Arizona
State Republican Party urges judge to end mail-in voting
PHOENIX (AP) — A lawyer for the Arizona Republican Party and its firebrand leader, Kelli Ward, urged a judge Friday to invalidate Arizona’s overwhelmingly popular system of mail-in voting, a process used by about 90% of voters.
Voting by mail is inconsistent with the Arizona Constitution’s requirement for a secret ballot, attorney Alex Kolodin argued. He urged a Mohave County judge to ban the practice for nearly all voters in the 2022 general election in November, but not for the primary in August, for which ballots are scheduled to be mailed next month.
The case is the latest in a multi-pronged effort by Ward and the Arizona Republican Party to roll back a system of no-excuse absentee voting that the GOP-controlled Legislature has adopted since 1991. They’ve pushed to require most people to cast a ballot in person on Election Day as former President Donald Trump repeats the lie that he lost the 2020 election because of fraud in Arizona and other battleground states.
Only the voters, not the Legislature, can authorize mail voting by amending the constitution, Kolodin argued.
“I think it’s time for our state to have that debate and voters to get to decide for themselves what sort of system of absentee voting they are comfortable with,” Kolodin said.
Lawyers for state and county election officials as well as the Arizona Democratic Party said the vote-by-mail laws have plenty of secrecy safeguards built in and nothing in the state constitution prohibits the Legislature from allowing citizens to vote that way.
They also said it would be extremely difficult for election officials to vastly expand in-person polling places, which served just 10% of voters in 2020, in time for the 2022 general election.
“They are not magicians,” said Karen Hartman-Tellez, a lawyer from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office representing election officials in six counties. “They cannot conjure polling places or poll workers out of nothing.”
Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen said he hopes to issue a ruling by noon on Monday.
Ward and the state GOP originally filed their lawsuit directly with the Arizona Supreme Court earlier this year, a highly unusual step, but the justices said it should go through a trial court first and they would only consider it on appeal. They refiled the case last month in Mohave County, the most conservative county in the state and where Ward lives.
Connecticut
Lawmaker’s trial delayed, jury dismissed amid video dispute
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) — The trial of a Connecticut state senator and his 2018 campaign treasurer on federal fraud charges has been delayed indefinitely amid a legal fight over whether a 28-minute video that surfaced recently can be used as evidence.
Jury selection began Tuesday for the trial of Bridgeport Democratic Sen. Dennis Bradley and Jessica Martinez on allegations they covered up campaign violations committed at a 2018 party thrown by Bradley as they sought nearly $180,000 in public campaign funds from a state program. Bradley and Martinez deny the charges and have pleaded not guilty.
U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden in Bridgeport dismissed jurors Thursday, in response to federal prosecutors saying they were going to appeal his ruling barring the video of the party from being used in the case.
Prosecutors said a witness gave them the video May 24. They claim it shows Bradley and Martinez knew campaign contributions were being solicited at the party and later lied to state election officials when they said no fundraising took place.
Bradley’s lawyers asked Bolden to bar the video, saying prosecutors violated court evidence rules by disclosing the video so late and close to the trial, making the case harder for the defense. They said the FBI previously gave the defense three shorter videos and knew there was a longer video, but didn’t seek to obtain it until last month.
Prosecutors argued in court documents filed Friday that the case should be put on hold pending their appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals in New York — an assertion disputed by defense lawyers.
Authorities say Bradley and Martinez lied about the party to hide campaign violations that would have barred them from receiving the public funds. They also allege Bradley violated spending limits when he paid for the party.
Connecticut
Federal court upholds state law on disclosing police records
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld part of a 2020 Connecticut police accountability law that allows public disclosure of state trooper personnel files and internal investigations.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Thursday rejected a challenge by the Connecticut State Police Union, which argued the law violates the 2018-2022 troopers’ contract by stripping away its exemptions from state freedom of information laws.
The union said Friday that it is considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case.
The contract section in question says troopers’ personnel files and documents in internal investigations that end with no finding of wrongdoing are not subject to disclosure.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a ruling by a judge in a lower court who rejected the union’s request to bar the law section from taking effect during its court challenge. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Haight Jr. in New Haven also said the union’s case was not likely to succeed because the law serves a legitimate public purpose in increasing law enforcement accountability and transparency.
Andrew Matthews, executive director of the state police union, said troopers oppose the law because it allows records involving unfounded allegations to become public, possibly tarnishing a trooper’s reputation despite no findings of wrongdoing.
If the union asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal and justices reject the request, the case would return to the lower court judge who expressed doubt about the union’s case. Also, the state police contract expires June 30 and new contract negotiations are underway.
Proponents of the 2020 law said it answered the calls for reform after the police killings of George Floyd and other Black people. It also created a new state inspector general to investigate police use-of-force cases statewide, limited circumstances in which deadly use of force can be justified, and allowed lawsuits in state courts against officers in certain cases.
