The U.S. Supreme Court delivered the final knockout blow to North Carolina’s restrictive voter ID law Monday, declining once again to hear an appeal from state Republicans to reinstate it. The move thereby upholds a lower court’s ruling that found the law had intentionally been designed to restrict black voters.

The law, which was enacted in 2013 by a Republican-controlled legislature, was struck down last year after a federal appeals court found that key parts of the law were to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Chief Justice John Roberts cited a “blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law” as the Court’s reasoning for refusing to weigh in on North Carolina, et al. v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. Roberts, however, was careful to note that the court’s refusal did not constitute an opinion on the “merits of the case.”

North Carolina’s law had required voters to present a government-issued photo identification at the polls, but excluded forms of identification that happened to be used disproportionately by African Americans. For example, driver’s licenses, passports, and military identification cards were permitted, but not public assistance cards. It also shortened the early voting period and did away with same-day voter registration, among other things.

North Carolina, along with a string of other states, enacted voting restrictions like these shortly after a Supreme Court decision effectively struck down an integral part of the Voting Rights Act, diminishing federal oversight of voting rights. In late August, a deadlocked Supreme Court declined to reinstate North Carolina’s voting restrictions. The court was divided 4 to 4, with the court’s more conservative judges voting to revive parts of the law.

Proponents of these kinds of measures avow that they are intended purely to prevent voter fraud, not act as discrimination. However, a study of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states between 2000 and 2012 found the level of fraud was “infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span.” The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.

In lieu of the Supreme Court’s decision, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are now eager to enact new voter restrictions. In other words, the battle over voter ID laws is hardly over.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for North Carolina Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has long been considered a critical piece of federal legislation in the Civil Rights Movement. Enacted to prohibit racial discrimination in voting, specifically, it has protected racial minorities from unfair and predatory voting regulations like literacy tests, poll taxes, character tests, and property-ownership requirements, to name a few. In 2013, the Supreme Court decided on a case that struck down key provisions of the act, stating that they were based on old circumstances that had no logical connection to present day.

Since that decision, there have been numerous disputes occurring in states that were once subject to the old provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Lawmakers in several states–many southern–have started passing legislation with more stringent requirements to vote. It begs the question, is the Voting Rights Act still relevant and effective today?

History of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. It was signed in the wake of “Bloody Sunday,” the infamous voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery where 600 people, including current Congressman John Lewis, were brutally beaten by Alabama state troopers. The Voting Rights Act was meant to eliminate discriminatory election practices, as states were still resistant to enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment, which declared that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Section 2 of the act mimicked the language of the Fifteenth Amendment by applying a nationwide prohibition on literacy tests to deny citizens of the right to vote. Moreover, the act also contained other special provisions that only applied to particular jurisdictions. Under Section 5, the act required that specific jurisdictions which attempted to pass new voting practices or procedures needed to receive “preclearance” from the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 4(b) of the act defines eligible districts as those which had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than a fifty percent turnout for the 1964 presidential election.

For years, the Supreme Court continually upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, including Section 5. This included thwarting racial vote dilution through discriminatory annexations, redistricting plans, election method changes, and changes in voter registration standards and procedures. The section was originally enacted for five years, but has been renewed continually since its enactment.

Shelby County v. Holder

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. The case, which was out of Shelby County, Alabama, concerned both Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County sued Eric Holder, the Attorney General at the time, arguing that Section 4(b) and Section 5 were facially unconstitutional, and sought a permanent injunction against their enforcement.

After making its way through the lower courts, it finally reached the Supreme Court. The justices had to decide whether the renewal of Section 5 under Section 4(b) restrictions exceeded Congress’ authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in turn violating the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 opinion, that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Essentially, the Court stated that the current formula conflicted with equal sovereignty of the states, as the disparate treatment of states was based on forty-year-old facts, which had no relationship to present day. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Our country has changed and while any discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation is passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

In Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion he argued that Section 5 was also unconstitutional, contending that the blatant discrimination against certain voters that Section 5 was intended to protect against no longer existed. According to Justice Thomas, Congress cannot justify the burden of Section 5 without blatant discrimination.

Current Voting Rights Disputes

Since the court’s decision in 2013, many former preclearance states in the South are now embroiled in legal challenges surrounding voting laws. In Texas, the federal district court recently ruled that Senate Bill 14, which required voters to show a form of photo ID before casting a vote, had a discriminatory effect. Senate Bill 14 was passed in 2011, but was blocked by the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. After Shelby County v. Holder, Texas officials said they planned to enforce the law.

Lawmakers in North Carolina passed a photo ID requirement, and curbed early-voting hours, same-day voter registration, and limited other registration and voting options. This was eventually struck down by the Fourth Circuit, which noted that the provisions targeted African-Americans with “almost surgical provision.” The Supreme Court declined to stay the ruling in a 4-4 split after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away last year. North Carolina has asked the court to hear the case fully, and now that the court has added Justice Neil Gorsuch it’s possible that it could grant the petition for review.

