Court denies GOP redistricting challenge
Court Alerts
[##_1L|1368129996.jpg|width="104" height="138" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Colorado Republicans challenging a congressional redistricting plan favorable to Democrats.
In a unanimous decision, the justices said that the four Republicans were not entitled to sue in an effort to replace a redistricting plan ordered by a court with one passed by a Republican-controlled state legislature.
A Democratic state judge drew up the first redistricting plan in 2002, while the Republican Legislature drew one up in 2003.
The court plan had been put in place when a divided Colorado General Assembly was unable to agree on one in time for the 2002 election.
In their lawsuit, the Republican voters say the court-imposed map violates a right of citizens under the U.S. Constitution to vote for congressional candidates in districts created by state legislatures.
In an unsigned opinion, the justices said that the only injury the Republican voters allege is that the Elections Clause had not been followed.
"This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past," the court stated.
Citing earlier rulings, the justices said the Republicans must have more than a general interest common to all members of the public in order to pursue the case.
Last year, a U.S. District Court in Colorado had ruled that the Republicans could proceed with their lawsuit asserting an Elections Clause violation.
The Colorado case is the Supreme Court's latest foray into congressional redistricting battles. Last year, the justices addressed a messy redistricting fight in Texas, ruling that the Constitution does not bar states from redrawing political lines in mid-decade when one party or the other senses an advantage.
The decision grew out of a court review of a Texas redistricting plan orchestrated in 2003 by Tom DeLay, who was a Republican congressional leader at the time.
The Colorado dispute also involved a lawsuit brought by the Democratic state attorney general. It led to a Colorado Supreme Court decision against the Republican legislative plan in 2003. The Colorado Supreme Court said the state constitution restricts congressional redistricting to once per decade and that the legislature's plan was the second plan.
Related listings
-
Sixth Circuit rejects Ohio lethal injection challenge
Court Alerts 03/03/2007A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit threw out a lawsuit challenging Ohio's death penalty procedure Friday on the grounds that the claim was filed too late. In the 2-1 opinion, judges Richard Fred Suhrheinrich and Edwa...
-
Lawyer pleads not guilty in theft of clients’ $750K
Court Alerts 03/01/2007A disbarred lawyer indicted on charges of stealing about $750,000 from former clients pleaded not guilty at his arraignment yesterday. Peter L. Schofield, 54, of 52 North St., Grafton, was arraigned in Worcester Superior Court on nine counts of larce...
-
DOJ sued for release of FISC wiretapping order
Court Alerts 02/28/2007The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a complaint Tuesday against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking the release of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order that authorized government surveillance of transmissions coming i...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.