The House of Representatives is considering a behemoth surface transportation bill this week, designed to fund the roads, highways, and bridges that connect our country.  It has nothing to do with the public lands that belong to all of us, but that didn’t stop three Republicans from Arizona from filing an amendment to the bill that would override Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s January decision to protect 1 million acres around Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining requests.

Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) penned the amendment:

SEC. __ . TERMINATION OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER 7787.

Public Land Order 7787 (77 Fed. Reg. 2563) and the withdrawal of lands by that Public Land Order shall have no force or effect, and the provisions of the land use plans applicable to such lands immediately before the issuance of such Public Land Order shall remain in effect.

If this sounds familiar, it is because this trio of lawmakers has tried three times in the last two years to undo new protections for one of our nation’s great places.  Here is a list of their other attempts to do the National Mining Association’s bidding:

– They added roll back language in the text of last year’s budget bill (which did not pass) where it was dubbed “the Flake earmark for the mining industry.”

– In October, Franks introduced the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, an attempt to halt the mineral withdrawal.

– Franks introduced legislation in the last Congress to stop the mineral withdrawal.

As ThinkProgress has outlined before, the Grand Canyon is incredibly important to the economy of Arizona.  Tourists spending money in and around the Grand Canyon create jobs. Headwaters Economics found that Grand Canyon National Park supported over 6,000 jobs in 2009 and those tourists spent more than $400 million.

In addition, mining for uranium around the canyon poses risks to drinking water for 25 million people reliant on the Colorado River, as seen in the legacy of old, abandoned, and hazardous mines.     

It remains to be seen whether Congressional rules will allow the amendment to be considered.  But House Republicans have made their position clear—despite the fact that the battle over the Grand Canyon has been fought, and these three Congressmen lost, they will keep fighting another day.  Franks recently stated to E&E News that “anything that we can do to promote the legislation we will.”

That does a great deal to limit what can be taught in classrooms. Banning books is certainly not a new practice, but this law would cover far more than controversial books. Here’s a look at some of the key books that would be outlawed in Arizona classrooms:

Worse, as Angus Johnston notes, the bill is so ineptly drafted that it could intrude deeply into teacher’s private lives. SB 1467 doesn’t just ban public speech or conduct, but all speech and conduct. That means public school teachers in Arizona will be forbidden from engaging in any FCC-regulated activities no matter where they are. That means no sex, no going to the bathroom, no cursing and no showering. Ever.

One of the bill’s five sponsors, State Senator Lori Klein (R-AZ), has some experience in the national spotlight. Last summer she raised eyebrows when, during an interview with a reporter from the Arizona Republic, she took out a loaded handgun and pointed it at the reporter’s chest. And in the middle of Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal, Klein dismissed the allegations against Cain because he had “never been anything but a gentlemen” to her, “and I am not an unattractive woman.”

Reacting to a Democratic colleagues apparently incendiary request to celebrate a Latino American day, State Rep. Cecil Ash (R) declared that he’d support the idea as long as there’s a holiday for white people too. “I’m supportive of this proposition. I just want them to assure me that when we do become in the minority you’ll have a day for us,” he said. Ash was “trying to lighten things up,” but when CBS 5 asked if he was serious about a Caucasian holiday, he offered an unequivocal “yes”:

ASH: Yes, I think it was appropriate. It was appropriate for the mood that was in the House and I think that if and when the Caucasian population becomes a minority, they may want to celebrate the accomplishments and the contributions of the Caucasian population the same way.

You can watch the report here. As CBS 5 notes, some Arizonans were supportive of the idea. “Good idea,” said one woman. “Like they have Cinco de Mayo for Mexicans. We need something for whites.”

– Make it illegal for government bodies to collectively bargain with employee groups. Public safety unions would be included in the ban.

– End the practice of automatic payroll deductions for union dues.

– Ban compensation of public employees for union work.

Arizona’s state government already doesn’t bargain with unions, but local governments and school districts do, so the ban would ripple through every school, local police station, and firehouse. “The Republican majority has established themselves to be very much anti-employee,” said state Sen. David Lujan (D). “It’s just another strike at those who choose to be public service employees. Their voice is not valued.”