Just recently, a lawsuit has been brought by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of five organizations regarding the special election slated to take place in June 2017 in Georgia to replace Republican representative Tom Price. Since the Democrat, Jon Ossoff, failed to achieve the fifty percent threshold needed to win outright, a special election will decide his fate, against Republican Karen Handel. The suit alleges that the Georgia law disenfranchises citizens by requiring voters to have registered for the first round to vote in the runoff. Consequently, since the law means that voters would have had to register in March 2017 to vote in the runoff (before the first election even occurred), a large number of Georgians may be completely stopped from voting in the June 2017 election.

It is Still Relevant?

Just four short years ago, the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder was not hesitant to point out how key sections of the Voting Rights Act were not relevant to modern times. The majority opinion concluded that since the act had worked so well in preventing racial discrimination, it was no longer needed. However, given the numerous laws that have sprung up since the court’s decision, it seems that the act is just as necessary today.

After the act’s initial enactment, it had an instant effect on decreasing racial discrimination in voting. Not only did the number of registered African-American voters increase substantially, but the number of African-Americans elected to office also grew. Moreover, economic growth occurred because of the act. A study of 40 North Carolina counties covered by the act found that those counties experienced larger growth in African-American incomes, occupational status, and attracted more revenue from county and other government sources.

Now, without Section 4(b) in effect to determine which jurisdictions must receive approval of any voting law changes, Section 5 has now become relatively inoperative. Thus, this has allowed states to change laws and policies without any federal oversight.

Conclusion

After Shelby County v. Holder, many former preclearance states jumped at the opportunity to pass more restrictive voting requirements. While lower courts have found subsequent legislation to contain discriminatory intent or effect, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on them. Thus, with a full court now in place after Justice Gorsuch’s swearing-in, the legacy of the Voting Rights Act is still up for debate.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Still Effective? appeared first on Law Street.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas just ruled that Texas’ voter ID law intentionally discriminates against minority voters and violates the federal Voting Rights Act. The 2011 law has been thrown out as unconstitutional, and there’s the chance that Texas’ voting laws could once again be put under the purview of the federal government.

The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 2011 but didn’t go into effect until 2013. It required that all voters show some sort of government-issued photo ID before casting a vote, such as a driver’s license or passport. Since its inception, it has been controversial, sparking a drawn out legal battle. Critics point out that black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have those forms of identification. Judge Ramos ruled that the law was enacted with the intent to discriminate against minority voters.

The suit was brought by a number of plaintiffs, including the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, La Union del Pueblo Entero and League of United Latin American Citizens, several individual voters, and Dallas County.

If you’re feeling a bit of Texas voter ID law deja vu, you’re not wrong. This is actually the second time that Ramos has ruled on this law. She ruled on it in 2014 as well, and then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, sent it back to her. That court “found that Judge Ramos had relied too heavily on Texas’ history of discriminatory voting measures and other evidence it labeled ‘infirm’ and asked her to reweigh the question of discriminatory intent.” She once again found that the law is discriminatory.

The state of Texas is expected to appeal her decision again, but this could set Texas up for federal monitoring of its voting laws. The Voting Rights Act used to require that certain states–Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia–that had a history of passing discriminatory voting laws had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision that required such “preclearance” but if a state is found to have passed a law that is intentionally discriminatory, it could be subject to that oversight once again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Rules that Texas’ Voter ID Law is Discriminatory appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from Texas officials who wish to restore their state’s voter ID law, which lower courts ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory against minorities. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the order on the case. In his brief statement, he left open the possibility of hearing the case after it is finished moving through the lower courts.

“Petitioners may raise either or both issues again after entry of final judgement,” Roberts wrote. “The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.” The courtroom tussle over the ID law goes back to 2014, when a federal judge first struck down the bill as “unconstitutional.” Other federal courts took up the case as well; one affirmed the 2014 decision, and another is awaiting trial.

Enacted in 2011, the Texas law requires voters to present photo identification–a Texas driver’s license, gun license, military ID, or passport–at the voting booth. Critics contend that it is specifically aimed at silencing the minority vote; adherents say it is meant to stanch voter fraud. Up until 2013, the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination, which includes Texas, to get approval from federal authorities before changing a state-level voter ID law.

In 2013 however, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the Voting Rights Act that required federal approval for changes in a states’ voting laws. Texas began enforcing this one. But soon after, the law was challenged in the Federal District Court in Corpus Christi. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found the law to be an “unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” adding that it has “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Texas officials were adamant that the challengers to the law “presented no evidence that the law resulted in diminished minority political participation or prevented even a single person from voting.” The challengers to the law responded, saying it was an “unusually and unnecessarily harsh law, affecting over 600,000 registered voters, and taking aim specifically at minority voters.”

While the National Conference of State Legislatures previously classified the Texas law as a “strict photo ID law,” it now puts it in in the “nonstrict voter ID” category. This includes states that allow voters to sign an affidavit in lieu of a photo ID if they are unable to produce one at the polls. For now, at least, this policy will hold.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Hearing for Appeal to Restore Texas Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina voting law on Friday, concluding that it was passed with clear “discriminatory intent.”

The ruling forcefully reversed a district court finding that did not acknowledge the law’s intent to discriminate. In the ruling, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gibbon Motz writes,

In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

Motz, also writing for judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd, goes on to note that the sequence of events that led to the law provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the law intentionally sought to restrict voting rights of African American voters in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.

