 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, November 7, 2006 |
 |
|


Judges asked to extend some poll hours as US voters contend with new IDs, machines
Bernard Hibbitts on November 7, 2006 5:37 PM ET

[JURIST] Officials in several US states asked judges to extend polling hours in a number of areas Tuesday after problems with new electronic voting machines caused delays and left some voters unable to cast ballots in nationwide mid-term elections. By mid-afternoon, requests had been made in Denver, Colorado, Muncie, Indiana, and Davidson County, Tennessee [CBC report]. Voting machine-related problems were also reported in precincts in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Texas. The problems, however, seemed scattered, and most observers seemed to agree that they would not compromise the vote.
New voter ID laws [JURIST news archive] in effect in a number of states to prevent alleged fraud also proved somewhat problematic, with some voters being turned back for not having the proper identification or scrambling to produce an ID when they had not anticipated doing so. In South Carolina, Governor Mark Sanford was initially turned away from his polling station [The State report] because he did not have the proper voter registration card and his driver's license carried the address of the Governor's Mansion, not his permanent home address. He went away to obtain a registration card, then returned and voted. Ohio Republican congressman Steve Chabot ran into a similar problem [Reuters report]. In Virginia, state elections officials said they had asked the FBI to investigate [AP report] phone calls made to some voters saying that if they were not properly registered to vote in Virginia they would be criminally prosecuted. Other calls allegedly told voters that their polling places had changed when they had not. The Washington Post has more.
At stake in Tuesday's vote are all seats in the US House of Representatives, a third of the Senate, and a range of state initiatives and ballot propositions as well as other state and local offices. The major political parties, the US Department of Justice, rights organizations and interest groups have deployed thousands of lawyers [JURIST report] at polling stations across the country to help monitor the poll in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election recount and problems with the 2004 vote.
6:58 PM ET - Judges have ordered extensions of voting hours in Delaware County, Indiana, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, DeKalb County [media advisory], Georgia, and South Carolina's 5th Congressional District [The State report] to compensate for problems encountered earlier in the day.
7:05 PM ET - In Denver, state judge Sheila Rappaport has turned down a request by the local Democratic Party to extend voting by two hours, saying it is a matter for the legislature. The Denver Post, however, is describing the situation at polling places there [Denver Post blog] with malfunctioning machines as "chaos", notwithstanding a statement by Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis welcoming the ruling [Denver Post report].
7:14 PM ET - The Democratic Party has filed suit [Columbus Dispatch report] in US District Court in Cleveland to keep the polls in Ohio's Cuyahoga County open for an additional 90 minutes to compensate for the late opening of some polling stations.
7:45 PM ET - In Cleveland, US District Court Judge Dan A. Polster has ruled [Dayton Daily News report] that polls in 16 locations in Cuyahoga County which opened more than an hour late can remain open an extra 90 minutes after their scheduled closing at 7:30 PM local time. The Ohio Attorney General has filed a motion [PDF via Election Law @ Moritz] seeking an emergency stay of the extension.
8:03 PM ET - The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled [PDF via Election Law @ Moritz] that all Cuyahoga County ballots cast in extended voting hours authorized earlier this evening by US District Court Judge Dan A. Polster must be considered provisional.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Jordanian lawyers decry Saddam death sentence
Katerina Ossenova on November 7, 2006 3:16 PM ET