The legislation originated with the libertarian think tank the Goldwater Institute, which counts the Walton Foundation (the Waltons of the Walmart fortune) and the Charles Koch Foundation amongst its top donors.

The Arizona GOP, predictably, is blaming public sector unions for the state’s budget woes, with the bill’s Republican sponsor claiming that “taxpayers’ costs from public employee contracts negotiated by unions for pay and benefits burden taxpayers.” However, the facts don’t support that theory. In fact, North Carolina (a state without collective bargaining) is projected to have a 10 percent budget deficit for the 2013 fiscal year, compared to 3.5 percent for New York (more densely unionized than any other).

And, of course, unions have the added benefits of alleviating income inequality and pushing for important worker protections. Arizona Republicans, in fact, might want to learn a lesson from Ohio, as the Ohio GOP saw its union-busting law repealed via referendum following a strong public outcry.

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam

Responding to a question about whether states should be able to enforce those laws, Putnam replied:

PUTNAM: Florida flirted with it last year, but thank goodness didn’t do it, because it would have been devastating to our state, to our reputation, to our economy. The issue is that under the Constitution, there’s a really narrow bandwidth of options for states to deal with immigration. … [T]hey’re focusing on the enforcement piece, and have had really devastating effects on their economy. Georgia’s got a labor report out, Alabama’s got a labor report out, that has been very harmful to their economy. Because in swinging wildly out of frustration that Washington hasn’t done something, they’ve passed bills that are causing their businesses and their economies great harm. They’ve seen an evacuation of workers. … It has give us a real world, real time example of what happens when you get these state-based polices wrong.

Watch it:

1. Paradise Lost, John Milton: Sure, this is supposed to be John Milton’s repentance of his republican apostasy, but what if red-blooded American kiddies get confused by the eloquence of that wily creature Satan? That whole “Farewel Remorse: all Good to me is lost; / Evil be thou my Good” thing could cause all sorts of kerfuffles and uprisings, like those darn video games my grandson is always playing.

2. A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens: It’s a short leap from Marquis Evrémonde to Mitt Romney, and we wouldn’t want to invite that comparison, now would we? Darnay is such an avatar of the politics of envy.

3. The Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling: This one might be a squeaker. Sure, the hero advocates strongly against the anti-Muggle, Squib, and Mudblood race politics of Voldemort and his cronies. But that Potter kid is awfully disrespectful to the Minister of Magic and forms of authority in general.

5. Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card: Pre-teens plotting an overhaul of world government and resisting the efforts of the military that’s recruited them to manipulate them. Total recipe for disaster. Especially now that blogging is an actual thing that kids can do. Nuke this one. And parents, shut down your kids’ Tumblrs just to be safe.

6. The Cat Ate My Gymsuit, Paula Danziger and The Day They Came to Arrest the Book, Nat Hentoff: Because the last thing a state that’s cracking down on curriculum needs is sympathetic novels about students who organize to fight a crackdown on curriculum or fighting a book banning, lining up civil libertarians against censorship-minded feminists and African-American students and parents. How will authority survive if challenging it is seen as reasonable? And how can tender-hearted children face the prospect of standing up for themselves and choosing sides in disagreements?

7. Am I Blue? Coming Out from the Silence, Marion Diane Bauer: Even though gay people, especially teenagers, are at risk of violence and discrimination, it would be far too dangerous to marginalize the people who hate them and to promote a sense of solidarity and mutual support within the community of gay people and straight allies.

8. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Sherman Alexie:: God forbid anyone, particularly from a minority group that’s been demonstrably oppressed and damaged by the actions of the United States government, spend any time contemplating their own identity or doing anything other than instantly assimilating without looking back.

9. The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood: It’s critically important that we remind girls as early as possible to accept what the state has to say about their fertility without question, and to make clear that there’s never any point at which it would be justified that women break the law to retain control over their own health and bodies.

10. The Hunger Games series, Suzanne Collins: Again, a mixed bag. The heroine’s an awful rebel, but the series as a whole tends to endorse dropping out of the political process rather than continuing to participate in the furtherance of a revolution, so the net effect might be to neutralize those pesky kids.