While many argue that voting laws like the one in North Carolina are passed for partisan reasons–by focusing on minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats, Republican legislators may be seeking an electoral edge–the way this law in particular targeted race amounts to racial discrimination. And yes, challenges to these laws could also be considered partisan efforts on behalf of the Democrats as well, but the racial focus here appears to take it a step further.

A Quick Look at the Voting Rights Act

To understand this case in North Carolina, it’s important to understand the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 to ensure that African Americans and all minority voters would not be discriminated against at the polls.

The law took a particularly active approach to dealing with an enormous challenge. It created a formula to identify states and locales where voting was polarized by race and then added additional safeguards to changing voting laws there. Section 4 of the law created that so-called “coverage formula,” and coupled it with a preclearance requirement in Section 5. That requirement mandated that state and local governments falling within the coverage formula get explicit approval from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws.

The law also maintains provisions to ensure that race-based discrimination does not happen and places redistricting requirements on states to ensure minority representation, among other protections. But the preclearance requirement and coverage formula took the center of attention in an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013. That case, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula and ended the preclearance system as it existed at the time. Justice Roberts, who wrote the 5-4 opinion, concluded that the law employed “extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem,” but that those measures are no longer needed. He went on to argue that the coverage formula used to determine which areas require preclearance now violates states’ rights and equal sovereignty as laid out in the 10th Amendment.

Since that ruling, governments have been free to change their voting laws as they see fit without the need for preclearance from the Justice Department. And that brings us to the recent challenge in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Ruling

Judge Motz notes in the ruling that between 2000 and 2012–a period when preclearance was needed for to all statewide and many local voting law changes in North Carolina–registration and participation surged among black voters. By 2012, black voter registration had increased by about 50 percent and turnout nearly reached parity with that of white voters, at about 70 percent. But shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County ruling, the state assembly began the process to overhaul its voting laws. According to the ruling, the new law would have several effects on black voters in the coming November election:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

In cases like this, it is particularly difficult to prove that a legislature acted with discriminatory intent, but the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that race was central to the new law. That holds true, according to Motz, even if it was done for partisan reasons and not outright racial hatred or racism. The ruling notes that almost immediately after the Shelby County opinion came down in June 2013, the North Carolina legislature began drafting new voting restrictions. It also notes:

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

This indicates that shortly after the state did not need preclearance to pass a new voting law, it looked into how certain voting practices related to race, and then passed a new law limiting certain practices. Based on that sequence of events, the court ruled there was clear intent to discriminate based on race.

Going Forward

While the ruling effectively struck down the law, the court declined to use another section of the Voting Rights Act to impose a preclearance requirement on North Carolina after finding discriminatory intent. Essentially, it chose not to reinstate the preclearance requirement on the state using a different part of the VRA. As Rick Hasen–a law professor at University of California, Irvine–notes in a blog post, the state can still appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit en banc, which means that all of the judges, not just the original panel of three judges, would review the case. It could also appeal to the Supreme Court, but as Hasen notes, the court may not decide to hear the case given its current eight justice makeup and the Circuit Court’s decision not to implement a preclearance requirement.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why A Circuit Court Struck Down North Carolina’s Discriminatory Voting Law appeared first on Law Street.

It sometimes seems that we’ve been seeing the same faces in Congress for years. It feels like people such as Representatives John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have been in office forever despite Congress’s dismal approval ratings. Why do the same people keep getting reelected, and why is it so hard to unseat incumbents?

One popular answer to that question is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a redistricting tactic that is used to increase the influence and power of a particular political party. It has been practiced since the country’s founding and has long been a controversial endeavor. Courts have battled with the legality of gerrymandering based on race, ethnicity, and other factors for decades. Read on to learn about what gerrymandering is, what role it plays in American politics, and the arguments against the practice.

What is gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering occurs during the drawing of Congressional district lines when attempts are made to give one political party or candidate an election advantage. These lines are drawn specifically to make reelections easier for a party, or give a party greater influence on other districts. The main intention of gerrymandering is to help one party win as many seats as possible, whether in Congress or in state elections.

Each state has its own process for drawing district lines, and it is the people in charge, typically state legislators, who draw and approve of new boundary lines. Each district has to have close to the same population and new lines are drawn due to population fluctuations, most typically after a census.

What’s in a name?

One of the first known occurrences of gerrymandering in the United States happened during the 1789 election of the very first U.S. Congress. The Anti-Federalists and founding father Patrick Henry controlled the Virginia House of Delegates, the legislative body that drew the boundaries for the state’s districts. They purposely designed Virginia’s 5^th district in a way to keep James Madison, a Federalist, from winning the seat. However, their attempts were unsuccessful and Madison won the seat.

The term “gerrymander” came from the actions of the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry in 1810. He was responsible for shaping new districts and the Boston Gazette commented that one of them was shaped like a salamander. Gerry’s name was combined with salamander and the term “gerrymander” was born.

Later, the Republican Party also used gerrymandering on a larger scale to acquire more states that were beneficial to the party. For example North and South Dakota, Republican friendly locations, were admitted as two separate states. That created more districts and senators for the Republicans than one state alone would.

