Get ready for a self-indulgent, socio-political travelogue. Here we go.

Months ago, my wife and I planned a trip to the east coast which included a few days in Washington, DC. By chance, our DC stay included last Thursday and Friday, which gave us ringside seats to two history-making events.

Thursday morning, we wandered down toward the Supreme Court steps to see if anything was going on. Maybe there would be a decision on one or more of the cases yet to be announced by the court, or maybe everything would wait for Friday, or Monday. No one knew.

Something was going on all right. We arrived just before 10 a.m., so the crowd had already gathered with no room for us to squeeze into the center of things. Most of the flags flying over people's heads were pink-on-red and yellow-on-blue equal sign banners. The gay marriage issue was clearly front and center in people's minds.

We were too late to really join the crowd, so we did some star newscaster gazing. An alphabet soup of networks occupied half the area in front of the court. As a former photography teacher who has done some studio portrait work, I was fascinated by the number of umbrellas, reflectors and outdoor-balanced lights it takes to make the newscasters look "natural" standing in front of the appropriate landmark. And unless you're right there watching and waiting, you don't get a sense of the amount of time the commentators and pontificators just kind of stand around waiting for someone back in the studio to give them their few moments on air. It reminded me of  Andy Kaufman's classic "Mighty Mouse" routine. Standing, fidgeting, waiting, then, "Here I come to share the n-e-w-w-w-w-s!" Then standing around fidgeting some more and having a drink of water until their next news-sharing moment arrives.

Ten o'clock. A little more tense waiting, newscasters poised, then a half dozen young network employees came running madly down the courthouse steps, carrying piles of papers in their outstretched hands like relay runners clutching batons, ready to pass them on. The decisions! Newscasters took the pages, laid them on the stands in front of them just out of camera range, read and talked into the camera simultaneously, read and talked some more, hoping they would be the first on the air with the news, fearing they would be the last.

A cheer erupted from the crowd. Obamacare was intact! A 6-3 decision! Including Chief Justice John Roberts! Then quiet. The crowd was waiting for another decision.

Nothing. No more decisions today. People wandered away, happy because the ACA was intact, but it wasn't the gay marriage case most of them were waiting for. Not today. Maybe Friday. Maybe Monday.

Friday we arrived earlier, a little after 9 a.m., early enough to see a car pull up filled with equal sign banners, buttons and cards in the back. Pull 'em out, carry 'em over to where the crowd was beginning to gather, hand 'em out. We wandered into the gathering crowd, half way to the front, near the barriers between the crowd and the newscasters.

In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected arguments that the state lawmakers had the exclusive power to draw congressional district boundaries and has upheld the right of the voters to create the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

You can read the entire opinion here, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, notes:

Invoking the Elections Clause, the Arizona Legislature instituted this lawsuit to disempower the State’s voters from serving as the legislative power for redistricting purposes. But the Clause surely was not adopted to di¬minish a State’s authority to determine its own lawmak-ing processes. Article I, §4, stems from a different view. Both parts of the Elections Clause are in line with the fundamental premise that all political power flows from the people. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404– 405 (1819). So comprehended, the Clause doubly empow¬ers the people. They may control the State’s lawmaking processes in the first instance, as Arizona voters have done, and they may seek Congress’ correction of regula-tions prescribed by state legislatures.

The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the process of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have "an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people." The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore "the core principle of republican government," namely, "that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.." Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L. Rev. 781 (2005). The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.

Republican state lawmakers were so sure they were going to win back the power to gerrymander maps in their own favor that they had already hired a consulting firm to draw new districts, while Democrats were considering various legal actions to keep the current boundaries—which include four districts that are heavily Republican, two districts that are heavily Democratic and three districts that are competitive—in place for the 2016 elections cycle.

Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1), who is giving up her competitive seat in order to challenge Sen. John McCain next year, says she is "thrilled that the will of Arizona voters was affirmed today in our nation’s highest court." Kirkpatrick continues: 

In 2000, when voters created the independent redistricting commission, their goal was to give power back to the people and end the back-room deals by a handful of politicians. Today’s ruling protects that goal and closes the door once and for all on the back-room dealmakers and their power grabs. I stand with Arizona voters on this and other efforts to empower and engage them in our political process.

Congresswoman Martha McSally (R-CD2), who represents one of the competitive districts, reacts:

I respect the Court’s decision today, and look forward to continuing to represent the people of Arizona’s Second District. I was sent to Congress with a job to do, and will continue to work tirelessly with the focus of expanding economic opportunity and improving security for Southern Arizonans.