Under the law, the state can withhold 10 percent of funding for any school district that refuses to change its courses. Last Friday, the current state schools superintendent John Huppenthal followed through, holding back $15 million a year from Tucson district. Eleven teachers and two students filed suit to prevent the law from taking effect, but on Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima refused to grant the injunction but ruled that the students could challenge the law on First Amendment grounds. Thus, the Tuscon district’s school board suspended the Mexican-American studies department:

The Governing Board of the Tucson Unified School District voted late Tuesday to suspend immediately the Mexican-American studies department, marking a turning point in a yearlong controversy over a new state law banning certain ethnic studies.

“The district shall revise its social studies core curriculum to increase its coverage of Mexican-American history and culture, including a balanced presentation of diverse viewpoints on controversial issues. The end result shall be a single common social studies core sequence through which all high school students are exposed to diverse viewpoints,” the governing board said in a statement.

“The district shall study and bring to the board new measures designed to narrow the achievement gaps for traditionally underserved and economically disadvantaged students,” the board said.

Opponents of the law noted that Huppenthal’s own audit of the program actually praised the classes and found “no observable evidence” that the classes violated the law. Nonetheless, an administrative law judge insisted that the program’s curriculum was teaching Latino history “in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner,” thus spurring Huppenthal’s decision to withhold funds.

School Board member Adelita Grijalva argued that the law was unconstitutional and reflected the “anti-immigrant political climate in the Arizona statehouse.” “This is not a militarized group that want to overthrow the government,” she said, urging the board to preserve the program and appeal the decision. “This is a group that wants their children to understand about about their culture and their role in our American history and our lives.” The final vote was 4 to 1, with Grijalva offering the sole objection.

Seemingly in retaliation for her trouble-making, city leaders have singled out Cabrera to take an English proficiency exam to prove her eligibility to hold office:

The City Council recently asked for verification that activist and council candidate Alejandrina Cabrera could speak, read and write in English, as state law requires of public officials. The action was in response to allegations by Guillermina Fuentes, a former mayor of the fast-growing border city, the Yuma Sun reported. [...]

The council’s action could mean that the city hires someone to test Cabrera’s English fluency. In San Luis, nearly all 25,000 residents are Latino and about 88% speak a language other than English at home, according to Census Bureau data.

Cabrera is one of 10 council candidates running in the city’s March primary, the Sun said. She is considered something of a rabble-rouser, having spearheaded two failed recall attempts against the current mayor of San Luis, Juan Carlos Escamilla.

Escamilla voted in favor of testing Cabrera’s grasp of English, TV station KSWT reported.

English-only laws have been highly controversial, especially in states like Arizona that have a large number of Hispanic voters, many of whom have a limited grasp of English themselves. It would seem more important that Cabrera can effectively communicate in the language the vast majority of her constituents speak.

The suggestion that her English is not up to scratch is based on anecdotal claims from the very people who are trying to keep her from serving. None of the other Hispanic candidates for office are being asked to prove their English proficiency. In addition, the mayor’s targeting of Cabrera seems somewhat hypocritical given that he admits he is not completely fluent himself.

The Voting Rights Act protects the right of non-English speakers to cast a ballot, but these protections do not apply to candidates. Nevertheless, selectively applying the law based on candidates’ ethnicity or political leanings is troubling. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects English as the exclusive language of the United States.

This week, in separate moves, local Latino and black leaders called on Arpaio to resign. A Change.org petition for his resignation had received more than 19,000 signatures as of this publishing (sign it here), just two weeks after it was created.

McCain put out a statement earlier this month taking a much more circumspect stance, saying he was merely “concerned” with the report on the sex crimes, so today’s comments suggest the political winds may be turning against Arpaio.

The sheriff, who has made a dubious name for himself as “America’s toughest sheriff” for his hardline stance on undocumented immigrants, is also facing significant heat over a Department of Justice investigation, the results of which were released earlier this month, alleging that his department has systematically violated civil rights laws.

Nonetheless, presidential hopeful Rick Perry held a campaign event with Arpaio this week in Iowa. Perry has dodged most questions on the Department of Justice investigation or the sex crimes allegations, but a spokesperson told TPM, “Governor Perry knows Sheriff Arpaio as a dedicated law enforcement professional fighting to keep his neighbors safe in the wake of federal failures to secure the border and deal with border crime,” he added.

