California restores prisoner voting rights
Legal News Center
The State of California has decided not to appeal a December 21st decision of the California 1st District Court of Appeal restoring voting rights to approximately 100,000 inmates serving a year or less for felony convictions in local jails. The case, filed by the League of Women Voters of California and other voter and prisoner right interest groups, challenged a December 2005 interpretation of Art. 2 Sec. 4 of the California Constitution by Secretary of State Bruce McPhearson maintaining that those serving short term sentences for felonies in county jails were not eligible to vote.
The court’s decision relied on Section 17 of the California Penal Code, which defines felonies and misdemeanors. When a person is sent to a local jail, typically for confinement as a condition of probation, they are not actually convicted of a felony, which would allow their voting rights to be stripped.
Related listings
-
DOJ Asks Federal Court to Bar Tax Preparer
Legal News Center 12/28/2006WASHINGTON - The Justice Department announced today that it has sued a federal income tax preparer in U.S. District Court in Miami seeking to bar her from preparing tax returns for others. According to the government’s civil injunction complaint, T...
-
US soldier who disputed Iraq war legality released
Legal News Center 12/24/2006Former US Army Sergeant Ricky Clousing, a paratrooper and interpreter who disputed the legality of the war in Iraq, was released Saturday from a military prison where he was serving a three-month sentence after pleading guilty to going absent without...
-
SEC settles with former Tyco exec, charges 2 others
Legal News Center 12/22/2006Former Tyco executive Richard "Skip" Heger reached a $450,000 settlement on financial reporting and record-keeping charges, the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced Thursday. The charges are connected to a fraud case in which Tyco ag...
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.