Unlike federal law, which does not explicitly protect against discrimination targeting gay men and lesbians, New Mexico law forbids “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services” because of their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a New Mexico photography company refused to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony, claiming that it is immune to the law because it’s owners are Christian conservatives. Last week, a New Mexico appeals court rejected this claim, tossing out several arguments including the suggestion that the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty includes the power to simply ignore anti-discrimination laws:

A state implicates the free exercise clause when it places burdens upon religious practitioners because of their affiliation or beliefs. But “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” . . . [T]he case at bar is generally applicable and neutral; it does not selectively burden any religion or religious belief. [New Mexico's anti-discrimination law] applies generally to all citizens transacting commerce and business through public accommodations that deal with the public at large, and any burden on religion or some religious beliefs is incidental and uniformly applied to all citizens.

The New Mexico court’s decision highlights exactly what is at stake if courts adopt some of the outlandish theories of “religious liberty” being advanced by Catholic bishops and by leading conservative lawmakers. Although this case dealt with anti-gay discrimination, if religious conservatives are permitted to ignore laws protecting gay people (or, quite possibly, laws ensuring that women will have access to birth control) than the same reasoning would exempt people with religious objections to laws forbidding discrimination against African-Americans or women.

In an interview with Fox News Latino yesterday, George W. Bush’s former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales echoed the Obama Justice Department’s legal case against SB 1070, explaining that immigration policy must be handled exclusively by the federal government:

GONZALES: The real story here is not what Arizona and other states like Alabama are doing. The real story is the failure of the federal government to deal with immigration policy. In a perfect world, these states wouldn’t be passing these kinds of laws. Congress and the President would work together, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. We have failed in that respect, and that’s why you see laws like Arizona’s.

I understand the controversy. It’s a very controversial law. I think it’s generally unpopular within the Hispanic community, and probably has been harmful to the Republican Party. We’ll see what the court says. My own view, going into the arguments, was that immigration is an area that’s been preempted by the federal government, and the states do not have the authority. But the arguments did not go very well. I think most court observers would say that the court seemed rather hostile to the government’s position. So we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Watch it:

Gonzales is right that Congress failed to enact the comprehensive immigration reform America should have, but the blame for that rests largely on a rump within Gonzales’ own party. President Bush, to his credit, supported a comprehensive immigration bill that enjoyed the support of top Democrats such as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), but the bill died in large part due to opposition from a right-wing bloc led by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Subsequent attempts to pass less comprehensive reform under President Obama failed due to filibusters conducted almost entirely by Republicans.

As Gonzales’ comment demonstrates, however, today’s near-unanimous Republican opposition to immigration reform is a fairly new development — beginning largely with the dawn of the Obama Administration. For this reason, it’s unfortunate that the current Supreme Court fight over state immigration laws did not occur while Republicans still controlled the Justice Department. Although there is no way to know for sure whether the Roberts Court would have been more sympathetic to the federal government’s position if the exact same argument had been made by a Republican, the Court’s increasingly partisan nature suggests that some of the justices might have been less moved by Arizona’s arguments if those claims were not also the established view of the GOP.

Henry "Curtis" Jackson

Jackson is set to be put to death by the state later today through lethal injection. But according to the AP, two of Jackson’s siblings are hoping that the Governor will spare him, because his death will just be another emotional blow to an already-traumatized family. “The dying,” one sister said, “is going to have to stop somewhere”:

“As a mother who lost two babies, all I’m asking is that you not make me go through the killing of my brother,” she wrote.

She told the AP in a telephone interview that she has forgiven her brother over the years. “If they kill him, they’re doing the same thing that he did. The dying is going to have to stop somewhere.”

Another sister and her husband, Glenda and Andrew Kuyoro, have also asked Bryant to spare Curtis Jackson in a letter dated May 15. The couple said they have tried for years to understand why Jackson attacked his relatives, and they know their questions may never be answered, but that they surely won’t if he dies.

“We are the victims in this case, and we are begging you not to let Curtis be killed. You can keep him in Parchman forever, but please don’t put our family through this horrible execution,” the Kuyoros wrote. “We are not asking you to take pity on Curtis, we’re asking you to show US mercy. We have been through enough.“

States that use the death penalty are increasingly becoming outliers, even if the practice is not actually outlawed.

From Eau Claire to Beloit, voters across Wisconsin are relaying stories via Twitter, Facebook and online message boards about anonymous “robocalls” from allies of Scott Walker, telling them–incorrectly–that if they signed petitions to recall Governor Walker, their vote in today’s crucial election has been recorded.

An NBC reporter tweeted that a family friend was one recipient of the call:

Dad just emailed, a WI friend of his got the ‘If you signed the petition you don’t have to vote tomorrow’ robocall #wirecall

— Keva (@Synergy3k) June 5, 2012

Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee and the Democratic nominee to unseat Governor Scott Walker, told MSNBC host Ed Schultz last night that his campaign began receiving complaints yesterday that voters had been contacted with the misinformation. This morning, Salon reported on the robocalls too, and included comments from Carol Gibbons, a Wisconsin resident who got the call herself. And a local CBS affiliate is even reporting that the caller sounds eerily similar to Tom Barrett, suggesting the group behind the call may have hired a Barrett impersonator.

So far no recording of the call has surfaced, but the reports from voters was enough to prompt the Barrett campaign to make calls of its own, warning voters not to listen to the first call. For its part, the Walker campaign denied any involvement in or knowledge of the robocall or who was behind it.

Election day antics were a near certainty in Wisconsin. In the last week, reports of other campaign antics surfaced, including an attempt by Walker supporters to disable the Barrett campaign’s phone lines by flooding their call centers with spam phone calls.

MADISON, Wisconsin — Voter ID will not be in effect for today’s recall vote in Wisconsin, but that won’t stop last year’s anti-voter bill from disenfranchising thousands of students across the state.

A year ago, Wisconsin Republicans pushed through Assembly Bill 7, which enacted one of the worst forms of voter ID in the nation. Since then, two state judges have blocked voter ID from taking effect because the Wisconsin state Constitution guarantees that “[e]very United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district,” regardless of whether or not they have an ID.

However, a little-noticed provision in AB 7 will likely prevent thousands of college students from voting in today’s recall election.

Section 12 of the new law increases the time period a citizen must live in one location in order to register there from 10 days to 28 days. Though seemingly innocuous, the problem is that the five largest colleges in Wisconsin — University of Wisconsin-Madison (40,000 students), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (27,500 students), Marquette University (11,500 students), University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh (11,500 students), and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (11,000 students) — all had their graduations either the weekend of May 12 or the weekend of May 19, 24 days and 17 days ago, respectively.

Therefore, any student at these schools who registered to vote at school but is now home for the summer will not be permitted to update their registration at their parents’ house because they will have been home for less than 28 days. Under the old law, a student not on campus for the summer would have been permitted to update her registration at the polls and vote because she will have been home (or elsewhere off-campus) for more than 10 days.

As a result, thousands of Wisconsin students will likely be barred from taking part in today’s recall vote.

Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette worried about the impact it could have on turnout. “It will really have a negative impact among college students,” LaFollette told ThinkProgress.