Who draws the lines?

Each state has its own processes of redistricting. In 37 states, the state legislature governs the redistricting process and redraws the districts. It is usually passed like a piece of legislation and requires only a majority vote to pass. Because of this, the majority party in the legislature decides the district lines.

Of these 37 states, five use advisory commissions to help make fair district lines, but the ultimate decision is still up to the state legislature and it has no obligation to follow the commission’s recommendation.

In two states (New Jersey and Hawaii) the task of redistricting is up to political commissions, commissions comprised of certain elected officials. Typically there’s an equal amount of commissioners from each party and several commissioners from neither party. This ensures that no plan gets approved with only partisan support.

Four states (Washington, Idaho, California, and Arizona) use commissions made up of non-elected officials in an attempt to regulate the redistricting process and stop political influences altogether.

Seven states (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware and Vermont) have no need for redistricting plans as they have only one congressional representative each, also know as “at-large” districts.

Is redistricting allowed to benefit one party?

The Supreme Court Case Davis v. Bandermer (1986) found that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the same time, no decision was made on what legal standards partisan gerrymandering claims could be made. This has made it difficult to make legal claims against alleged partisan gerrymandering and has allowed it to continue.

In the 2004 Supreme Court case Vieth v. Jubelirer the court, once again, could not determine how gerrymandering claims could be evaluated.

Four Gerrymandering Tactics

There are four common types of gerrymandering:

Cracking is when voters of one type are spread throughout many districts in order to prevent them from having a large voting bloc in any district. An example of cracking is when poor, urban voters are spread across districts where a large majority of the voters are rural. This prevents the urban voters from carrying much weight during elections. This is the most common type of gerrymandering.

Packing involves concentrating as many as possible of a single bloc of voters into one district to reduce their impact in other districts. An example would be putting most urban voters in one district and very few in other districts to give them only one district where they have a large presence. Many times this creates a majority-minority district, when one district is composed mostly of minority groups.

Hijacking is done when a state’s districts are redrawn after a census. Two districts are altered so that two incumbents of the same party are forced to run against each other. This guarantees that one of them will be voted out. The other district, with no incumbent, is then more easily won by the other party.

Kidnapping also occurs during redistricting, when voters of the incumbent’s party are moved out of the district to make reelection more difficult. For example, Democratic voters are moved out of an incumbent Democrat’s district and are replaced with Republican voters. This makes it difficult for the Democratic candidate to be reelected and easier for a Republican candidate to win.

What do gerrymandered districts look like?

Sometimes districts are shaped in very deformed ways. For example, check out this map by the United States Geological Survey that shows Illinois’ 4th Congressional District. It was designed to connect Chicago with other cities in order to make a heavily Democratic district.

How does gerrymandering impact elections?

Approval ratings for Congress have been below 20 percent for years, but that doesn’t mean that 80 percent of incumbents get ousted every election. Instead, it’s usually the opposite.

During the 2012 U.S. House of Representatives election, Democratic candidates received 59,318,160 votes and Republicans received only 58,143,273 votes (48.8 percent to 47.6  percent.) But Democrats won 201 seats and Republicans won 234 seats (44.9 percent to 51.7 percent). Despite the Democrats receiving more votes as a whole due to gerrymandering, Republican incumbents were mostly able to hold on to their seats. Overall roughly 90 percent of incumbents won reelection in 2012. On a state level, in 2010 Republicans won majorities in many state legislatures, and given the 2010 Census results, many districts were redrawn to benefit Republican incumbents.

Almost all districts have been gerrymandered to help incumbents get reelected. Most legislatures are typically comprised of both the majority and minority parties; they mutually agree to pack each district with their respective party’s voters in order to ensure reelection. Many of these districts are called 70/30 districts where two districts that are split 50/50 in party affiliation are each drawn 70/30 for a different party, guaranteeing each party wins one district. This is known as bipartisan gerrymandering, which protects both parties’ interests.

But sometimes a legislature is controlled largely by one party. They may redistrict in a cracking manner that prevents the minority party from having any significant influence in any district, making reelection very easy for the majority party’s incumbents.This is partisan gerrymandering which favors only one party.

How can boundary lines be decided objectively?

One of the biggest problems opponents have with gerrymandering is that the self-interested party is the one who oversees and commands redistricting. These parties are accused of only caring about aiding themselves and not their constituents. Opponents to gerrymandering have proposed different remedies to prevent gerrymandering.

Court approved redistricting would prevent specific party-favored redistricting and strike down gerrymandering plans. This would require all redistricting plans to be presented and approved by either state or federal courts. The Supreme Court has already ruled that if a plan violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a new plan must be presented that fixes the gerrymandering problem. If that plan also violates the law, a federal court could draw the plan.

Independent non-partisan commissions have been proposed to decide redistricting plans without political influence. Arizona, California and Washington have already adopted similar commissions.

Who agrees with gerrymandering?

Despite the disapproval by many of gerrymandering practices, there are some who argue for the practice.

