Election Law

Morning Docket: 11.09.06

By

Capitol building Above the Law Legal Blog 2.JPG* Democrats likely to officially declare victory today in the Senate; Allen “has no intention of dragging this out.” [CNN; Election Law Blog]
* Thank you sir may I have another… .life sentence; Malvo gets life in Maryland. [CNN; Washington Post; Baltimore Sun]
* Another one bites the KCl in Texas. [CourtTV]
* KFed wants the kids, yo. I still say DFACS should take ‘em. [AP via FindLaw]
* California sex offender law found temporarily blocked by judge one day after being approved on the ballot by voters. [AP via FindLaw]

0 Comments

Morning Docket: 11.08.06

By

Capitol building Above the Law Legal Blog.jpg* Democrats take back the House. [CNN]
* And maybe the Senate. [CNN]
* Just what we need in Washington: more lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]
* It still might be possible to have an abortion in South Dakota after all. [AP via Yahoo! News]
* But partial-birth intact-dilation-and-evacuation abortions could be in trouble, depending upon what the Supreme Court rules. [Associated Press]
* Show me the stem cells. [CNN]
* What’s an election these days without the lawyers getting involved? [WHSV (Harrisonburg, VA)]
* One clear winner last night: judicial independence. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

0 Comments

An Election Day Special Request: A Democratic Dream Team

By

voting booth above the law above_the_law.jpgAn ATL Public Service Announcement: Today is Election Day. Don’t forget to vote!
(That little PSA entitles us to, like, three posts of scurrilous gossip with no redeeming social value.)
The Democrats are expected take control of the House of Representatives in today’s midterm elections. A takeover of the Senate is not out of the question. And after today, everyone’s attention will turn to 2008 — and the next presidential election. (Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton, after trouncing John Spencer, will no longer be able to turn away presidential speculation by saying she’s just “focused on the Senate.”)
If current political trends hold, 2008 could represent the Democrats’ best shot at retaking the White House in a long, long time. And with the White House, of course, comes the power to fill numerous high-powered legal posts.
More of our coverage of lawyers in government has focused on conservatives. This is to be expected, since Republicans are in power right now. But to balance out our coverage, and because the Dems are ascendant right now, we’d like to pose this question to you:

Which leading lawyers would assume positions of power in a Democratic administration?

Yes, it’s a rather broad request. Here are examples of specific questions we’d welcome your thoughts on:

1. Who would be a likely Supreme Court nominee (or nominees) if a Democrat were president?

2. Who would be strong candidates for Attorney General in a Democratic administration?

3. Are any lawyers viable contenders for other Cabinet posts (e.g., Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense)?

4. Who would be strong contenders for other top positions: White House Counsel, Solicitor General, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, etc.?

These are just examples. Feel free to speculate about other posts as well, or offer general observations on how the legal landscape might look if the Democrats were in power.
We’re not quite sure what we’ll do with the tips we receive from you. Maybe we’ll report them in a series of posts, or hold some ATL reader polls. It will depend upon what the quantity and quality of your submissions.
Please send us your responses by email (subject line: Democratic Dream Team). Please include as much information and reasoning as possible in support of your “nominations” — the more “inside baseball,” the better.
And feel free to offer alternative scenarios. E.g., “In a Clinton administration, X would be a lock for Attorney General; but in an Obama administration, Y would get the job.” Since this is an exercise in speculation, go ahead and spin out all kinds of crazy hypotheticals.
We can’t wait to read your responses. Thanks!
Polls Open Around the Nation in Midterm Elections [Washington Post]
For Democrats, Even a Gain May Feel Like a Failure [New York Times]

0 Comments

Morning Docket: 11.07.06

By

voting election.jpg* Diebold with a vengeance. [MSNBC]
* SLAPP me baby one more time. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Snoops, he did it again. [CNN]
* I smell a red tree vole. [AP via How Appealing]
* Maybe we should get some folks from the Carter Center involved. [CBS News]

4 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 11.06.06

By

borat borat borat above_the_law atl sacha_baron_cohen.jpg* I didn’t realize that it has been at least four years since people have been writing for nothing but personal satisfaction. Well, Happy Birthday, Legal Reader! [Legal Reader]
* I haven’t made up my mind regarding voter irrationality, but I know this is why I hate politics (and why those swayed to vote by Rock the Vote are perhaps the only ones who really should stay home tomorrow). [Cato Unbound via Marginal Revolution]
* Who saw Borat this weekend? You’d think that everyone would be in on the joke by now, but apparently not. A human rights group is suing Sacha Baron Cohen himself, and a woman says she got fired because of his antics. Let’s hope this guy doesn’t sue. [USA Today: On Deadline]
* Another day, another political/religious sex scandal offender. Unfortunately, being a hypocrite isn’t illegal, but what slogan would you want to see on his t-shirt anyway? [AP via Herald Tribune]

