-
Recent Posts
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- tmess2 on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- DocJess on Don’t think we’re getting a contested convention
- Matt on Dems to nominate Biden early to avoid GOP Ohio nonsense
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Category Archives: Judicial
Election Cases
Right now we are in the midst of phase one of election cases. Here are some basic to understanding the disputes that are currently occurring and may occur over the next several weeks.
As noted in previous posts on legal issues and elections, the United States is big on the concept of federalism. There is a very sharp, but not absolute, division between state law and federal law.
For the most part, election law is a matter of state law. As such, many election disputes occur in state court. For an election dispute to go to federal court, there has to be a federal issue. Since only a handful of federal statutes restrict state discretion on federal elections, most federal cases involve a claim that the state election law implicates the United States Constitution (most frequently, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). This division between state court and federal court can be rather significant for this first phase of election case.
Also posted in Elections
Tagged absentee voting rules, election contests
Comments Off on Election Cases
Census Talk
With a little less than two weeks to go before the election, developments concerning the 2020 Census are likely to get buried beneath the latest nonsense spouting from our President. But the 2020 Census is going to be a very big deal next Spring, and what happens between now and January could have a significant impact.
The main purpose of the Census is to provide population figures for use by Congress in apportioning house seats to the states and for use by the states (and local government) in then drawing district lines for everything from congressional seats to city council seats. As a secondary effect, some government grants to states and localities are also based on population.
Typically, the Census can be viewed as having three phases. Phase One has historically been conducted by mail — sending forms to every residential address and having the residents complete those forms. This year, this phase was modified to allow people to respond on-line, but the essence of this phase remains the same in terms of it mostly relying on voluntary participation. Phase Two is the field operation. In this phase, workers go to residences that did not respond to try to get answers to the census by personal contact. Finally, Phase Three is the compilation of this data.
The Electoral College and Election Law
In recent weeks, there has been a proliferation of articles on how President Trump could effectively change the rules after the election if it appears that he is likely to lose. For now, I am putting to the side the possibility of an actual coup in which he prevents the new Congress from meeting and certifying a Biden-Harris win or prevents Joe Biden from taking the oath of office after being certified as the winner. I just don’t see the circumstances in which members of the military or the Secret Service or the D.C. police force would participate in such an extreme stance. So I will limit myself to an attempt to change the legal winner of the election.
For federal offices, including the president, there are three main sources of law governing the election of such officials– the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws (which can be the state constitution, state statutes, or state regulations).
Most of the arguments for legal manipulation are based on past history and a misreading of the Constitution. There are two key provisions in Article II of the Constitution. First, the electors are chosen “in the manner that the Legislature shall direct.” The key thing about this provision is that it says that the Legislature directs the manner of choosing the electors. It does not say that the state legislatures get to choose the electors. While, in the early days of the country, some legislatures opted to have the legislature actually choose the electors. that was because the legislature opted for that mechanism. Today, every state has opted to choose the electors through a popular vote. While the legislatures could theoretically change the manner of choosing electors, I will get back below to why this will not happen.
Also posted in 2020 General Election, Elections, Electoral College
Tagged Constitution (Electoral College), election law, Supreme Court, U. S. Code (electoral college)
Comments Off on The Electoral College and Election Law
October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part Two)
As we saw in Part One, COVID-19 has caused a rather unique set-up for the first two argument sessions of the upcoming term. October are the cases that would have been argued last term but for COVID-19 requiring the postponement of arguments. As such, as the more politically significant cases were heard in May, October features very few “political” cases. On the other hand, highlighted by the on-going attempt of the Republicans to use the courts to undo the Affordable Care Act, November has several very significant cases.
There are two big cases on December’s docket. First, there is the on-going disputes related to President Trump’s legal troubles. In particular, Trump’s taxpayer-funded law firm (the Department of Justice) is trying to block the House Judiciary Committee from obtaining grand jury transcripts from the Mueller investigation that might be demonstrate that Trump committed impeachable offenses. The technical issue is whether the House Judiciary Committee when doing a preliminary investigation into impeachment fits within the limited group authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to access grand jury testimony.
Second, there is a case-involving the Federal Housing Finance Agency (one of the agencies created after the Bush financial market crash of 2008) and whether it is legally-structured. We saw a similar case this past term involving the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. So, even if the Republicans do not manage to get another conservative judicial activist onto the Court before this argument, the odds of a ruling upholding the validity of the restrictions on removal are slim and none.
Also posted in Impeachment
Tagged Abortion, Impeachment, Mueller Investigation. Robocalls, Second Amendment, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court
Comments Off on October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part Two)
The Ginsburg Vacancy and the Future of the Supreme Court
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg occurs when our country was already at a crossroad. By historical accident, there has been a “Republican” majority on the court since 1972. For the past thirty years, there has been a movement among conservative interest groups and supportive lawyers to rewrite the Constitution to undermine the protection given to constitutional rights during the Warren Court and to undermine the legal consensus that arose from the New Deal era.
The Constitution says very little about the structure of the judiciary. It says that there will be a Supreme Court with some cases on which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. For the most part, however, the Constitution left it to Congress to fill in the details. And, while the justices are appointed by the President with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, the Constitution is silent on the details of the confirmation process.
The latter issue is currently front and center. When there was a vacancy in February 2016, Moscow Mitch cited a non-existent Biden rule as barring any confirmation hearing in a presidential election year. This year, Moscow Mitch has put forth a modified version of the rule holding that confirmation hearings are only barred if the Senate is controlled by the opposing party. Of course, that is not a principled rule. It is a rule about power. Namely, that the Senate majority gets to do what it wants regardless of what is in the best interest of the American people.