By making it easier for incumbents to be reelected, there is less of a chance of a huge wave of change each election. If voter opinion changes from cycle to cycle (as it often does) there will not be huge shifts of changing leadership. If one party in the House is given an outstanding majority, any bill passed may be too polarizing to pass in the Senate, resulting in gridlock. Gerrymandering allows for gradual changes in representative composition.

Packing gerrymandering can also be used to prevent a minority group from being underrepresented. If a minority does not have enough voters in any district to have much influence in elections, then putting them in one district gives them a higher chance of electing someone based on their beliefs.

Conclusion

Party politics holds a very large role in how districts are drawn. While the United States’ democracy ensures that everyone will have the chance to vote on who represents them, gerrymandering is seen by some as an impediment to true representation. While gerrymandering can have some benefits, it is also responsible for keeping many disliked representatives in office. While there may never be a way to make sure that everyone’s vote makes a big impact, drawing districts fairly is an admirable goal toward which we should all strive.

Resources

Primary

NationalMaps.gov: Printable Maps

Additional

Study: Gerrymandering: Definition, History, Types & Examples 

Politics & Policy: Gerrymandering – Proving all Politics is Local

Loyola Law School: Who Draws the Lines?

Gallup: 2014 U.S. Approval of Congress Remains Near All-Time Low

POLITICO: 2012 Reelection Rate: 90 percent

Newsworks: Boehner and House Republicans Lack Mandate to Oppose Obama

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gerrymandering: (Mis)Shaping America’s Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pretty much the best. At 81, she’s cooler than I could ever hope to be. I would very much like to be her friend. Or she can be my mentor/life coach. Either way, you should all aspire to be friends with RGB too, and here are just a few of the reasons why.

She’d Be a Great Drinking Buddy

This article was inspired by the comments Ginsburg made yesterday about why she looked so sleepy at last month’s State of the Union.

RBG is my spirit animal MT @voxdotcom I wasn’t “100% sober” at the State of the Union http://t.co/dpXnb4gwPupic.twitter.com/jTbVqyBolE

— Erin K. Stabile (@erinkstabile) February 13, 2015

She explained that she wasn’t “100 percent” sober, after she had enjoyed a “very fine California wine” brought to dinner by fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy.

That’s right, kids, our Supreme Court Justices–at least two of the cool ones–pre-gamed the State of the Union.

She’d Motivate You to Work Out

I would like to point out again, RBG is 81 years old. That being said, she has been working out with a personal trainer since 1999. She explained her workout routine, saying :

I do a variety of weight-lifting, elliptical glider, stretching exercises, push-ups. And I do the Canadian Air Force exercises almost every day.

Although she had some health concerns in November, I bet she’s still prioritizing her health and hitting the gym. Meanwhile, I am 100 percent sure I could not do anything called “Canadian Air Force exercises,” so I could really use a work out buddy like RBG to kick my ass into gear.

She’d Definitely Be Down for a Galentine’s Day Party

When asked at what point Ginsburg believes there are enough women on the Supreme Court, she had an awesome answer: when there are nine. She went on to explain that there were nine men for many years, so why not try out nine women?

She’s long been a strong feminist who isn’t afraid to put her views out there. She also is aware of the fact that she’s an outlier from a generation where women weren’t necessarily given the same opportunities as men. She at one point remembered:

My mother told me two things constantly. One was to be a lady, and the other was to be independent. The study of law was unusual for women of my generation. For most girls growing up in the ’40s, the most important degree was not your B.A., but your M.R.S

I can’t think of a better role model for young women who want to pursue their dreams.

She Knows When to Put Differences Aside for the Sake of Friendship

RBG can teach us that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they don’t have something they can teach you. She and fellow justice Antonin Scalia are basically polar opposites when it comes to beliefs and views. That being said, they can put that all aside and still have a great time together. For many years they had a tradition of spending New Years Eve together along with their spouses. They’ve traveled together–once even riding an elephant together on a trip to India. Another time in France, she went parasailing, although Scalia sat that one out. Being friends with people who force you to defend your opinions and see things a different way is a good thing–Scalia and Ginsburg are absolutely proof of that.

If you can’t get enough of Scalia and Ginsburg’s friendship, there’s actually a one-act comedic opera dedicated to the two. This is the plot:

What happens when Supreme Court justices go before a Higher Power? In this comic opera, Justices Ginsburg and Scalia must pass through three cosmic trials to secure their freedom. The catch: they may have to agree on the Constitution.

Both Ginsburg and Scalia saw it, and liked it.

She’s Very Sassy and Quotable

RBG is well known for her expertly crafted decisions. In the recent Hobby Lobby case, her dissent was nothing short of withering. She called the decision one of “a startling breadth,” and ended with this pretty awesome last paragraph:

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Or how about this quote in her dissent against the decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act:

Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

What a BAMF.

So there are a lot of reasons to love RBG, and I didn’t even mention her groundbreaking and brilliant legal career. Either way, she’s definitely a woman who should get a hell of a lot of respect, and if there’s anyone who should be allowed to drink wine and then fall asleep at the State of the Union, it’s her.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Reasons Why We Should All Want to Be BFFs With RBG appeared first on Law Street.

In January I published a break down of the top cases and judicial issues to watch in 2014. Now that the year is coming to an end, it seems appropriate to give you a progress report and see where those cases all ended up.

