Civil & Human Rights

The “Felonious Five” of the U.S. Supreme Court voted to block the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals order providing for the resumption of early voting in Ohio beginning on Tuesday. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog reports, Early voting in Ohio blocked:

With just sixteen hours before polling stations were to open in Ohio, the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon blocked voters from beginning tomorrow to cast their ballots in this year’s general election.  By a vote of five to four, the Justices put on hold a federal judge’s order providing new opportunities for voting before election day, beyond what state leaders wanted.

The order will remain in effect until the Court acts on an appeal by state officials.  If that is denied, then the order lapses.  It is unclear when that scenario will unfold.  The state’s petition has not yet been filed formally.

The judge’s order had been upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, but that ruling no longer controls the case now that it has moved to the Supreme Court.  A plea by state officials and the Ohio legislature for the Sixth Circuit Court to reconsider the case en banc is no longer necessary to block the early voting.

The practical effect of the order will mean that, at the least, early voting will not be allowed this week — a period that supporters of early balloting have called “Golden Week.” That permits voters to register and cast their ballots on the same day.

Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court returns to work on Monday with its “long conference” of petitions pending before the court to review.

Matching the speed of the lower courts in handling the same-sex marriage cases, the Supreme Court is scheduled to take its first look at all of the pending appeals at its Conference on September 29. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Same-sex marriage cases set for early look :

Seven petitions — three from Virginia, and one each from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin — will be submitted to the Justices at that session.  There is, of course, no certainty that they will act on any or all of them at that point, but the option is there.  With all sides agreeing that the time to rule is now, it would be a surprise if the Court opted to bypass the issue altogether in its new Term.

In order of their filing at the Court, these are the cases:  Herbert v. Kitchen (Utah), Smith v. Bishop (Oklahoma), Rainey v. Bostic (Virginia), Schaefer v. Bostic (Virginia), McQuigg v. Bostic (Virginia), Bogan v. Baskin (Indiana), and Walker v. Wolf (Wisconsin).

Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court returns to work on Monday with its “long conference” of petitions pending before the court to review.

But the Court’s new term is potentially one in which election law challenges may predominate.

On Thursday, the state of Ohio asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the federal court ruling earlier this month restoring early voting in Ohio, and to consider taking on the dispute itself immediately. Voters in Ohio start casting ballots on Tuesday for this year’s general election. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports,Ohio challenges early-voting mandate (UPDATED):

The application (DeWine v. Ohio State Conference of the NAACP, 14A336) argued that the court order intrudes deeply into the state’s power to run elections, and does so based upon flawed readings of the Constitution and federal voting rights law.  The Ohio legislature also has filed its own plea for delay (14A337).

Ohio officials have sought review of this dispute before the en banc Sixth Circuit, but rushed to the Supreme Court with a plea for postponement of the early-voting order to get the Justices involved as quickly as possible.  Going beyond the request for delay, the state suggested, as an alternative, that the Court grant review of the case now to ensure that it gets settled swiftly.

The application is the first seeking to draw the Justices into this year’s spreading controversy, in several states, over changes in election law that challengers say are designed to narrow the right to vote, especially for minority voters.

Read more

The ACLU has filed the first lawsuit over an arrest under the provisions of SB 1070 that remain in force..

The Phoenix New Times reports, ACLU Sues Over SB 1070 Arrest in Pinal County:

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed the first lawsuit over an arrest stemming from Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.

According to the ACLU’s lawsuit, Cortes, an Eloy resident, had applied for a visa that’s granted to certain survivors of crimes. Cortes’ husband is described as abusive, and she had helped authorities in his prosecution.

Cortes’ visa application was pending when she was pulled over by a PCSO deputy in September 2012, and she told the deputy she didn’t have a driver’s license. Cortes was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car as the deputy investigated her immigration status, and eventually was transported to a Customs and Border Patrol office in Casa Grande. She was cited for three civil traffic violations before being turned over to officials at the CBP office, where she was detained for five days — although the PCSO deputy’s report indicated that Cortes had been cited and released, according to the lawsuit.

Read more