Cincinnati.com this morning reports that "the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a key ruling dealing with a problematic aspect of Ohio's electoral rules that kept a Hamilton County judicial race undecided for 18 months, declared that Ohio must count provisional votes cast in the right polling place but wrong precinct because of poll worker error., upholding the earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley, and meaning that thousands of ballots that otherwise could have been tossed out instead may help decide whether President Barack Obama or Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney wins the state’s 18 electoral votes --- What’s not known is whether Ohio will appeal Thursday’s decision, as Secretary of State Jon Husted did in another case earlier this week involving Ohioans’ right to cast early in-person absentee ballots on the final three days before the Nov. 6 election.”
Ohio isn’t the only state so embroiled. A BusinessWeek article this morning notes “at least 15 pending nationwide over election law limits on issues such as early voting, registration and identification in the run-up to the Nov. 6 vote. Yesterday, South Carolina became the fourth state to be blocked from requiring voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot, a special panel of three federal judges in Washington ruled that given the time left before the election, requiring photo ID at polling stations puts a burden on minority voters that violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “Proper and smooth functioning” of a key protection in the South Carolina law can only be assured in elections after this year, the judges said. (Here)
“ ‘Even assuming the best intentions and extraordinary efforts by all involved, achieving that goal is too much to reasonably demand or expect in a four week-period -- and there is too much of a risk to African-American voters for us to roll the dice in such a fashion,’ U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh said in the ruling.”
The BusinessWeek article also mentioned similar cases underway in Vermont and Texas.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
"Fisher v. University of Texas"
Affirmative action, Wikipedia's renditionsays, is a term that "refers to procedures & policies that take factors including 'race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin' into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group 'in areas of employment, education, and business', usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination
"The term being first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925 signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, where it was employed to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination.; and then in 1965, where President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take 'affirmative action' to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list. Comparable procedures in other countries are also known as reservation in India, positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, and employment equity in Canada."
This morning The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what NBC News and most other media outlets have characterized as "the most important civil rights case to come before the justices in the past six years: a challenge to the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Texas in Fischer v. University of Texas."
NBC further reported yesterday that "in its most recent high-profile case involving the use of race in education, the high court in 2007 invalidated public school programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. that used students' race as a 'tiebreaker' for admission to certain high schools and kindergartens. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion on that case: 'The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.'"
But this morning USAToday reported, “Several liberal justices implied that a new ruling from the high court changing the rules laid down in a 2003 University of Michigan case would create havoc not only for admissions offices but for district courts across the country charged with interpreting the law… Conservatives appeared dissatisfied with the current standard for achieving a "critical mass" of minority students, particularly because it's so difficult to define.”
Marcia Coyle's National Law Journal article this morning headlined that "Prospects Look Dim at Supreme Court for University's Affirmative Action Policy."
Ms. Coyle's article notes that the Fisher case has drawn roughly 90 amicus briefs, with more than 70 supporting the University of Texas.
Petition for a writ of certiorari
Transcript of Hearing
"The term being first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925 signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, where it was employed to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination.; and then in 1965, where President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take 'affirmative action' to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list. Comparable procedures in other countries are also known as reservation in India, positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, and employment equity in Canada."
This morning The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what NBC News and most other media outlets have characterized as "the most important civil rights case to come before the justices in the past six years: a challenge to the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Texas in Fischer v. University of Texas."
NBC further reported yesterday that "in its most recent high-profile case involving the use of race in education, the high court in 2007 invalidated public school programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. that used students' race as a 'tiebreaker' for admission to certain high schools and kindergartens. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion on that case: 'The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.'"
But this morning USAToday reported, “Several liberal justices implied that a new ruling from the high court changing the rules laid down in a 2003 University of Michigan case would create havoc not only for admissions offices but for district courts across the country charged with interpreting the law… Conservatives appeared dissatisfied with the current standard for achieving a "critical mass" of minority students, particularly because it's so difficult to define.”
Marcia Coyle's National Law Journal article this morning headlined that "Prospects Look Dim at Supreme Court for University's Affirmative Action Policy."
Ms. Coyle's article notes that the Fisher case has drawn roughly 90 amicus briefs, with more than 70 supporting the University of Texas.
Petition for a writ of certiorari
Transcript of Hearing
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Potential juvenile legislation
In response to last week's Supreme Court decision holding that minors do not have a right to an attorney during police interrogations that come before charges are filed or an initial appearance in juvenile court., the Associated Press last Friday reported State Rep. Tracy Heard is reportedly planning on introducing a bill to require that children under the age of 18 be read their rights regarding interrogation "in their language."
In the Supreme Court's decision , Justice O’Donnell had emphasized that that particular case hinged on a narrow legal question of whether, aside from Miranda, the language in R.C. 2151.352 that granted a separate statutory right to counsel during delinquency “proceedings” entitling a juvenile suspect to legal counsel before the jurisdiction of a juvenile court has been invoked by the filing of a complaint. (See Court's new summary)
Back in April, the Supreme Court amended & adopted Juv.R. 3, requiring consultation mandatory for all situations where a juvenile might face detention, even for something as minor as petty theft. (More )
In the Supreme Court's decision , Justice O’Donnell had emphasized that that particular case hinged on a narrow legal question of whether, aside from Miranda, the language in R.C. 2151.352 that granted a separate statutory right to counsel during delinquency “proceedings” entitling a juvenile suspect to legal counsel before the jurisdiction of a juvenile court has been invoked by the filing of a complaint. (See Court's new summary)
Back in April, the Supreme Court amended & adopted Juv.R. 3, requiring consultation mandatory for all situations where a juvenile might face detention, even for something as minor as petty theft. (More )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)