believed that its passage would cause the state “immeasurable harm.” 

Here are three reasons why it is important that Brewer vetoed the bill: 

1. It’s just bad business.

If the law passed, Arizona could have lost out on bringing new business and capital to the state. Representatives from Apple and American Airlines, two major companies that planned to build new operations in Arizona, wrote to Brewer to express deep concern about the bill’s effects and stated that they would relocate their new facilities elsewhere. And there was potential for many more companies to react the same way. 

Governor Brewer’s state had already experienced economic backlash due to the implementation of another controversial policy. After the state passed its notorious immigration law in 2010, Arizona’s economy lost about $140 million in business and tourism revenue. Moreover, the state is slated to host next year’s Superbowl, but the NFL has already publicly criticized the bill and could potentially threaten relocation of the game. Again, this wouldn’t be the first time — Arizona lost its ability to host the 1993 Superbowl because it failed to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a national holiday. Both of these experiences showed Brewer the economic danger of passing controversial legislation.

2. The bill misinterpreted religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill, SB-1062, argued that it was intended to better protect religious freedom. Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, commented after the veto: “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.” However, the grounds on which the legislation’s supporters argued that the bill enhanced personal religious freedom are not supported. If enacted into law, the bill would have changed Arizona’s religious exercise clause to allow citizens and businesses to refuse services to a specific group of people.

The drafters of the bill incorrectly applied the notion of freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans to freely practice their beliefs without persecution or discrimination. What freedom of religion was not intended for, however, was the imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. It is understood that practitioners of some religions may oppose homosexuality due to the teachings of their faith, but that does not mean that services can be denied to gay Americans because of someone’s religious beliefs. The fact that someone identifies as anything other than heterosexual should not impact someone else’s practice of religion, and therefore to say that freedom of religion supports the Arizona bill is simply wrong.

3. And of course, the bill was highly discriminatory toward gay Americans.

If signed into law, SB-1062 would have allowed gay Americans and others to be denied services just because of who they are. These people would have been discriminated against because of their personal identities — something that cannot be changed. It is no different than denying someone services because of his or her race or ethnicity. In fact, the bill would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that states cannot limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. The bill would have limited the rights and privileges of gay Americans, and thus would have inflicted discrimination on a group of citizens in Arizona.

Because Brewer vetoed the bill, citizens in Arizona will not be forced to comply with the discriminatory law. However, the fact that the legislature passed it in the first place is deeply troubling. 

[New York Times] [Bloomberg] [NBC] [CNN] [FJC]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mel Green via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.

Although it has already passed the Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says there is still a lot of work left to do in order to sell the immigration reform bill that he co-authored.

At an event hosted by the AFL-CIO, McCain announced that he will be traveling all over Arizona speaking with groups in the influential coalition of Latino organizations, evangelicals and business leaders who want to see reform passed.

“So far — I have to give you some straight talk — we haven’t done as effective a job as we’re going to have to between now and the spring,” McCain said while addressing his constituents in an attempt to gain support for the bill.

[Huffington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Medill DC via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John McCain Pushing for Immigration Reform appeared first on Law Street.