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison

The case in January: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

What happened in 2014: Ladar Levison lost his appeal in April when he was hit with contempt of court charges. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was held, didn’t rule against Levison because of the merits of the case, but rather because it believed he had made a procedural misstep from the beginning and its hands were tied.

7. Jodi Arias

The case in January: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or to death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

What happened in 2014: The sentencing phase of Arias’ case is still underway. There’s controversy over some “mystery witness” and Arias demanding that the proceedings be made secret. What Arias’ sentence will be remains just as big of a mystery.

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case in January: McCullen v. Coakley has been waiting for its day in court since 2001. There was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

What happened in 2014: SCOTUS ruled the Massachusetts buffer zones unconstitutional in the sense that they impeded protesters’ Freedom of Speech. If you’d like more information on the case, check out fellow Law Streeter Erika Bethmann’s excellent takedown of the decision: Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment isn’t Free Speech.

5. Silkroad Case

The case in January: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web last Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has was accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody.

What happened in 2014: The case against Ross Ulbrecht has been delayed until January 2015. He pleaded not guilty to various drug trafficking, money laundering, hacking, and criminal enterprise charges. According to his defense counsel, the case has been delayed because:

The court did not provide its reasons for the adjournment, but we asked for it earlier this week based on a couple of factors: the danger that the trial would run into the Christmas holidays, which would affect juror availability and the continuity of the trial; some technical and logistical delays (owing to the limitations inherent in Mr. Ulbricht’s pretrial confinement) in getting Mr Ulbricht access to some discovery; some other scheduling issues.

4. Marriage rights

The case(s) in January: The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

What happened in 2014: The victories just keep coming for gay marriage advocates. One of the biggest was on October 6 when the Supreme Court chose not to hear a whole collection of cases challenging same-sex marriage bans in a bunch of different states. Because it declined to weigh in on the appeals court decisions that had ruled the marriage bans unconstitutional, SCOTUS effectively increased the number of states with gay marriage to 30.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s) in January: There have been a variety of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

What happened in 2014: As with gay marriage, there are a lot of cases still running through the system. Unlike gay marriage, there hasn’t been quite as much progress. There have been some cases argued in front of appeals courts, and some voter ID laws struck down, such as in Wisconsin and Texas. It seems like voter ID laws, as well as other restrictive voting laws will end up being decided on a state-by-state basis for a while.

2. Contraception 

The case(s) in January: There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

What happened in 2014: The Hobby Lobby case was one of the biggest decisions to come out of SCOTUS this year. The Hobby Lobby decision made it so that private employers could refuse to provide certain contraception coverage in their insurance plans. While the justices attempted to make the case very narrow and make sure that they just ruled on the specifics of that case so that the “floodgates” wouldn’t be opened, what ramifications it may have down the road will be interesting to see.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s) in January: A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

What happened in 2014: This is another issue that has in many ways not come to its full judicial potential. Some cases are moving forward though — a federal appeals court in DC just started to hear a case that questioned the constitutionality of the NSA collecting so much data after the passage of the Patriot Act. This will be an issue to keep our eyes on moving into 2015.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014: Where are They Now appeared first on Law Street.

America is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy, but can it possibly live up to that promise if its people don’t vote? This article attempts to explain which Americans vote, which don’t, how Congress can fix the issue, and why they probably won’t anytime soon.

Who votes?

If you are rich, old, white, have a college degree, and go to church often, you probably vote. This is the demographic that is most likely to turn up to the polls on Tuesday. According to the Pew Research Center, whites are disproportionately represented at the polls: 37 percent of white people are voters, as opposed to only 29 percent of non-whites. Forty-two percent of those who are over the age of 50 vote, while only 22 percent of those between 18-29 regularly vote. Almost half of all college degree holders vote, while those without degrees turn out at a measly 28 percent. Strangely enough, attending church makes you eight percent more likely to vote.

While the youth vote is low, it has been on the rise recently. Forty-four percent of young people voted in the 2008 election, the highest turnout since 1972. While that number did go down slightly in 2012, it was a still a higher turnout than 2000.

Find more information about who votes from this infographic couresty of Takepart.com.

Via: TakePart.com

How many Americans vote overall?

Not that many– in the 2012 election, only 58.2 percent of the nation voted for President. To put that in perspective, the turnout in the most recent Afghani election was about the same. Even though, the Taliban was threatening to blow up polling stations and conducted suicide bombings two months before Election Day.

In the 2010 midterm elections, it was even worse with only 41 percent of voter turnout. Less than a majority of American citizens voted for their representation in Congress in 2010.

The United States is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to voter turnout. Between 1945 and 2001, American voter turnout averaged at 66.5 percent. This means we ranked 120 out of 169 countries. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Hungary all had higher voter turnouts than United States.

More embarrassingly, as this video points out, America has the lowest voter turnout amongst developed nations:

Why don’t more people vote?

A plurality of non-voters cite apathy as the main cause. According to the Census Bureau, 26.4 percent of those who did not vote in 2008 chose not to exercise this right because they were uninterested in either candidate. This means that four million registered voters were not going to the polls no matter how easy it was to vote.