Tagged 2020 Election, History of number of Justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Nomination History
Comments Off on The Ginsburg Vacancy and the Future of the Supreme Court
October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part One)
Last night, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her fight against cancer. In the upcoming days, much will be written commemorating her long fight for justice. Much will also be written about the politics of appointing her replacement (and I will almost certainly be putting in my two cents). But very little pauses the Supreme Court calendar, and the Supreme Court’s term effectively begins next week when the justices will meet (either with appropriate social distancing in a large conference room or via teleconferencing) for the annual “long” conference that reviews all of the applications for review that have piled up over the summer. The following week — on the First Monday in October — the Supreme Court will commence hearing argument on this term’s cases.
Before starting a look at the cases on the docket, three key things to note. First, until the Ginsburg vacancy is filled, there will only be eight justices on a case (barring a recusal). That creates the possibility of a 4-4 tie. In the case of a 4-4 tie, there are two options. On the one hand, the Supreme Court can “affirm by an equally divided court.” Such a decision leaves the lower court ruling in place for the parties involved in the case, but is not a precedent for future cases. On the other hand, the Supreme Court can set the case for re-argument when there is a full court. It is really up to the justices to decide which option to take. Second, who ultimately fills the vacancy will impact the outcome of a small number of cases, but those cases tend to be the most significant. Third, at least for the October argument session (the Supreme Court term typically consists of seven argument sessions of two weeks each) and probably for most of this term, the Supreme Court will be holding its arguments by teleconference with each justice, taking turns by seniority, getting approximately three minutes per party to ask questions to the attorney. The audio from these arguments will be livestreamed by several news organizations.
October is likely to be the calm before the storm. Back last Spring, the Supreme Court had to cancel the March and April argument sessions. The Supreme Court decided to hold a special May argument session, but only put the most important (and politically sensitive) cases into that argument session. That left about half of the cases that would have been heard in March or April on the docket. Those cases are being heard in October. The biggest case in October is probably the first case up for argument — Carney v. Adams. This case arises from Delaware. Delaware requires that judges on the top three courts be balanced with no more than a one-judge majority for either major party with the other judges coming from the other major party. So, on a seven judge court, there would likely be four Democratic judges and three Republican judges. The claim presented to the Supreme Court is that conditioning eligibility for a judicial vacancy on an applicant’s partisan affiliation violates the First Amendment rights of potential judicial applicants.
Also posted in Civil Rights, Healthcare
Tagged Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech, HealthInsurance, Immigration, Junevile Justice, Justice Ginsburg, LGBT rights, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Supreme Court
Comments Off on October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part One)
Trump Law Update
You know that something is wrong when you have to watch the appellate courts to know what is happening in the White House. And this week has already seen several interesting rulings.
The biggest — because it is from the full U.S. Circuit Court for the D.C. Circuit — concerns the Michael Flynn case. As you may recall, Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor for a day) pleaded guilty to charges of lying to federal agents as part of the Mueller investigation. After Mueller wrapped things up and turned things over to the career prosecutors, William Barr became Attorney General of Trump and decided to start undoing what he could of the Mueller investigation and prosecutions. Rather than proceeding with sentencing of the admitted criminal, A.G. Barr is willing to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea on a flimsy theory and then dismiss the charges. Because this seems fishy and motivated by something other than normal prosecution operations, the judge who took Flynn’s plea decided to appoint an attorney as amicus curiae (literally friend of the court) to brief why the plea should stand and the request to dismiss the case should be denied. (This procedure is not unusual at tbe appellate level. Typically, once or twice a year, the Supreme Court will appoint an attorney to defend a lower court decision when both sides contend that the decision below was erroneous. Rarely does the appellate court side with the amicus, but it does make sure that the best arguments in favor of the lower courts decision are heard.)
Mr. Flynn and his friends in the administration did not like this road bump in their attempt to wipe away any incentive for Mr. Flynn to decide to start telling the truth about his ties to Russia; so Mr. Flynn filed what is called a petition for writ of mandamus (essentially an order directing a lower court or government agency to do a specific act which contrasts with an injunction which orders a party not to do something). Mr. Flynn got very lucky with the initial panel assignment somehow ending up with the two Trump appointees to the D.C. Circuit on his three-judge panel. And the initial panel voted 2-1 to grant the petition and order the trial judge to grant the motion to dismiss. The rest of the judges on the D.C. Circuit on their own motion decided to take the case from the panel and conduct a rehearing “en banc” (that is in front of all of the regular judges of the court). On Monday, the full D.C. Circuit issued its ruling — an 8-2 decision denying the petition.
Tagged congressional subpoenas, Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, tax returns
Comments Off on Trump Law Update
Pardon this Interruption
Pardon this interruption to the viewing of tonight’s speeches from President Obama and Senator Harris, but the United States Supreme Court has, in its unintentional way, given us a reminder about what this election is about.
Today, the United States Supreme Court announced its November argument session. That session begins on November 2, the day before the election, and continues until November 10. (While the argument session usually has six argument days, the last day would fall on Veteran’s Day; so there will only be five argument days.)
While the United States Supreme Court normally tries to avoid doing anything overtly political on election day, this year’s docket brings political issues to the center more than some on the Court would probably like. While one of the two cases being heard on election day is a typical federal criminal law statutory dispute of the type that puts non-lawyers to sleep, the other case (Jones vs. Mississippi) is a continuation of the Supreme Court’s examination of what sentences are appropriate for juveniles tried as an adult.
Also posted in Elections, Healthcare, LGBT
Tagged Affordable Care Act, Anti-Discrimination laws, Federalist Society, Foster Care, Free Exercise Clause, juvenile justice
Comments Off on Pardon this Interruption