Attempts to limit collective bargaining rights have been confronted with heavy opposition. Wisconsin faced a challenge against its legislation which limited the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. In July the Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] not to reopen a case challenging the state's Budget Repair Bill [text, PDF] because of a justice's refusal to recuse himself. Four votes were needed, but only three justices were in support of reopening the case. The court upheld [JURIST report] the bill in June 2011 thereby overruling the Dane County Circuit Court [official website] finding [JURIST report] a month earlier that legislators had violated the "open meetings" rule. The court ruled that the lower court had "invaded the legislature's constitutional powers." In March a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] ruled unconstitutional [JURIST report] certain provisions of the Budget Repair Bill reasoning that unions which supported Governor Scott Walker [official website] during his election were apparently given preferential treatment. Last November Ohio voters rejected [JURIST report] a bill which would have impacted Ohio's 400,000 public workers by limiting their ability to strike and collectively bargain for health insurance and pensions.

Last week's jury verdict concluded more than a year of patent infringement litigation between the companies. Earlier this month, a federal judge denied Apple's motion [JURIST report] to sanction Samsung for releasing to the media evidence that the judge had excluded from trial. Last month, the court also issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] against the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US after it found that Apple was likely to succeed on the merits of its patent infringement claim. This came after a federal appeals court in May partially reversed [JURIST report] a district court's decision not to grant Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy products. The original patent suit was brought by Apple [JURIST report] in April of last year.

The trials against the four defendants have been set to begin [JURIST report] next April. The trial of former Kenyan minister William Ruto [case materials] and Sang will begin [decision, PDF] on April 10, while the trial of Kenyatta and Muthaura is to begin [decision, PDF] on April 11. In June the ICC expressed its desire to start the two Kenyan trials simultaneously [JURIST report] to avoid any appearance of bias in the March 2013 presidential election. Ruto is considered a leading candidate in the election which will take place March 4. The four men have been accused and charged with involvement in the 2007 post-election violence. In May the appeals chamber of the ICC rejected [JURIST report] the jurisdiction challenges in the two cases, clearing the way for trial. The defense lawyers had argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the cases. The appeal stemmed from the pre-trial chamber's decision to confirm the charges [JURIST report] against the four men in January. The ICC claimed jurisdiction over the case despite Kenya's calls for dismissal [JURIST report]. The Kenyan government argued that it was capable of prosecuting the accused men domestically.

Myanmar has been working to eliminate sectarian violence within its borders, but has recently been criticized by different groups for its methods and for human rights abuses. Last week, the country sentenced two UN staff members [JURIST report] to prison for their involvement in sectarian violence. This was one week after President Thein Sein announced creation of a 27-member commission [JURIST report] to investigate causes of the violence. Earlier this month, however, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] accused Myanmar forces of committing multiple human rights violations [JURIST report] following an outbreak of sectarian violence. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also expressed concern [JURIST report] last month about both the continued violence in Myanmar and the country's human rights abuses committed in dealing with it.

The applicant alleges, in particular: that her detention was politically motivated; that there has been no judicial review of the lawfulness of her detention in Kyiv SIZO no. 13; that her detention conditions are inadequate, with no medical care provided for her numerous health problems; and, that she was under round-the-clock surveillance in Kharkiv hospital. She relies principally on Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment or punishment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Last week Ukrainian prosecutors urged an appeals court not to hear the appeal [JURIST report]. Prosecutors told the court that Tymoshenko's trial had already established her guilt in the case, and asked the judges to let stand a seven-year prison sentence [JURIST report] in the case. Tymoshenko was not present at the hearing due to health concerns. The hearing has been delayed [JURIST report] in the past due to Tymoshenko's absence. Although Tymoshenko has previously indicated that she would discontinue all appeals in Ukrainian courts [JURIST report], she is required to exhaust all national options before appealing to the ECHR.

There is still limited cooperation among States in tracking illicit arms, despite the concrete and practical measures recommended in the seven-year old International Tracing Instrument. Weapons continue to reach areas and entities under Security Council arms embargoes. And in many countries, insecure stockpiles continue to be a source of arms and ammunition for armed groups, terrorists and organized crime.