However, a significant number of registered voters did not make it to a polling station even though they wanted to vote. Almost 18 percent of registered voters did not cast a ballot because they were too busy, most likely because they were at work that Tuesday.

Why does the Constitution require Election Day to be on a Tuesday?

A video from the appropriately named organization “Why Tuesday” explains this odd rule:

It all goes back to the days of horse and buggy. There was no national electoral date until 1845, when Congress passed a law making it Tuesday. You see, Election Day could not be on Monday, because that would require voters to travel to the polls on horse and buggy on Sunday, which was the Sabbath day. And since Wednesdays were Market Days for farmers, Tuesday was the date that made the most sense.

There have been efforts to change the date, however, there has not been enough support. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-D) has introduced the Weekend Voting Act in multiple Congresses. In the 113th Congress (the current Congress), there has been no meaningful action on the bill and it only has four cosponsors.

So why are no leaders supporting a change? There is a policy explanation and a political explanation.

The policy explanation comes in the form of a study that shows that a change to weekend elections does not significantly improve voter turnout. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), early voting would, at most, improve voter turnout by only four percent. The GAO admitted that reporting on potential benefits and downsides of weekend voting was difficult since there was no American case to study, but they did go over 24 independent studies on the topic.

The report also included quotes from state and local officials expressing concern that they might not be able to find volunteers to work the polls if they have to compete with fun weekend activities.

Of course, like all things in Washington, there is a political aspect to this issue.

Weekend voting would disproportionately help the poor get to the polls. Single parents and those who work multiple would benefit from the move to the weekend. So, what’s wrong with that? Well, poor people tend to vote for the Democratic Party, making Republicans unlikely to pass any legislation that would make it easier for them to vote.

If we can’t change the date of Election Day, how else can we boost turnout?

Make Election Day a holiday

Instead of moving Election Day to the weekend, Congress could just declare Election Day a federal holiday, giving everyone the day off of work so that they can vote.

Rainn Wilson from The Office supports that idea in this weird video featuring a 19th century sharecropper voting in modern day America

On the flip side, making Election Day a federally recognized holiday solves none of the problems associated with moving Election Day to a weekend (makes it difficult to attract poll workers, doesn’t guarantee turnout), and it creates the problem of losing a workday in the middle of the week.

Mandate Voting

Congress could also use its taxing power to mandate voting. Australia, the country that boasts the highest voter turnouts, fines anyone who does not go to the polls. While the fine is only A$20 ($18), that is still enough to convince most people to go to the polls.

Mandated voting could also have the added benefit of forcing candidates to run towards the center of American politics as opposed to attracting radicals. If everyone is voting, it makes little sense to try and appeal to people on the far end of the political spectrum. This phenomenon is explained in this video:

Of course, the American people aren’t the biggest fans of mandates recently, so it is unlikely that this will ever happen.

What other challenges do voters face at the polls?

Speaking of voting not being easy, it has actually become more difficult to vote in just the past few years. Here are a few ways that politicians and judges have curtailed access to the polls.

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. The law outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests, but, most importantly, it places the election laws of specific states and counties under the purview of the federal government. A list of these jurisdictions can be found here. That means that, if any of those states or counties passes a law altering their election format, the Department of Justice has the ability to step in and overturn the law if it is found to be discriminatory.

Well, it used to have this ability. In June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned section four of the law, which determined which states and counties had to get their laws approved by the federal government. The majority opinion stated that the country has changed dramatically since 1965 and that racism in election laws is basically over.

As a result, those jurisdictions are now allowed to make their own election laws without the review of the Department of Justice.

This report from SCOTUSblog shows what happened in Pasadena, Texas after this ruling took place.

Voter ID Laws

As a reaction to this ruling, literally days after it was passed down, states across the country started passing and implementing voter ID laws. These are laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has put together an interactive map that shows which states now require or request a photo ID at the polling booth.

Supporters claim that these laws are necessary in order to fight voter fraud. The problem? A News21 analysis shows that there have only been 10 cases of voter impersonation since 2000. That’s one out-of-fifteen million voters during that time period. This form of vote tampering has impacted exactly zero elections.

Opponents argue that these laws are thinly veiled attempts to stop poor people and minorities from voting. 11 percent of US citizens do not have a photo ID, and 25 percent of African Americans do not have voter ID. Since photo ID requires a purchase in most states, the new law prevents poor voters from voting.

Why is it important to get more people to vote?

I’ll let P. Diddy and then-Senate candidate Barack Obama from 2004 take this one:

Conclusion

Americans currently face many obstacles at the polls, and Congress seems to have little interest or stake in solving them. As long as Election Day is still a workday and states pass restrictive voting laws, voter turnout will remain low.

Resources

Primary

Census: Voting and Registration Information From the Census Bureau in 2008

Congress: The Weekend Voting Act

GAO: Improving Voter Turnout

Additional

Pew: Who Votes and Who Doesn’t?

Child Trends: Trends in Young Vote

IDEA: Voter Turnout Rates From a Comparative Perspective

Washington Post: Census Bureau Findings

NPR: Why Do We Vote on Tuesday?

