USE IT OR LOSE IT BUCKO | RBG Working Blue, Chief Justice Calling on Bueller | #TimesUp #NowWhat For Judiciary
January 10, 2018
ROLL WITH ME, ROLL WITH ME
|This morning justices heard arguments in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute over whether the state of Ohio’s policy for purging voters from its registration rolls violates federal law. The Ohio policy is the most aggressive of its kind, demanding registered voters in Ohio be purged if they do not vote for two years and do not respond to registration confirmation notices sent via mail. The justices seemed ready to give states broad latitude to purge their databases, and JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYERhinted he might join his conservative colleagues to uphold the Ohio system. Ultimately, the question remained whether this case will be about more Americans being able to exercise their right to vote, or about states protecting their voting rolls.
USE IT OR LOSE IT BUCKO
|At the center of this morning’s voting rights case is LARRY HARMON, a software engineer and Navy veteran who normally votes in presidential election years but not so much in the midterms. NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports that after a couple of years of not voting (in part because candidates BARACK OBAMA and MITT ROMNEY weren’t doing it for him), he was removed from Ohio’s registration rolls. To say this man was upset would be an understatement. He said, “I’ve earned the right to vote. Whether I use it or not is up to my personal discretion. They don’t take away my right to buy a gun if I don’t buy a gun.”
THE RESULT OF "RESULT"
|The Atlantic, Garrett Epps takes a look at the case that came before the justices this morning and notes the outsized importance of one word in its anticipated outcome: “result.” At the heart of it, the Husted case comes down to whether LARRY HARMON’S registration was canceled as a “result” of failure to vote—or solely as a “result” of failure to answer the notice?
ROCK THE VOTE, DON'T BLOCK THE VOTE BABY
|The national nonpartisan organization responsible for helping to pass the National Voter Registration Act and stop states from arbitrarily purging their voter rolls spoke out today about this morning’s Husted arguments. Rock the Vote expressed concern for the outcome of this case noting in a statement, “Thousands of eligible Ohioans have already been denied the freedom to vote simply because they missed a couple of elections and a piece of mail. These arbitrary purges of Ohio’s voter rolls are just another example of politicians writing rules to help themselves win elections, rather than focusing on making sure eligible voters have the opportunity to choose our own leaders and engage on the issues we care about.” Rock the Vote has worked for 25 years to empower and expand the right to vote in this country, and it filed a “friend of the court” brief for this case back in September.
NO ONE MAN SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT POWER
|The Fourth Amendment had a big day yesterday, with justices hearing two cases involving the search of motor vehicles. The first case was Byrd v. United States which called into question whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car, even if that driver isn’t authorized as a driver on the rental agreement. It seemed that justices were ready to rule that even without such authorization, drivers still have their privacy protected under the Fourth Amendment when pulled over by police. Just because you broke your contract, doesn’t mean an officer can search your car without your consent. JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR expressed her concern for giving too much power to police and noted, “If we rule that someone without permission has no expectation of privacy even when the renter has given it to them, then what we’re authorizing is the police to stop every rental car and search every rental car, without probable cause, that might be on the road.”
LIFE MOVES PRETTY FAST. IF YOU DON'T STOP AND LOOK AROUND ONCE IN A WHILE...
|In yesterday’s second SCOTUS case dealing with the Fourth Amendment—Collins v. Virginia—a majority of the justices also seemed ready to side with the suspects over the government, although this was a much closer call than the first case. A man was arrested for possessing a stolen motorcycle but an officer had to walk up the driveway of a house to confirm the vehicle was stolen. Most justices seemed to think this was a no-no, but CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS argued motor vehicles don’t get the same privacy rights as houses because, well, they’re mobile. To make his point, he (sort of) referenced the iconic scene of Ferris Bueller and friends taking a joyride in Mr. Frye’s shiny red convertible. Apparently the chief justice confused “Ferris Beuller’s Day Off” and its Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California with the Porsche 928 in “Risky Business.” So either he’s not a movie buff, or he isn’t a car guy. We can’t all be perfect!
RBG WORKING BLUE
|Today’s tweet du jour comes to us via ROBERT BARNES with The Washington Post who noted yesterday that NOTORIOUS RBG was “working blue” during yesterday’s Collins arguments. At one point she asked the court, “Suppose it was a brand new girlfriend and he never stayed overnight, he was hopeful, but he hadn’t.” Well played RBG, and thanks for the giggle @scotusreporter.
#TIMESUP #NOWWHAT
|James Santos and Kendall Turner with The National Law Journal report on some next steps we’re seeing in the federal judiciary’s response to the #MeToo movement. After months of high profile accounts of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace, more than 850 individuals have signed a letter detailing significant changes that are needed to properly address the deficiencies that lead to such widespread mistreatment of law clerks.