International arms distribution continues to trouble governments and rights groups. Last month, after four weeks of international negotiations, the deadline to approve an agreement at the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty passed without consensus [JURIST report]. The proposed regulations, entitled the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), would have required the support of all 193 member states of the UN to be approved. Also in July, a spokesperson for the Secretary-General expressed concern [JURIST report] about the lack of progress being made at a UN conference to negotiate the international ATT. Earlier in July, in anticipation of the conference, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), called on the participants [JURIST report] to adopt an effective arms treaty in order to save lives and aid in the enforcement of international law. In June Amnesty International called for an end to the supply of arms [JURIST report] to groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) after a report highlighted the flaws in Congolese security, which AI says leads to the availability and misuse of weapons and ammunition.

In 2008 Ohio was among six states where thousands of eligible voters were removed from voter rolls [JURIST report] against federal voting law in contravention of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) [text], according to a New York Times report [text]. In 2006 a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled that an Ohio voting law requiring naturalized citizens to provide proof of citizenship if challenged by poll workers was unconstitutional [JURIST report]. US District Judge Christopher Boyko said the Ohio voting rule encouraged racial profiling and requested his decision to be forwarded to other states.

The recent deaths in Daraya are indicative of escalating violence in Syria, where opposition and government forces have now been fighting each other for 17 months. On August 19 the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) [official website] ceased its work [JURIST report]. According to UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Edmund Mulet, the mission's work had to be stopped because the two conditions required by the UN Security Council to renew UNSMIS' mandate—the cessation of the use of heavy weapons and the reduction in violence from all sides—did not exist. In mid-August the head of UNSMIS Lieutenant General Babacar Gayee expressed concern [JURIST report] about the growing number of civilian casualties in violent clashes between government forces and armed opposition groups. In July UN Chief Military Observer in Syria Major-General Robert Mood stated that Syrian authorities were committed to implementing the six-point peace agreement [JURIST report] that was reached a week earlier. In June a UN commission stated that Syrian forces may have been responsible [JURIST report] for the killing of more than 100 civilians in Al-Houla in May. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [JURIST news archive] had denied [JURIST report] the allegations stating that "not even monsters" would carry out the attacks.

But petitioners argue, among other things, that the ballot question is misleading because there is a difference between "valid government-issued photographic identification," as required in the proposed amendment, and "valid photographic identification," as required in the ballot question. We agree with petitioners that there is a difference between a "government-issued photographic identification," and a "valid photographic identification." That the ballot question reads differently than the proposed amendment, however, does not render the ballot question "'so unreasonable and misleading as to be a palpable evasion of the constitutional requirement to submit'" the proposed constitutional amendment" 'to a popular vote.'"

Petitioners also argue that the ballot question is misleading because it indicates that "all voters" will be required to present "valid photographic identification," when in fact, according to petitioners, the proposed amendment requires that only some voters (namely, those voting in person) present valid photographic identification. This argument is unpersuasive. Petitioners read the ballot question as narrowly referencing only the obligations placed by the proposed amendment on voters voting in person, and therefore conclude that the question is misleading because it states that the proposed amendment will require all voters to present photographic identification. But the ballot question does not refer specifically to only the portion of the proposed amendment that will affect voters voting in person, and petitioners are simply wrong in arguing that the proposed amendment requires only those voting in person to submit photographic identification.

The text of the initiative, which will appear on the November ballot as planned, is as follows: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo ID to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?" The ACLU-MN had several issues with this question, including that it would end election day registration but does not state that specifically, and mischaracterizes who will need to present an ID. The referendum also suggests that any photo ID that is not government-issued—such as a school or work ID—would be permissible, when that is not the case. If passed, the initiative will add the following language to the Minnesota constitution:

(b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law.
(c) All voters, including those not voting in person, must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.

South Carolina sued the DOJ in February in an attempt to revive the law after it was blocked [JURIST reports] from taking effect. Six advocacy originally groups called on the DOJ to stop the law [JURIST report]. The coalition argued in a letter to the DOJ that the new law would suppress the minority vote. According to the groups, there are more than 178,000 registered voters in South Carolina who lack a valid photo ID, and African-Americans are disproportionately affected. The groups also argued that African Americans face social and economic barriers to obtaining valid photo ID and that the law is in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.