JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, June 18, 2011

[JURIST] The North Carolina House of Representatives [official website] on Saturday voted 67-45 to pass a bill [HB 36 text, PDF; materials] requiring all employers with 25 or more employees to check the immigration status of their hires using the E-Verify [official website] system. The bill would take full effect after a 24-month phase in period, after which around 40 percent of the state's businesses and all its cities and counties would be required to use the E-Verify system in all future hires. Detractors of the bill argue that it lacks strong enforcement provisions [News & Observer report] and will result in many false complaints. The bill was previously passed by the state Senate, and will now go to Governor Beverly Perdue [official website] for her veto or signature.

State laws requiring the use of the E-Verify system have recently been introduced throughout the country despite controversy over the concern that the system is not accurate enough to be made mandatory upon employers. In May, the US Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST report] an Arizona law which required employers to utilize the E-Verify system, finding that it was not preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act [text] and thus not a violation of the Supremacy Clause [text].

[JURIST] Missouri Governor Jay Nixon [official website] vetoed legislation [SB 3 text, PDF; materials] on Friday that would have required individuals to present government-issued photo ID cards [JURIST news archive] at the voting booth. Proponents of the legislation argued [St. Louis Times report] that it is necessary to protect against election fraud. The bill also contained an extension on early voting, long sought-after by Missouri Democrats [AP report]. In a letter [text, PDF] explaining his decision, Nixon stated:

Disenfranchising certain classes of persons is not acceptable. [SB 3] imposes unnecessary burdens on senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Placing a cloud of uncertainty over ballots cast by qualified voters is inconsistent with an individual's right to vote and have that vote counted.

Lamenting the veto, State Senator Bill Stouffer, the bill's sponsor, stated [press release] that "[w]e have to have a picture ID to rent a movie or send something via UPS, but we don't need one to vote. With his veto today, it's a shame the governor doesn't understand the necessity of this bill to fight voter fraud." Detractors argue that it is unnecessary and the election fraud that the bill attempts to prevent has not been demonstrated to exist. Despite Nixon's veto, the photo ID requirement and extended early voting provisions are still being put before the voters on Missouri's 2012 ballot as constitutional amendments. The legislature can also override the veto by two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the legislature.

In 2006, the Supreme Court of Missouri [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a similar law [SB 1014, PDF], holding that requiring voters to present ID cards violates the equal protection and voting-rights clauses of the Missouri Constitution [text]. Applying strict scrutiny analysis, the court found that requiring Missourians to obtain IDs imposes more than a minimal burden on their voting rights, noting that it requires "time, funds and advance planning." The court also held that the provision was not narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of preventing voter fraud.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] on Thursday urged the court to grant an injunction [brief, PDF] to stop the enforcement of an Indiana abortion law [HB 1210], which seeks to deny Medicaid funding to organizations that provide abortion services. The DOJ filed the brief in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana [official website] seeking to stop the Indiana law which prevents Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] for any reason due to their abortion services. In the brief, the DOJ argued that the law violated Medicaid's freedom of choice provisions by eliminating health care providers from coverage. Urging the court to grant the injunction, the DOJ stated:

Preliminary injunctive relief is warranted here not only because Indiana's law violates the Medicaid statute, but also because injunctive relief is in the public interest. Injunctive relief will prevent further injury to Indiana's Medicaid beneficiaries. And although Indiana claims that its law serves the public interest because it prevents "taxpayer dollars from indirectly funding abortion[,] advances the State's goal of encouraging women to choose childbirth instead of abortion ... and ensure[s] that women who choose abortion have all the information necessary to make an informed and voluntary decision," Congress, in the Medicaid statute, has already made a different policy judgment: to ensure that beneficiaries who wish to receive Medicaid services—particularly family planning services—may receive those services from providers of their own choosing.

US District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt has said she will rule on the issue before July 1 [AP report]. The judge gave Indiana a week to respond to the DOJ's brief.

The DOJ brief echoes arguments made earlier this month by the Obama administration, which argued against Indiana's law [JURIST report] in a letter to the state. Last month, a federal judge refused to block the law [JURIST report]. Several other states have acted recently to tighten restrictions on abortions. Last month, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging a South Dakota law requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion. Earlier that week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a pair of bills [JURIST report] that restricted state funding for abortions and banned them altogether after 20 weeks. Also in May, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram [JURIST report]. Multiple states have acted to ban abortions after 20 weeks, when some studies suggest a fetus can begin feeling pain, including Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas and Idaho [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] King Mohammed VI of Morocco on Friday announced changes to the constitution [speech text, video] which would transfer some of the political power held by the king to elected officials. The proposed changes would instill more authority in the country's prime minister, who would be given the power to appoint government officials as the "president of the government." The reforms would also ensure that the prime minister is the leader of the largest party in parliament, as opposed to being selected by the king. Mohammed said that if these reforms were approved, it would represent a transition to democratic institutions [BBC report] for Morocco. Mohammed would still retain certain important powers [Al Jazeera report] as chair of the Council of Ministers and the Supreme Security Council, leaving him control over the country's security, military and religious institutions. During his speech, Mohammed also emphasized the promotion of human rights in the reforms:

[T]he Moroccan Constitution will be a human rights Constitution as well as a charter for citizenship rights and obligations. In this regard, the draft Constitution provides for the pre-eminence of international covenants—as ratified by Morocco—over national legislation, as well as gender equality in civil rights, within the framework of respect for the Constitution, and for the Kingdom’s laws which are derived from Islam. The draft Constitution also provides for equality between men and women in all political, economic, social, cultural and environment-related rights. The draft Constitution confirms the commitment to all human rights, especially the presumption of innocence and guaranteeing the conditions for a fair trial. It criminalizes torture, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and all forms of discrimination and inhuman, degrading practices. The draft Constitution also upholds freedom of the press and of expression and opinion, as well as the right to access information and to submit petitions, in accordance with norms and criteria specified in an organic law.

Mohammed's announcement comes amid protests staring in February, which called for democratic reform in Morocco. The changes are set to appear on a referendum July 1. Shortly following the speech, protests were called [Al Jazeera report] against the new constitution, with organizers calling for a more democratic constitution.

The announced reform are a product of a reform process announced in April following peaceful demonstrations [JURIST reports] demanding democratic reforms as part of the wider protests in the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Mohammed had previously made some concessions since the outbreak of protests including the release of political prisoners.