Arizona House Speaker David Gowan (who was rumored to be drawing up a friendly congressional district for himself) and Senate President Andy Biggs expressed their disappointment with the ruling in a written statement:

We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to depart from the clear language of the Constitution. The Framers selected the elected representatives of the people to conduct congressional redistricting. It’s unfortunate that the clear constitutional design has been demolished in Arizona by five lawyers at the high court.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-CD3) says the decision "validated the demands of Arizonans to leave partisan politics behind when it comes to drawing up Congressional Districts. Elections are not games for politicians to rig, and this court decision makes clear that public officials cannot trump the will of the people in an attempt to stack the electoral map in their favor.” He adds:

The voice of the people should always be respected – especially by those entrusted by the voters with public office, Our state legislature should have to adhere to the standards passed by our voters. Not only did this shameful power grab threaten the impartiality of our elections in Arizona, but if the legislature had succeeded, this could have set a legal precedent to invalidate all voter-initiated election reform laws across the country. Thankfully, we are instead left with a strong reminder of the most precious power Americans have in our Democracy: their voice.

Once you've had soul food, and I mean really good soul food, it always sits in the back of your mind. You think about creamy grits and crispy fried chicken. You try to go to places that offer up Southern specialties, occasionally met with high-priced items that are, well, less than soulful.

If you're looking for your fix here in Tucson, never fear. The new restaurant attached to the Afro-American Heritage Museum on Park Avenue is happy to oblige. Owner James Williams, who was the brains behind Jack's Original BBQ's most recent iteration, chats up tables between orders, making sure customers are happy.

With large, fluffy and lightly sweet waffles for $3.50; your choice of chicken thighs, breasts, wings or drumsticks ($1.75 - $3.50); and any combination of those things thereof, customers do seem to be pleased with the price for quality at J&K Heritage Museum Cafe.

I'm a thigh girl, personally, which, along with a waffle, can and should be slathered in both hot sauce and syrup. The fried chicken itself has a perfectly crispy, crunchy coating that's salty and has been kicked up with a heavy dose of what tastes like Old Bay. Inside, the meat is moist, falling off the bone in the best way. 

Then, there are the grits ($2.50). Williams explains, beaming with pride, that his grits are cooked down for so long and with so much butter that they're as creamy as they should be. Eggs and fruit can also be served on the side. However, I will admit I was pretty disappointed to see that J&K doesn't serve my favorite soul side: mac and cheese. I've been searching for a mac that's cheesier than it is creamy, while still being smooth and comforting, and it's hard to find it anywhere that isn't gussied up. I was hoping it would be at the endearingly modest southside restaurant.

Hey there, sports fan! I bet you want to spend your Tuesday afternoon driving up to Phoenix (feel free to utilize the playlist the band Gay Kiss compiled for you) to watch the Diamondbacks take on the Dodgers.

Here's the deal. Enter to win tickets and, if you're lucky enough to win, you can swing over to our Northwest office and pick up two tickets to the game. Huzzah!

I'll pick a winner around 2 p.m. on Monday (if you're reading this in your newsletter that means today so sign up now!) and you can pick up the tickets either Monday afternoon or anytime on Tuesday. Remember, our office—located near the Foothills Mall—closes at 5 p.m. every night. The game starts at 6:40 p.m.

Good luck!

Oak Flat has landed on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 2015 list of America's 11 most endangered historic places, according to a press release from the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition.

A sacred place to the San Carlos Apache and other Native American tribes, Oak Flat is currently threatened by proposed copper mine. For the time being, it is protected from mining thanks to orders issued by former presidents Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower. But a land exchange within the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 would green light foreign mining companies to invade.

Several advocacy groups have pleaded Congress to protect the landmark, which is still used for religious and cultural practices. Since February, members of the Apache Stronghold, and other supporters, have been camping at Oak Flat demanding its protection. (At the end of May, there was a weekend-long festival to celebrate Oak Flat and raise awareness on what's at risk.)

“We hope this designation increases national awareness of Oak Flat and its profound importance to Native American tribes,” said a statement from Stephanie Meeks, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. “The tribes who regard Oak Flat as a sacred place were not adequately consulted before this land exchange took place. Before any potentially harmful mining activity takes place at Oak Flat, we need to make sure the tribes and others who care about this important place have a voice in shaping its future.”

Recently, U.S. Raul Grijalva, along with 14 bi-partisan co-sponsors, introduced the Save Oak Flat Act to block the mining at Oak Flat proposal that's on the National Defense Authorization Act. 

The National Park Service is currently accepting public comments for the nomination of Oak Flat to the National Register of Historic Place as a Traditional Cultural Property. If you want to sign, there's a June 29 deadline. 

