…and the boycotts continue to pile up:

The Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute, who had been considering holding its 2011 conference in Phoenix, has chosen Las Vegas instead.

Up until recently, Phoenix was considered the frontrunner to host the December 2011 conference.

The Phoenix Host Committee, led by Councilman Tom Simplot and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, had been working furtively to secure the conference. The conference would have attracted hundreds of gay and lesbian elected leaders.

GLLI alluded that the immigration debate in Arizona caused them to chose another site, according to the Phoenix Host Committee.

GLLI said in a letter, “The current political and legal climate in Arizona makes it complicated to accept your hospitality.”

GLLI helps equip gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people with the tools for success. The institute assists hundreds of individuals who go on to influential careers in politics, government, business and advocacy each year.


Mary Jo Pitzl is reporting that the voter surge resulting from SB 1070 is overwhelming benefitting independents:

The latest voter registration figures show increases in all categories, but the biggest gain continues to be in the ranks of independents.

In raw numbers, 14,716 Arizonans registered as “party not designated,” which is the technical term for independents. That’s more than the increase in Democrats (+3,879) and Republicans (+7,852) combined.

The numbers reflect registrations from May 5 to June 1, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office. That means they capture at least some of the aftermath of SB1070, when Democrats were saying that Latino voters were registering with the Ds as a protest against the state’s new immigration law.

And perhaps they were (registration numbers don’t include a demographic breakdown). But the Democrats' gains were eclipsed by increases in the GOP, and especially by independents.


The effects of the federal lawsuit against SB 1070 its effects are likely to go beyond simply determining the law’s constitutionality:

The high-profile battle over illegal immigration could sway voters, helping determine whether Democrats retain or lose their majority in Congress. It could be a boon for Arizona Republicans who have supported the law. Some vulnerable Democrats urged the Obama administration not to file the suit.

The outcome of the case also could fuel or shut down efforts now under way to replicate the law in more than a dozen other states.

The lawsuit brought more national attention to the Grand Canyon State, which has weathered protests and boycotts since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23. Supporters say that they will successfully defend the suit and that it will hold up like other immigration-related laws that have faced court challenges the past few years.

Read the whole article here


Meanwhile, three Democrats Arizona legislators are worried about the effect the feds' lawsuit will have on their election battles this fall, Politico reports:

At least three Arizona Democrats saw trouble they could face in November, and broached the topic with the White House well in advance of the court filing, which the administration first announced last month.

Three House Democrats who are all facing tough re-election fights—Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords—asked the Obama administration last month to ditch any planned court battle, saying legal maneuvering isn’t going to fix a system that’s widely seen as broken.

The story quotes Kirkpatrick and Mitchell attacking the lawsuit as a sideshow.


Jan Brewer doesn’t like the feds' suit against SB 1070, the Business Journal reports:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer characterized the federal lawsuit challenging the immigration law she signed in April as an “attack” from President Barack Obama and the Department of Justice.

The governor promised to assert the state’s rights and said Arizona will prevail against the lawsuits.

The NYT details how the Department of Justice decided to go after the law on the relatively uncomplicated issue of pre-emption: That immigration enforcement is a federal concern. Holder and company have the civil rights implications of its enforcement in their pocket for another day.

In a background call with reporters, a senior department official said the decision to file the lawsuit — and to do so on the ground that it pre-empts federal authority, rather than on civil rights grounds like racial profiling — followed extensive deliberations with the Civil Rights Division and others inside the department, and a trip to Arizona to meet with state officials.

Should the department fail to persuade the courts to block Arizona’s law, the official said, it would closely watch for signs that people of Hispanic appearance were being singled out.