1 Comment

Non-Sequiturs: 11.03.06

By

harold and kumar white castle.JPG* You KNOW you were thinking of “White Castle” as a substitute building name. [WSJ Law Blog; DealBreaker]
* Lawbeat is a new blog that “watches the journalists who watch the law.” Because, you know, not every legal news outlet can be as scrupulous as ATL. [Lawbeat via How Appealing]
* My “authentic self” is that of a party-whore with a Scarlett Johansson rack. But I am forced to “cover” the girls (figuratively and literally) in the workplace, and last night, Partner X made me stay at work until the wee hours — when he knew my sort should be out gallivanting in the Meatpacking District. Were my civil rights assaulted? [Black Feminism]
* Greatest Donatella Versace impersonator ever, Maya Rudolph, and director Paul Anderson are suing over bedbugs infesting their Soho loft. And who knew that Maya Rudolph’s baby daddy is the dude who once dated Fiona Apple? [Associated Press via NYLawyer.com]
* In preparation for Election Day, HBO just premiered “Hacking Democracy,” about the fallibility of voting machines. We didn’t catch this, but we’re hoping they will also investigate the effect of having incompetent senior citizens, however plucky, running many of the polling locations and voter registration stands. [Volokh Conspiracy]

1 Comment

Morning Docket: 11.02.06

By

* Possible settlement in the Ohio voter ID case. [Dispatch]
* “‘Not cool’ is not a legal argument.” [WSJ Law Blog]
* Close polling in some marriage ballot measures. [Wash Times via How Appealing]
* “U.S. privacy protections rank among the worst in the democratic world, a London-based privacy organization said Wednesday.” [MSNBC]
* Ann Coulter is accused of voter fraud, in violation of both Florida law and the Code of Irony. [CNN]
Fantasy football tips, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Morning Docket: 11.02.06″

4 Comments

Morning Docket: 10.31.06

By

* “Colombian Supreme Court: grabbing a woman’s behind is a crime.” [Herald-Tribune via How Appealing]
* One week until elections — there must be some litigation somewhere. [Wall Street Journal via [How Appealing]
* Justice O’Connor spoke in Utah this week, and she and Justice Breyer shed some politico-rhetoric in Washington. [CNN]
(For related links, see yesterday’s MD.)
* A second plea bargain has been reached in the Iraqi civilian murder case. [MSNBC]
* For you trusts-and-estates buffs, check out Kenneth Lay’s will. Notice he leaves much of his assets in the “Ken Lay Trust,” which seems oxymoronic. [Slate]

2 Comments

Benchslapped: The Arizona Voter ID Ruling

By

passport united states passport.jpgWe realize we’re late on this, since the news broke on Friday. But at the time, we thought Purcell v. Gonzalez was just a run-of-the-mill Supreme Court ruling. We didn’t realize it featured delicious benchslaps of the Ninth Circuit, the lower court whose decision was vacated.
The state of Arizona adopted a rule for next month’s elections requiring most voters to show photo identification before casting their ballots. Such rules, adopted by other states as well, are generally supported by Republicans — who view them as helping to cut down on voter fraud — and opposed by Democrats — who believe they may deter poor, elderly, disabled or minority voters from voting.
A legal challenge to the picture ID rule was mounted in Arizona. Some background about the case, from the L.A. Times:

In May, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters and several other civil rights groups sued to block the voter identification rule from being enforced Nov. 7. They called the rule a “21st century poll tax” because it could force some poor voters to purchase photo ID cards….

A federal judge refused to block the law from taking effect, but on Oct. 5, a two-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued an order saying the law could not be enforced for the upcoming election. The appeals court did not explain its ruling.

Arizona’s attorney general asked the Supreme Court to intervene. And on Friday afternoon, the high court issued a six-page opinion that set aside the 9th Circuit’s order. It noted that the 9th Circuit’s “bare order” did not give a good reason for blocking the law from taking effect.

That’s a charitable description of the Supreme Court’s treatment of the Ninth Circuit. Here’s an excerpt from the opinion itself:

On October 5, after receiving lengthy written responses from the State and the county officials but without oral argument, the panel issued a four-sentence order enjoining Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200’s provisions…. The Court of Appeals offered no explanation or justification for its order. Four days later, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. The order denying the motion likewise gave no rationale for the court’s decision.

Translation: “Despite receiving oodles and oodles of briefing from state and county officials, the Ninth Circuit stopped Arizona from enforcing its rule — without even bothering to give the state its day in court. Then, when asked to rethink their decision, those Ninth Circuit morons just said ‘NO’ — again without bothering to explain themselves.”
The discussion continues, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Benchslapped: The Arizona Voter ID Ruling”

6 Comments

Professor Jack Chin Can’t Break Boards With His Bare Hands

By

And he wants to be damn sure you know that.
Here’s a fun little video clip from The Daily Show. A quick intro, from the ATL reader who brought it to our attention:

On a recent episode of The Daily Show, they discussed a proposal, by local politicians in Arizona, to “incentivize” citizens to vote. Under the plan, any citizen who votes would receive a ticket for a lottery, with a grand prize of $1 million. The lottery would be open only to voters: if you don’t vote, you lose out on your chance to win the million bucks.

The Daily Show spoke with Jack Chin, a law professor from the University of Arizona, who argued that such an incentive would be illegal. He has an LLM from Yale (maybe you know him).

Given his East Coast pedigree, you’d think Chin would “play along,” i.e., have a clue as to how an interview with a Daily Show correspondent would go. But Chin was utterly clueless, and correspondent Dan Bakkedahl took this Yalie to town. By the end of the interview, Chin looked completely flustered, and he didn’t quite get that he was being made a mockery of.

We’re a bit surprised that a Yale-trained law prof wasn’t more down with how the Daily Show works. But we’re afraid our reader’s summary of the proceedings is basically accurate. Here’s the clip; you can judge for yourself:

Daily Show: Would You Vote For A Million Bucks? [YouTube]
Gabriel J. Chin bio [University of Arizona Rogers College of Law]

4 Comments
Page 10 of 101...678910