When the Justice Department first announced it was investigating Arpaio in 2008 for racial profiling and civil rights violations, Arpaio said “bring it on.” But he refused to cooperate with the investigation, stalling the probe for 17 months by withholding records from federal officials.

Moments ago, the Justice Department announced the findings of its three year investigation, concluding that the self-proclaimed “toughest sherrif in America” has indeed committed an extensive array of civil rights violations against Latinos:

The federal government issued a scathing report Thursday that outlines how Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its release, is a result of the U.S. Justice Department’s three-year investigation of Arpaio’s office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency’s top level.

The Justice Department’s conclusions in the civil probe mark the federal government’s harshest rebuke of a national political fixture who has risen to prominence for his immigration crackdowns and became coveted endorsement among candidates in the GOP presidential field.

In 2010 federal officials filed an unprecedented suit against Arpaio for breaking the law by refusing to turn over extensive records related to booking procedures, inmate interpretation services, and arrests. He also would not give investigators access to his staff or jails. A man who relishes brutally enforcing the law acted as if it did not apply to him.

After officials threatened to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding from Maricopa County, “accusations of mismanagement forced Arpaio to place three top aides on administrative leave, among them former Chief Deputy David Hendershott.”

Arpaio has had a breathtaking 2,700 law suits filed against him between 2004 and 2007. In addition to the DOJ, he has been investigated by Congress, the FBI and a Federal Grand Jury for civil rights violations and abuse of power. In no small part because of Arpaio’s well-documented targeting of people who look foreign but have committed no crime, the majority of inmates in his jails are Latino males.

While Arpaio pursued an obessive, politically motivated assault on immigrants to enhance his national profile, he routinely failed to investigate more pressing cases of violent crime, including more than 400 sex crimes. He ignored dozens of alleged child molestations with some victims as young as two. Unsurprisingly, many of the children were undocumented immigrants.

This past Friday, grandmother Joan Zatorski Puca committed an act of civil disobedience by refusing to remove herself from the Occupy Tuscon encampment and was arrested by police. Watch video of her arrest:

She later released a statement saying she submitted herself to arrest to set an example of one person who has been devastated by the economy speaking up and standing out:

As an educated white woman, legally disabled by illness, a civil servant with almost 20 years of service to children who were living at or below the poverty line, a mother, grandmother, spouse, avowed Christian, registered and consistently-participating voter, American citizen by birthright, granddaughter of immigrants, who has never been arrested, much less walked into a jail, I believe I am the most “common” example of the “common person” impacted by the devastatingly serious economic issues that thousands upon thousands of people are demanding be addressed. I am you… we are all one and we are suffering. Only by uniting with one another can our most egregious issues be solved.

FireDogLake diarist Robert Alexander Dumas writes that Joan was never read her rights and was not allowed a phone call to reach her attorney.

Last month, the state Senate took up Brewer’s push to impeach Colleen Mathis, the chairwoman of Arizona’s independent bipartisan redistricting commission. Even Brewer herself couldn’t explain how Mathis had exhibited “neglect of duty and gross misconduct,” the only grounds for impeachment in Arizona. Indeed, Mathis’ only real “crime” appears to be that she led a commission which drew a new congressional map with more competitive districts than had existed previously.

However, justice prevailed tonight as the Arizona Supreme Court rebuffed Brewer and decided to reinstate Mathis to lead the commission:

The Arizona Supreme Court Thursday evening reinstated the chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, rebuffing Gov. Jan Brewer’s unprecedented action earlier this month.

The ruling came less than three hours after the court heard arguments on the case, which revolved around the extent to which the commission is free of outside political interference.

The court decided the governor’s Nov. 1 removal letter to Colleen Coyle Mathis did not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or inability to discharge the duties of office.”

Now Mathis and the commission will resume their duty to finalize Arizona’s new congressional district maps. As Daily Kos notes, the group “published draft congressional and legislative maps last month, and since then, the commissioners have been hearing public feedback and have indicated that they plan to make changes to the maps in response.”

Barring any more unconstitutional power grabs from Brewer, the commission will be able to finalize the map in advance of next year’s election.