RSS

State court

Voter-ID Fight Gets Down to the Wire in Wisconsin

Abby RapoportAug 24, 2012
(Flickr/Bethany Weeks)

We may be months away from Election Day, but in states fighting legal battles over newly minted voter-ID laws, time is short. These laws, which require residents to show government-issued identification to vote, have been shown to disenfranchise poor and minority voters in the first place. But as I've written before, the timeframe for implementing them poses another major problem; just look at Pennsylvania, where volunteers and activists are rushing to inform residents about a voter-ID law passed in March. The fact is, comprehensive voter-education efforts can hardly be conducted in two months. It is this basic issue—whether there is enough time to properly implement voter-ID laws before November 6—that has kept voter-ID from going into effect in many states. 

Not in Montana

Garrett EppsFeb 21, 2012
(Flickr/polytikus)

At the opening of each oral argument session, a Supreme Court clerk announces, “All those having business before this honorable Court draw nigh and you shall be heard.”But does the Court really listen?

Damn Lies and Double Jeopardy

Garrett EppsFeb 16, 2012
(Flickr/Diacritical)

The Supreme Court comes back into session Tuesday. On that day, the Justices will earn their salaries (and then some) by considering the following questions:

The Latest Roberts Court Atrocity

The Supreme Court rules to return to prison a grandmother who poses no danger to society.

Scott LemieuxNov 29, 2011

Emily Bazelon has a terrific piece about a recent Supreme Court order that has received very little attention. The case concerned Shirley Ree Smith, a grandmother given 15 years to life for the death of her granddaughter. The conviction was based on "shaken baby syndrome," although the most current evidence suggests that it's extremely unlikely that Smith caused her granddaughter's death. Taking this evidence into account, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals freed Smith in 2006.

Stanching the Cash Flow

A flood of special-interest money has corrupted our courts. How can we fight back?

Erwin Chemerinsky AND James SampleSep 19, 2011

The influence of special-interest money in the corruption of state courts has been well documented. In 39 states, at least some judges are elected, and the costs of these elections are escalating dramatically. The money for such campaigns comes primarily from lawyers and litigants with matters before the courts. At the very least, this system undermines the public's perception of the integrity of courts and their rulings. More than seven in ten Americans surveyed said they believe campaign cash influences judicial decisions. Nearly half of state-court judges agreed. The pervasive perception and increasing reality of monetary influence in judicial decision-making weakens a cornerstone of American democracy.