ABC: Democrats Eye a New Election Day

CNN: Election Day Should be a Federal Holiday

BBC: How Australia’s Voting Mandate Works

Guardian: The Supreme Court Guts the VRA…Since Racism is Over

NCSL: Map of States That Have Voter ID Laws

ACLU: Voter ID Laws

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Elections: Americans Don’t Rock the Vote and Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

Springtime in America is marked by a wonderful tradition shared by all, regardless of one’s age, gender, or socioeconomic status. I’m not talking about love or cherry blossoms — I’m talking about the NCAA college basketball tournament. If you are a sports fan or happen to work in an office, you have probably paid at least five dollars to enter a pool and pick the winners of the sixty-eight team, single-elimination competition. If you’ve ever been to Las Vegas in March, you’ve witnessed first-hand the popularity of gambling on college basketball.  March Madness is the third most popular time to travel to Sin City, behind New Years and Super Bowl weekend. But apart from office pools and Vegas trips, it may be difficult to legally bet on the college basketball tournament.

Since 1931, Nevada has sold itself to the rest of the nation as the premier destination for sports gambling, largely with the help of federal law enforcement. In 1961, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy spearheaded an effort to crack down on organized crime in America and got Congress to pass the Federal Wire Act, which penalized most interstate sports gambling.  In 1992, a broadly supported law entitled the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) banned intrastate sports betting in jurisdictions apart from Oregon, Montana, Delaware, and of course, Nevada. And in 2011, the Department of Justice released a public memorandum reiterating that online sports betting is within the scope of the Federal Wire Act and will be prosecuted. U.S. law has clearly disfavored sports betting outside of Nevada, but that may soon change.

Enter New Jersey. The Garden State has seen better days, and its officials believe the road back to those better days is paved with the revenue generated through legalized sports gambling.  This effort was kickstarted in 2009 when New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court claiming that the PASPA unconstitutionally discriminates against states by allowing some to engage in legal gambling while blocking all others. The suit was dismissed in district court, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit also ruled against New Jersey.  But New Jersey appealed its decision to the Supreme Court, and there are two reasons why the state has renewed hope for a favorable decision in Washington.

1. The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence: New Jersey’s appeal argues that the PASPA violates the equal sovereignty of New Jersey, a principle that basically says the federal government cannot discriminate among states. This principle was traditionally only evoked with regard to land and water rights, but it was recently cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Shelby County vs. Holder, the decision that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. If the Supreme Court hears New Jersey’s case, it’s a safe bet that the briefs will cite that decision.

2. Times have changed: In addition to New Jersey, elected officials from Iowa, Missouri, and Rhode Island have either discussed or drafted joint resolutions requesting that Congress to repeal PASPA. Additionally, Nevada’s largest gambling ambassadors are more worried about gambling competition from the internet than from the East Coast and Midwest. The time may be most ripe for sports books to return, especially since our New Jersey gambling dearth will soon enlarge. How else would red-blooded Americans fill that vacuous space? With family time? Don’t bet on it.

Andrew Blancato

The post March Madness Outbreak May Not Be Quarantined to Vegas Much Longer appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, republican Governor Pat McCrory signed a bill that requires voters to show ID, restricts early voting, and ends early registrations for individuals under the age of eighteen. Following the bill signing,  North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan sent a letter to the attorney general, asking the Justice Department to review her state’s newly signed voting bill that she claims could restrict citizens’ right to vote.

Additionally, ACLU and other civil rights groups immediately announced their plan to file  lawsuits over the bill claiming that it violates the Voting Rights Act. Before June, North Carolina would have been required to seek preclearance prior to implement such laws; however, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act this is no longer the case.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s Senator and Governor at Odds Over Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

In June, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act and as a result, revived states’ attempts to review and implement new voting laws. Florida has followed this trend behind Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Alabama. Governor Rick Scott has ordered state officials to resume their aggressive effort to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.

This effort drew a lot of criticism and mired in lawsuits from opponents who viewed this as direct attack on Hispanic and Democratic voters. The federal lawsuit was filed last year in Tampa, brought by an immigrants’ voting rights group charged that scrubbing the voter rolls would disproportionately affect minority voters. However, with the invalidation of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Florida is able to reinstitute the search for non-citizens on the rolls by using a federal immigration database.

Last year’s attempt at unmasking non-citizens began with a pool of 182,000 names of potential non-citizens and that was narrowed to a list of 2,600. However, of those names, most were actually citizens and the pool shrank to 198. In the end, fewer than 40 people had voted illegally.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voting Rights Act Saga: More States Review Voting Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department is gearing up to take aggressive legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the country. This is an attempt to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on Voting Rights that invalidated section five of the act, which protects minority voters by requiring certain states with a history of discrimination to be granted court approval before making voting law changes.

In the coming weeks, the Justice Department will use other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits preventing states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present identification in order to vote. The department will attempt to force some states to receive approval or preclearance before they change election laws. Their first step will support lawsuit a in Texas concerning the state’s redistricting plan. Additionally, Attorney General Eric Holder is asking a federal judge to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a ten-year period because of its history of discrimination.

[The Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Battle Royal: Justice Department Challenges States on Voting Rights Laws appeared first on Law Street.