The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it would review a 2016 Arizona law that prohibits anyone but a family member or caregiver from returning another person’s early ballot.
SCHUMER CALLS SUPREME COURT HEARING ‘IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS’ AFTER SENATORS TEST POSITIVE FOR CORONAVIRUS
In January, a federal appeals court ruled that Arizona’s law banning so-called “ballot harvesting” violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Any further action has been stayed until the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter. Its new term begins next week.
The appeals court also found that Arizona’s policy of discarding ballots if a voter went to the wrong precinct violates the law, arguing both measures have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.
The harvesting case began with Democrats suing over a law passed by Arizona Republicans that made it a felony to return someone else’s ballot to election officials in most
By JESSICA GRESKO and MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will review a 2016 Arizona law that bars anyone but a family member or caregiver from returning another person’s early ballot. The law itself, however, remains in effect through the presidential election and until the justices rule.
The court will begin hearing arguments again next week after a summer break. The Arizona case was one of four cases the court, now eight justices because of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed to hear in its new term that begins Monday. As is usual, the justices did not comment in taking the cases. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the justices will not be returning to the courtroom to hear arguments but instead will continue hearing arguments by telephone. The court has been closed to the public since March.
In the Arizona case,
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday it will review a 2016 Arizona law that bars anyone but a family member or caregiver from returning another person’s early ballot. The law itself, however, remains in effect through the presidential election and until the justices rule.
A federal appeals court ruled in January that Arizona’s law banning so-called “ballot harvesting” violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, but the court put its ruling on hold while the Supreme Court was asked to take the case.
The appeals court also found that Arizona’s policy of discarding ballots if a voter went to the wrong precinct violates the law. The court said both have a discriminatory impact on minority voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The high court in recent years has weakened the Voting Rights Act, throwing out the most powerful part of the landmark law in 2013. It
That term, borrowed from Adrienne Rich’s 1980 essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” is one Chen uses to describe “the belief that lust is universal and to be otherwise is to be abnormal.” The idea that sex is the ultimate connection between two people and the narrative that sex is a sign of maturity almost always go unquestioned. A person who has no desire for sex, even if they are in a monogamous romantic relationship, is regarded as somehow broken under compulsory sexuality. Even the most progressive feminist and queer spaces almost always center sexual liberation in their narratives. But, Chen writes, we have a lot to gain from “thinking more critically about whether these stories [are] true and, if so, what they might imply about how we connect sex and politics and power.”
“Because sexual variation exists,” Chen continues, “there is no universal vision of liberated sexuality.”
Ronald Brownstein in this short, concise 2009 book has produced a complete and accurate account of the recent ugly, partisan side of politics. He provides a backdrop and history of some of the contributing factors and events which have led to this unfortunate era of United States political intrigue and competition – some of the most divisive since the Civil War.
Having been a high school teacher of Current World Problems and Political Science during the 1980s-2000, I can attest to the accuracy of the events of the time period. This book starts with the highly partisan retirement speech of Tom Delay, House of Representatives Speaker, Republican, and it continues with the on-line ultra-leftists like The Daily Kos and MoveOn.org, as well as the stance of Brownstein’s description as extreme Democrat leaders – those like Harry Reid and Howard Dean… those blamed for the escalation of the “scorched earth”, highly … Read More
In Jean Rousseau’s The Social Contract, there are a lot of guidelines set as basic principles to keep an organized government. One of the key parts of government is for it to understand its ultimate purpose, which is to defend and protect the public. There are too many things that get in the way of human preservation for the individual to persevere, Rousseau argues. For the interests of mankind, it is necessary for there to be a governing force with a set of laws. This is not only for protection but also for prosperity.
What is important for governing bodies to realize though is that these laws have got to be in the common interest of the public. While some people and governments through the years have confused the governing body as the sovereign power over people, Rousseau cites the government as nothing but an intermediary between the public and … Read More
It’s been nearly 20 years since the first publication of “Disturbing the Peace”, Karel Hvizdala’s transcription of written correspondence with Vaclav Havel from 1985-86. With Havel recently announcing that he has commenced work on an autobiography, it’s an interesting exercise to view how Havel represents himself, his work and his politics before the tumultuous events of the Velvet Revolution in 1989.
Quite a lot of political water has passed under the Charles Bridge in Prague during this time and in his new book Havel will hopefully examine his legacy and impact as the first President of the Czech Republic in some detail. One interesting outcome of this will be how his views and opinions have changed or solidified since the mid 1980’s.
His interview with Hvizdala was carried out at a time when the U.S.S.R was still intact (albeit with the budding prospects of ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’) and Czechoslovakia was … Read More
The book that is the subject of this review is The Octopus: Secret Government and the Death of Danny Casolaro, written by Kenn Thomas and Jim Keith, and revised and updated by Kenn Thomas in 2004. The subject matter dealt with is the various conspiracies and secret government dealings that journalist and writer Danny Casolaro was researching before is his untimely death in 1991, supposedly just as he was about to complete his own lines of investigation. A few of these topics Casolaro and the writers of The Octopus examined are worth mentioning to give the casual observer a general overview of what this book examines.
Obviously, the strange circumstances surrounding Danny Casolaro’s death are examined at length. Ostensibly ruled a suicide, there were enough odd events that point in the direction that Casolaro was murdered and made to look as if he committed suicide. Some of these aspects … Read More
A political party’s chief gets a heart attack on the eve of state elections. His son Veerendra (Manoj Bajpai) is all set to take over the mantle when senior leader Brij Gopal (Nana Patekar) convinces the chief to name Veerendra’s uncle as the successor. This throws Veerendra’s plan into a tailspin as his cousin Prithvi (Arjun Rampal), now the secretary of the party would eventually inherit the legacy. Veerendra befriends Suraj (Ajay Devgan), an upstart who got off on the wrong foot with Prithvi. The son of Prithvi’s driver, Suraj in fact, happens to be Prithvi’s elder brother who was discarded at birth for he was born out of wedlock. Suraj orders a hit on Veerndra’s Uncle and also gets Prithvi arrested in a sex scandal.
Seeing his family’s plight Samar (Ranbir Kapoor), Prithvi’s younger brother plots his revenge. An outsider who isn’t interested in politics, Samar chooses … Read More
According to Gardner, our misjudgments originally stem from the fact that our brains have evolved to deal, very effectively, with the sort of immediate risks that we have historically encountered as a species, say as hunter-gatherers in the African savannah. But it is this same evolution that makes our brains singularly ill-adapted to the complexities of the modern 21st Century urban jungle and causes us to make egregious mistakes.
At the heart of Gardner’s explanation lies the idea that we have two different internal systems to react to events: roughly summarised as ‘head’ and ‘gut’. ‘Head’, a rational, reflective, but also slow-acting system, is often overridden by ‘gut’, a more intuitive, fast-acting system, which bases its recommendations on factors such as precedent and recency. For example, in the case of stressful situations, ‘head’ barely gets a say, and if so, then often too late.
Historically, ‘gut’ has served us very … Read More