[JURIST] Lawyers in Jordan held a one-hour strike Tuesday to protest the death sentences [JURIST report; BBC Q/A] imposed over the weekend against Saddam Hussein and two co-defendants in the Dujail crimes against humanity case [JURIST news archive; BBC trial timeline]. The Jordan Bar Association led the brief work stoppage for its 10,000 members; about 250 lawyers staged a demonstration outside the Palace of Justice in Amman. Prominent Jordanian lawyers said the verdict was influenced by US occupation forces in Iraq. They also said it is unlikely that an appeals panel [JURIST report] will reverse the rulings. Saleh al-Armouti, the bar association's president and a former lawyer for Hussein, said, "We denounce the verdict against Iraq's legitimate president, Saddam Hussein, because it's been issued by the American occupation. The verdict is a shameful stain on Iraq's legal history and it strikes at the dignity of the Arab and Muslim nation." AP has more. DPA has additional coverage.
Meanwhile, UN Special Rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak [official profile, DOC; JURIST news archive] said Tuesday in an interview with AP [AP report] that Hussein should not have been sentenced to death and questioned the legitimacy of the Iraqi High Tribunal [JURIST news archive], echoing similar views [JURIST report] expressed Monday by his colleague, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Leandro Despouy. "I would say it didn't enjoy the full guarantees of independence we expect from a court trying someone like Saddam," he said. Nowak stressed that other special tribunals, such as the ICTY [JURIST news archive] and the ICTR [JURIST news archive], do not apply the death penalty. Other European leaders oppose Hussein's death sentence [JURIST report]. Iran, however, on Tuesday voiced its support for the verdict and sentence in the case of what it described as dictator who deserved to die [AP report]. A government spokesman said he hopes "the fair, correct and legal verdict against this criminal ... is enforced."


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

FCC drops indecency charges against two network TV shows
Brett Murphy on November 7, 2006 1:07 PM ET

[JURIST] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [official website; JURIST news archive] has dropped charges [summary] previously filed against ABC's "NYPD Blue" and CBS's "The Early Show," holding Monday that the shows were not indecent based on language content. The FCC also renewed charges against "The 2003 Billboard Music Awards" and "The 2002 Billboard Music Awards." According to the FCC order [PDF text; press release, PDF], the FCC dismissed the charges relating to the "The Early Show," deferring "to CBS's characterization of the program segment as a news interview" and concluding "regardless of whether such language would be actionable in the context of an entertainment program, that the complained-of material is neither actionably indecent nor profane in this context." The FCC upheld its charges against the "Billboard Music Awards" stating that "the use of offensive language by participants
was indecent and profane."
In April, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox filed appeals [JURIST report] contesting the original FCC indecency rulings against the shows. The networks argued that the indecency findings for "fleeting" or "unintentional" profanities were inappropriate and that the FCC's inconsistent rulings chilled free speech in violation of the First Amendment. In July, CBS filed an additional appeal on the FCC decision to fine it $550,000 [JURIST reports] for an incident in the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast when performer Janet Jackson experienced what was later euphemistically labeled a "wardrobe malfunction" [Wikipedia backgrounder] that briefly exposed one of her breasts. A decision has not yet been made on that appeal. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Saddam back in court as genocide trial resumes
Holly Manges Jones on November 7, 2006 10:29 AM ET

[JURIST] Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] was back in court Tuesday as the genocide trial against him resumed for the alleged killing of 100,000 Kurds in the late 1980s during the so-called "Anfal" campaign [HRW backgrounder]. Hussein entered the court calmly, two days after being sentenced to death JURIST report] in a separate case for crimes against humanity [charging instrument, PDF] committed in the Iraqi town of Dujail [JURIST news archive; BBC trial timeline]. Tuesday's testimony began with a witness detailing his surrender to Iraqi soldiers after being told he was granted immunity, which proved to be a false promise when guards began shooting at him and 32 other men. Though not as outspoken as in past trial sessions, Hussein did challenge the testimony of one witness and also made a statement calling for forgiveness and reconciliation.
Last week, Khalil al-Dulaimi, chief defense counsel for Saddam, made an appearance in court with demands to end the defense lawyers' boycott of the trial [JURIST news archive], but stormed out [JURIST report] after the presiding judge told him that Arab and foreign lawyers may only appear as advisors to Hussein. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UK bomb plotter sentenced to life in prison
Holly Manges Jones on November 7, 2006 9:29 AM ET

