vincerabagolaw

Hearing to be held tomorrow at ASU in Tempe, Arizona, by the National Commission on Voting Rights (NCVR), organized by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, to collect testimony about voting discrimination and election administration challenges and successes. The hearing is one of many hearings being held nationwide.

In June 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively nullified Section 5, a key provision of the Voting Rights Act by striking down Section 4. Additionally, in recent years numerous states have enacted restrictive voting laws, some continue to grapple with recurring election administration challenges and others have proposed reforms to expand access.

The NCVR is the successor to the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act. In 2005, the Lawyers’ Committee established the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act to assess the record of discrimination in voting since the 1982 re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act. While the 2005 Commission focused on voting discrimination, the reconstituted Commission is also examining electoral administration and reform proposals given the increased interest concerning such matters throughout the country.

The testimony, facts, and data gathered during the hearings as well as state-specific documentary research will be compiled into comprehensive reports and made available to anyone seeking to reform or improve existing voting laws including but not limited to policymakers, advocates, and the voting public.

The goal of the NCVR is to document both what has kept voters from the ballot box as well as efforts to increase access in two reports which will be released in 2014.

More information is available at: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/voting_rights/page?id=0144

Vince Rabago appeared on the Arizona Week news show, airing statewide on Arizona Public media, to discuss his recent Complaint to the US Dept. of Justice asking the agency to investigate apparent efforts to suppress Latino voting in the 2012 election in Arizona, and to talk about recent and upcoming Supreme Court voting rights decisions.

“The right to vote is fundamental to our Democracy. Efforts to suppress anyone’s right to vote are unconstitutional, illegal and simply un-American,” said Vince Rabago, a former criminal prosecutor.

“Next week, the Supreme Court will decide whether the federal Voting Rights law will continue to apply to states like Arizona, keeping Arizona subject to federal review on election law changes, due to Arizona’s long history of suppressing and intimidating Latino and minority voters. In light of this history and recent events such as those detailed in the Complaint, the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are still needed. The Supreme Court should uphold this law,” suggested Rabago.

Below is video of Vince Rabago on the Arizona Week news show discussing Voting Rights. The interview begins at the 8:10 marker, right after the interview of Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

Yesterday, the federal district court in Arizona issued its long-awaited decision in the Sheriff Joe Arpaio racial profiling lawsuit, finding that Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office violated the Constitution and illegally relied on racial profiling and illegal detentions to target Latinos. The federal court concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office use of racial profiling was pervasive and widespread. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow’s decision determined that the policies and practices of Arpaio and his office are discriminatory, and violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona Constitution.

This Court ruling comes after last year’s trial in the case Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio which alleged a pattern of unlawful practices by Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) during immigration sweeps and traffic stops. The plaintiffs did not seek money for the illegal conduct, but instead have asked for a court order a stop the illegal conduct.  The plaintiffs proved discriminatory intent in these practices, and the evidence was based on the sheriff’s own internal correspondence and public statements, and admissions that the MCSO uses Hispanic ethnicity as a reason to pursue immigration inquiries. There were also higher stop rates and longer stop times for Hispanics. Aside from from proving racial discrimination, the case also proved that the MCSO improperly detains motorists and passengers without having any adequate basis.  These Constitutional violations need to stop.

Arpaio’s unconstitutional and discriminatory abuse of power to seek political gain at the expense of both public safety and the community has come at a great cost to Latinos in Maricopa County, who’ve been forced to endure years of racial harassment and abuse. Arpaio and his office’s rampant racial profiling created a culture of fear in Maricopa County. Latinos and others who simply look or sound “foreign” worry that a trip to the store will end with an unwarranted police interrogation or illegal incarceration at the county jail. Simply put, singling out people out simply because they’re Latino – or any race – is illegal and un-American. It is high time for Sheriff Joe to resign. Arizona deserves better.

The Jodi Arias death penalty case hit a snag for the prosecution today, with the jurors deadlocking after being unable to come to a unanimous verdict. A mistrial was declared. “Under the circumstances, this was a blow to the prosecution, and a win for the defense,” said Vince Rabago, a former state prosecutor with experience in death penalty litigation in Arizona and California. “The State is likely to retry the penalty phase of the case, and a new jury will have to be impaneled,” he added. Rabago has taught capital punishment law as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law, and has worked on capital case litigation at the highest levels of the state and federal court systems.

Have you been threatened, harassed, or sued by your credit card company? Have you received annoying calls from debt collectors? Were you forced to use a debt consolidation or debt settlement company to try to negotiate your debts? Debt collection lawsuits can be stressful. There are laws that can protect you! Sometimes the debt may not even be yours! Often, you can achieve substantial debt reduction or debt resolution yourself.  Sometimes debt settlement or credit arbitrator companies may violate state law.  For example, more than one state Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against companies including Credit Arbitrators for violating state law.  If you have information about Credit Arbitrators or similar companies, email or contact our office today.  If you have been defrauded or harmed by a credit arbitrator company, call or email to arrange a consultation to determine whether your rights have been violated. Vince Rabago Law Office has national and statewide experience in protecting consumers.