|
|
|
Ohio appeals to Supreme Court on early voting
Legal News Feed |
2012/10/12 13:04
|
Ohio's election chief on Tuesday appealed a ruling that reinstates the final three early voting days in the battleground state, calling a decision last week by a federal appeals court "an unprecedented intrusion" into how states run elections.
Secretary of State Jon Husted asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the state Legislature or federal courts should set Ohio election laws.
Husted, a Republican, also asked the court to delay the lower court's decision while the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case.
Husted said Friday's decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would affect how elections are run in all 50 states. The appeals court in Cincinnati affirmed a lower court ruling and returned discretion to set hours on the final three days to local boards of elections.
"This ruling not only doesn't make legal sense, it doesn't make practical sense," Husted, a Republican, said in a statement.
He said it opened up the chance for Ohio's 88 county boards of elections to set different rules, while at the same time ordering that all voters be treated the same. Husted said he will be consulting with those boards to craft a directive that sets uniform hours on the three disputed days in the event his appeal isn't successful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to consider drunken driving case
Legal News Feed |
2012/09/29 15:33
|
The Supreme Court will decide when law enforcement officers must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.
The issue has divided federal and state courts around the country and the justices on Tuesday agreed to take up a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri.
In siding with the defendant in the case, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except in special circumstances when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence.
Other courts have ruled that dissipation of alcohol in the blood is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.
The Missouri case was one of six new cases accepted for argument in front of the Supreme Court. The new term begins Monday and the cases probably will be argued in January.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Tyler McNeely, said the arresting officer made no effort to obtain a warrant and didn't think he needed one, not that he feared a delay would lower the level of alcohol in McNeely's blood. The ACLU said the case was not a good one for resolving complex issues of science and law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Voter ID Law to be Tested in a Federal Court
Legal News Feed |
2012/07/09 15:30
|
The fate of Texas' controversial new voter ID law - which requires voters to show photo identification at the polls - is set to be decided this week in a federal court in Washington.
The state, which claims the law will prevent voter fraud, is seeking to persuade a three-judge panel to uphold the statute. The Justice Department and a slew of intervening groups say the law disproportionately affects minority voters, violating the federal Voting Rights Act. They want it thrown out.
The case will be a test of the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, which was designed to protect minorities' rights to vote.
The Justice Department set up this week's court fight when it blocked implementation of the law in March. Texas quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court, bringing the two sides back to Washington for the second time in months.
The two sides spent two weeks earlier this year arguing in front of a similar three-judge panel about Texas' redrawn congressional maps. As now, the Justice Department claimed Texas was violating the federal Voting Rights Act. No final decision has been made in that case, but a federal court has approved interim maps that have allowed Texas elections to go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court upholds damages in drug lawsuit
Legal News Feed |
2012/06/22 11:04
|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday upheld damages that were awarded in a lawsuit the state brought against a prescription drug company accused of inflating prices.
The lawsuit dates back to 2004 when then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager sued 36 drug companies alleging they inflated wholesale prices to get larger payments from Medicaid, private insurers and consumers.
The case against Pharmacia Inc. was the first to go to trial, and in 2009 a jury found that the drug maker violated the state's Medicaid fraud law 1.44 million times over a decade. After reviewing the evidence, the judge found the actual tally was 4,578 and ordered the company to pay $4.5 million in forfeitures and other costs. The jury also awarded $9 million in damages.
Pharmacia appealed, arguing that the jury incorrectly calculated the damages, that the number of violations should be reduced to zero, and that a jury trial was improper. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