[JURIST] Dhiren Barot [BBC profile], a British man who pleaded guilty to planning a series of bombs on US and British targets, was sentenced to life in prison [Met press release] Tuesday. Barot was accused of planning several attacks, including the "Gas Limo Project" [Times report] to blow up three limousines filled with explosives in underground parking garages in Britain. Justice Butterfield of the Woolwich Crown Court handed down the sentence, saying a successful execution of Barot's plans would have resulted in a catastrophe on a "colossal and unprecedented scale." Prosecutors presented evidence [BBC backgrounder] that Barot wrote a proposal to obtain approval and funding for the plan from al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Barot pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to conspiracy charges for his involvement in the plot last month, but his seven co-defendants maintain their innocence.
Prosecutors also said Barot planned to detonate a bomb below the River Thames in an attempt to immerse the London subway system in water. In addition to attacks planned throughout the UK, prosecutors alleged that Barot planned to attack the International Monetary Fund and World Bank [official websites] buildings in Washington DC, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York City, and the Prudential [corporate websites] buildings in Newark, New Jersey. Barot was indicted [text; JURIST report] in New York for the US-related bomb plans last April, along with two other men. BBC News has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN humanitarian chief calls for immediate freeze on cluster munitions use
Melissa Bancroft on November 7, 2006 8:21 AM ET

[JURIST] UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland called Tuesday for a freeze on the use of controversial cluster munitions [FAS backgrounder; JURIST news archive] at the outset of the Third Review Conference [official website; US delegation website] in Geneva on the 1983 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons [text; ACA backgrounder], which already bans or limits the use of incendiary weapons, mines and booby-traps, blinding laser weapons and other devices deemed to cause inhumane injuries. In a statement, Egeland said: This freeze is essential until the international community puts in place effective legal instruments to address urgent humanitarian concerns about their use...Ultimately, as long as there is no effective ban, these weapons will continue to disproportionately affect civilians, maiming and killing women, children and other vulnerable groups. The states gathered for the Review Conference should commit to immediately freeze the use of cluster munitions and strengthen existing international humanitarian law. AFP has more. In anticipation of the same review conference, the International Committee of the Red Cross [advocacy website] made a similar call [press release] Monday based on the inefficiency of cluster weapons as a military tool and the high toll they take on the civilian population.
Rights organizations claim that both Israel and Hezbollah [JURIST reports] used cluster munitions in the recent Middle East conflict, and argue that the weapons should already be considered illegal [backgrounder] under multiple provisions of Protocol I [text] of the Geneva Conventions (1977). Russia and the US have to this point resisted explicit banning measures [JURIST report]. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Judge dismisses House Democrats lawsuit over budget bill signed with clerical error
Holly Manges Jones on November 7, 2006 7:38 AM ET

[JURIST] US District Judge Nancy Edmunds Monday dismissed [ruling, PDF] a lawsuit [complaint, DOC; JURIST report] brought by US House Democrats challenging the validity of a $39 billion deficit-reduction bill. The plaintiffs argued that the measure was invalid since the Senate and House approved two different versions. The version approved by the Senate [PDF text] indicated that Medicare [official website] would be able to rent certain types of medical equipment for 13 months, but the version put before the House [text] said the rentals could last for 36 months, which was a $2 billion discrepancy. The White House and Republican leaders said the mistake was purely technical due to a clerk's error, but 11 House Democrats led by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) [official website], the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee [official website], filed the lawsuit contending the bill should be voided because the House was not given an opportunity to vote on the same legislation considered by the Senate.
The US Department of Justice [official website] moved to dismiss the suit [JURIST report], arguing the House representatives did not have standing to sue since they were not renting the medical equipment and were not in "any way personally affected or injured" by the clerical error. Earlier this year, a federal judge also dismissed [text, PDF] a similar lawsuit filed [JURIST report] by Public Citizen [advocacy website] which argued that the bill was unconstitutional due to the different versions. The law was signed by President Bush [press release; fact sheet] in February. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|