The webpage www.redistrictingthenation.com is an excellent resource for people interested in congressional, legislative, and even local districts. One can type in an address and see each type of district for that address. The webpage also measures the compactness, on objective mathematical grounds, for any district in the nation. Also a feature lets visitors try their hand at creating new districts. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
On December 10, a lower state court in Ohio ordered the Ashland County Commissioners to increase their funding for the County Board of Elections, from $302,510, to $328,286. See this story. The Board of Elections had argued that its ability to carry out elections in the county was jeopardized without more funding.
On December 11, the 9th circuit ruled that groups organized to pass a ballot measure may not be forced to disclose their internal campaign messages. The controversy arose over the California campaign for Proposition 8 last year. Proposition 8, an initiative, banned same-sex marriages. After the measure passed, its opponents filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that a ban on same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
As the trial proceeded in U.S. District Court, proponents of same-sex marriages asked the U.S. District Court to order the other side to produce its internal memos on campaign strategy. The District Court said the internal memos should be produced, but the 9th circuit has now countermanded that order. The 9th circuit said, “The potential chilling effect on political participation and debate is substantial”. The 38-page decision is here, and is a useful document describing earlier precedents that have ruled in favor of political privacy. The earliest federal precedents are from the 1950’s, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped several southern states from forcing the NAACP to produce its membership lists, and lists of people who had contributed to it. Thanks to HowAppealing for the link.
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, concerning the powers and limitations of Congress, says, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” A bill of attainder is a law that punishes one particular named person or group, without a trial.
On December 11, a U.S. District Court in Brooklyn ruled that it is likely that when Congress passed a budget resolution saying, “None of the funds made available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations,” that that is a bill of attainder. The decision notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has only protected anyone under Article I, section 9, five times in the history of the nation. The order is 21 pages. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
The U.S. Supreme Court clerk has revealed that the Court will not issue any full opinions until January 11, 2010. Election law fans are looking forward to the Court’s campaign finance decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.