The Grand Canyon also made the list. Sad.

The family of José de Jesús Deniz-Sahagún—a Mexico native, whose sudden death at the Eloy Detention Center was ruled a suicide—is hosting a vigil outside the facility this evening (Friday, June 26).

Although the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner issued a detailed account of what allegedly went down inside those walls, the family and several immigration rights advocates still demand for an independent investigation into Eloy and Deniz-Sahagún's death. 

Deniz-Sahagún was found dead in his cell on May 20. Gregory Hess, the chief medical examiner, said he died of asphyxiation after shoving a knee-high sock down his throat. 

About 200 detainees declared a hunger strike two weekends ago—which Immigration and Customs Enforcement repeatedly denies—to protest the detention center's alleged poor health and mental care, and other types of severe abuse. Some alleged witnessing guards beat Deniz-Sahagún  and then put him in solitary confinement. However, the medical examiner's autopsy report says he was a troubled person who was on suicide watch since arriving to Eloy.

The organization Puente Human Rights Movement issued this response after the autopsy results emerged:

“We mourn the death of Jose de Jesus and will continue to demand justice for him, others who have died in Eloy, and all those subjected to the ongoing abuse, neglect, and terror that happens there," said Francisca Porchas, organizing director of Puente. "Recently, the murders of black and brown people because of law enforcement that have happened on our streets have made national news. Is it any stretch to believe they are also killing our people, via direct assault or medical neglect, behind the walls and bars of detention facilities? ”

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva last week sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch backing up requests for the Department of Justice to launch a public investigation into allegations of abuse and two deaths at Eloy. 

"We won't stop until we have the truth, justice for all our people, and until detention ends, once and for all," the event's Facebook page says. 

The vigil starts at 7 p.m.

Earlier this week, I wrote about the case of Roman Escobar—an undocumented father who, after being pulled over by Tucson Police officers in the beginning of June, was taken into custody by immigration officials and sent to a Florence detention center. There was a lot of confusion for the reasons that led to Border Patrol involvement during the traffic stop, including speculations that TPD might not be following its new rules regarding SB 1070 enforcement.

TPD was finally able to release information on Escobar's case, and the officers who pulled him over were very much following the department's new, scaled-back SB 1070 protocol. According to TPD Sgt. Pete Dugan, Escobar has a hit and run felony conviction in his record. Per TPD's new rules, having felonies tied to your name is one of the guidelines that green light TPD to verify your immigration status in the country.

In December, TPD Chief Roberto Villaseñor said the police would not get involved with immigration enforcement practices, unless the individuals they pull over have felony convictions, are affiliated with a gang, are identified as terrorists, or pose a threat to national security. The changes go hand-in-hand with the Department of Homeland Security's criteria to focus on apprehending and deporting undocumented people with a criminal record. (I wrote about that, here.) In February, TPD amended its General Orders, and they have been sticking to these rules.

The day Escobar was apprehended, Dugan says officers ran Escobar's license plate, as it oftentimes does to check on any warrants, suspended licenses, expired registration, etc. The plates were red-flagged for a mandatory insurance suspension, a totally legitimate reason to pull a person over. (Escobar's family had said they were stopped over an expired license plate.) When the officers spoke with Escobar, Escobar did not have any identification to hand over, so the cops ran his name and found out Escobar's license had been revoked.

"At this time, a suspended license or revoked license, is a misdemeanor, not a civil traffic, that is one thing that the family is failing to mention that is very important," Dugan says. That triggered the vehicle to be impounded, and consequently led to Escobar's arrest. From there, the officers decided to field release him (because the offense was a misdemeanor), meaning Escobar was still under arrest but would have been free to go home. However, when a field release takes place, the person's name must be checked up with police records. The records personnel found a felony hit-and-run, which forced TPD to verify Escobar's immigration status in the country and involve Border Patrol.

"I understand the family being upset, it is a family, we get that, but as far as what the officer was doing this day, he was following policy, there was no policy change or procedural change, he followed the steps and that was the outcome," Dugan says. 

Escobar's apprehension fueled a protest Tuesday before a City Council meeting. During the call to the audience, Escobar's wife, Miriam, and his 12-year-old son José testified on behalf of Escobar, pleading council members to look further into what had happened that afternoon, and to please help Escobar be released from detention.

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich told the Tucson Weekly on Wednesday that she had contacted Villaseñor to get a written response on the matter, and that if policies were not being obeyed, if officers would be disciplined. 

Someone recently called me an "insufferable chicken wing snob." They're not wrong—chicken wings were the only thing I would order at restaurants until, oh, probably around middle school. 

Point being, I've eaten quite a few wings in my day. Hell, I still want them to be my main course most nights. Obviously, this fowl affection means I have some pretty strong feelings about which Best of Tucson® Finalist should win.

But this is for you to decide, not me. 

Now, I want you to make an educated decision here. Think about your plans for this weekend. I'm having a hard time imagining how those plans would be made worse by adding Chicken Wing Taste Test 2015. 

So, give our finalists (1702, Brushfire BBQ, Proper, Rocco's Little Chicago, Wings Over Broadway—all selected in the first round of Best of Tucson balloting, of course) a call, bring home a stack of wings, and find out for yourself which ones are the most delicious. Then go fill out at least 30 categories (including Best Chicken Wings on Page 8, obviously) of your Best of Tucson® ballot. 

Don't let me down, Tucson.

Marriage equality wins, guys.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning against a handful of state same-sex marriage bans—meaning gay and lesbian couples nationwide are now free to wed.

The decision focused on four lawsuits from couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, but it affects all other states where prohibitions were still in place. (Read the ruling, here.)

The High Court's 5-4 decision says the bans violate due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, according to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union. 

Tucson's Democratic state Rep Victoria Steele had these nice words to say:

I am elated with the Supreme Court decision today and believe it brings us much closer to achieving true equality. This victory builds on the momentum of the equality movement, as community members and allies work to ensure that LGBTQ people receive equal protection across the board.

While this is a momentous accomplishment, our work is not done. Next we must turn our attention to employment and housing issues. In many places in our state, it is still legal to fire someone for being gay. It is still legal to discriminate against people based on who they are and whom they love. And that needs to change. Our fight is not over until we have full, legal equality for all Americans.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva sent out this statement:

Today, the Supreme Court enshrined in law what so many of us have known in our hearts: that the freedom to marry belongs to every American, no matter who they love or where they live. This is a tremendous victory for our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community, and for the institution of marriage in our country. From this day forward, the protections and benefits afforded through marriage will finally extend to every individual in this nation.

I am thrilled for every couple whose love is validated at long last by this decision. But this is far from the end of the fight for equality. In too many states, it is still legal to fire or deny housing to Americans based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Our job is not done until all people are treated as equals, regardless of who they are or who they love.

The court felt same-sex couples have the right to "equal dignity in the eyes of the law," the ACLU says.

The group is calling this a landmark of current civil rights movements. After this success, they plan to turn to the roughly 30 states, among them Arizona, that do not have any statewide LGBT anti-discrimination laws. 

The very-conservative Center for Arizona Policy isn't celebrating, as expected. They issued this statement, calling the decision "tragic:"

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is historically tragic. The High Court has disregarded the democratic process by stripping all Americans of their ability to debate and decide marriage policy.

What’s more, by throwing out the time-tested definition of marriage as only the union of one man and one woman, the Court has said that children don’t deserve the best opportunity to be raised by their mom and dad.

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has overstepped its role, and just like before, this will not be the final word on this issue. The U.S. Constitution is absolutely silent on the definition of marriage which makes it all the more egregious for 5 justices to brush aside the votes of tens of millions of voters throughout the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court can never change the fundamental truth that the lifelong union of one man and one woman is at the foundation of a strong state and nation. Center for Arizona Policy is committed to seeing this essential union strengthened and reaffirmed to secure a better future for generations to come.

Arizona's same-sex marriage ban was struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in October.

Watch President Obama's speech from earlier this morning. Courtesy of PBS' News Hour. 

This is one of the sadder education columns I've read in awhile. The title asks, Is Special Education Racist? — in other words, are too many black children given special education designations? The authors' answer is no. In fact, they say, despite the fact that a proportionately larger number of blacks are labeled as needing special ed than other children, there should probably be more black children enrolled in the programs.

It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that the authors are racists who believe that blacks are naturally inferior intellectually. In fact, the authors are college professors from Pennsylvania State University and University of California, Irvine, who have published a study concluding that black children "are far more likely to be exposed to the gestational, environmental and economic risk factors that often result in disabilities." Because more black children are exposed to these risk factors than children in the rest of the population, more of them are likely to have traits that qualify them for special education.

Here is the authors' analysis of exposure to lead, which has terrible effects on children.

Thirty-six percent of inner-city black children have elevated levels of lead in their blood. The figure for suburban white children is only 4 percent.

Continuing to list risk factors:

Black children are about twice as likely to be born prematurely and three times more likely to suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome.