These actions come in reaction to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], which struck down a regulation that prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a political candidate. Some commentators have noted that states are resisting this constitutional interpretation by enacting statewide measures like these initiatives, and argued [JURIST op-eds] for the need for increased regulation and transperency regarding campaign finances. However, the Supreme Court's decision in the Montana case likely extends the the ruling in Citizens United to the states, so the effect of the new measures is unclear.

Abortion continues to be a heavily debated issue nationally and internationally. On Monday the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in Isaacson v. Horne [case materials] to consider a new Arizona abortion regulation [HB 2036 materials; JURIST report] that would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless there is a medical emergency. Last month the US District Court for the District of Arizona enjoined Arizona [JURIST report] from implementing a public funding law [HB 2800, PDF] that prohibits funding for health clinics that perform abortions. In October the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] condemned [JURIST report] Poland's treatment of a 14-year-old rape victim who sought an abortion. The victim initially faced charges of unlawful intercourse by the Polish criminal justice system. The ECHR found violation of Article 8's right to respect for private life when the girl was hindered in her attempts to obtain an abortion. Uruguay in September legalized [JURIST report] abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, subject to several conditions, by a vote of 50-49. In August South Korea's constitutional court upheld [JURIST report] its abortion ban. Last year voters in Liechtenstein rejected a proposal [JURIST report] to legalize abortion in the country after the acting Head of State expressed displeasure with the law and threatened to veto the proposed change.

Voters in Montana also decided to affirm an immigration initiative on Tuesday. The state voted overwhelmingly [AP report] in favor of LR-121 [text, PDF] which requires proof of citizenship or documentation of being in the country lawfully before being eligible to receive "state services." The measure prevents illegal immigrants from obtaining student aid, state licenses, disability benefits, unemployment payments or employment with the state. Additionally, the measure requires that state agencies must notify the Department of Homeland Security [official website] of non-citizens who apply for state services.

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the PPACA is constitutional, and that the individual mandate is a valid revenue-raising tax. The lawsuit [JURIST report] that was heard before the Supreme Court was brought by 26 states and additional organizations challenging both the individual mandate to purchase health insurance and Medicaid expansion included in the law. The ruling on the constitutionality of the act was highly anticipated by both politicians and the general public.

Eminent domain has become a more contentious issue since the issuance of Kelo v. New London [opinion] by the US Supreme Court in 2005. Kelo held that "promoting economic development" was an acceptable "public use" taking under the Fifth Amendment [text]. Since then, there have been various state and Federal attempts to limit eminent domain. In February, the US House of Representatives approved a bill [JURIST report] to prevent states from seizing private property for the purpose of economic development and create a private cause of action for property owners. Mississippi passed an initiative [JURIST report] similar to Virginia's in 2011.

California voters also declined to repeal the death penalty by rejecting Proposition 34 [official ballot guide]. Proposition 34 would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. It garnered 47 percent of the vote. California has had several issues guaranteeing human rights for its prison population, including issues with prison isolation units and solitary confinement [JURIST reports]. In May 2011 the US Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population [JURIST report]. As of August it appears that California will be unable to fulfill that mandate [JURIST report].

As the government strives to assess and address the impact that the war had on men and how to ensure they do not place women at a higher risk of domestic violence, it should also recognize the experiences that women themselves faced during the war, and their entitlement to justice, reparations, and information and assistance on the missing and the disappeared.

BiH is still recovering from the impact of the Bosnian War which was fought from 1992 to 1995. Last week Amnesty International [advocacy website] called for reparations and greater recognition for victims of sexual violence [press release; JURIST report] during the Bosnian Civil War. Bosnian courts have continued prosecuting individuals responsible for human rights abuses, especially surrounding the 1995 Srebrenica massacre [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. In June the country's war crimes court sentenced [JURIST report] four former Bosnian Serb soldiers for their involvement in the 1995 massacre. A month earlier the same court convicted [JURIST report] Dusko Jevic and Mendeljev Djuric for their role in the killing of 1,000 Muslim men during the massacre finding that the two Bosnian Serb ex-policemen were guilty of aiding and abetting genocide.

Medical marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts for the first time Tuesday as over 60 percent of voters approved Question 3 [Petition 11-11, PDF], an indirect initiated statute that will allow marijuana use by patients [Harvard Crimson report] with "debilitating medical conditions" and create 35 medical marijuana dispensaries. Conversely, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act [Issue 5, PDF] was rejected by voters [AP report] in that state by approximately a 52-to-48 percent margin. The measure would have allowed doctors to issue a certificate to anyone with a "qualifying medical condition" to grow, process and use marijuana. Also on the ballot in Montana is a veto referendum regarding a 2011 revision [SB 423] of a 2004 law that established medical marijuana use in the state.

We congratulate President Obama on his re-election. This is his opportunity to reaffirm our constitutional principles and the fundamental American values of due process, respect for the rule of law and individual freedom. It is a time to once again be a nation where we can be both safe and free.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama stated that closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison would be a priority for his first term. Shortly after he assumed office, Obama issued an executive order [JURIST report] for the closure of the site within one year. According to Forum contributor David Frakt, the Obama administration is not solely to blame [JURIST op-ed] for Guantanamo Bay remaining open. The US Congress has, since 2009, "passed a series of increasingly stringent spending restrictions which have made it virtually impossible to transfer most detainees out of Guantanamo." Other scholars, including Forum contributor Jonathan Hafetz, have raised concerns [JURIST op-ed] about how the failure to close Guantanamo Bay "has helped justify the policies of arbitrary detention and torture that spurred its creation in the first place."

I am satisfied that, within the context of this case (including the unpredictability of terrorist attacks and the ongoing operations in Afghanistan) there would be a real and immeadiate risk to the lives of the Defendants were they to be identified by name. That risk is from Jihadist cells or extremists motivated to act alone either now or in the future and will increase significantly as the case progresses.

The Service Prosecuting Authority [official website] charged [JURIST report] the five marines with murder last month. These charges are the latest in a series of incidents arising out of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In February the US Army [official website] dropped all charges [JURIST report] against an army specialist charged with killing Afghan civilians. Last November a US military court convicted [JURIST report] an army sergeant of three counts of premeditated murder. In December 2010 a US soldier pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to shooting two unarmed Afghan farmers.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] rights remain controversial around the world. On Tuesday voters in Maine and Maryland approved [JURIST report] bills legalizing same-sex marriage within those states. Maine and Maryland join six states, as well as the District of Columbia, in extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. Also Tuesday Spain's Constitutional Court denied an appeal challenging the constitutionality of Spain's same-sex marriage law, and the Slovakian parliament rejected [JURIST reports] a proposal recognizing same-sex marriage rights.

Affirmative action proposals similar to Oklahoma's have already passed in other states. Arizona voters approved an affirmative action ban [JURIST report] in 2010. California also approved an affirmative action ban in 1996, which was most recently upheld by the Ninth Circuit [JURIST report] in April. The US Supreme Court in October heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, where the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the school's affirmative action program. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the university's program and the US Supreme Court will ultimately determine [JURIST op-ed] whether the program violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [LII backgrounder].

[JURIST] Alabama voters rejected Amendment 4 [SB 112 text, PDF] on Tuesday, which would have removed references to segregation and poll taxes from the state's Constitution [text], over concerns about language addressing the right to education. The amendment, rejected by a vote of 61 percent [Fox WBRC report], proposed to "delete those remaining 'Jim Crow' provisions of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, which have not been expressly repealed by vote of the people." The ballot text provided: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111, now appearing as Section 256 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, relating to separation of schools by race and to repeal Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109 [texts], relating to the poll tax." All state laws pertaining to segregation and poll taxes were repealed by Federal mandate, thus their inclusion in the constitution merely serves as an anachronism. However, advocates against Amendment 4 were concerned that by repealing unspecified portions of Section 256, the amendment would also remove, "The legislature shall establish, organize, and maintain a liberal system of public schools throughout the state for the benefit of the children thereof between the ages of seven and twenty-one years," thus deleting the State's right to public education. Indeed, the amendment to Section 256 would have changed the language to allow the legislature a much broader freedom in public education: "The legislature may by law provide for or authorize the establishment and operation of schools by such persons, agencies or municipalities, at such places, and upon such conditions as it may prescribe, and for the grant or loan of public funds and the lease, sale or donation of real or personal property to or for the benefit of citizens of the state for educational purposes under such circumstances and upon such conditions as it shall prescribe."

The author of the bill, state Senator Arthur Orr [official website] argued before the election that the amendment was solely about raising the status of Alabama globally [official blog post] by erasing embarrassing racial references. "Old stereotypes and perceptions are dredged up to cast our great state in a bad light, at times discouraging companies from bringing new jobs here because of our past." The Alabama Education Association (AEA) [advocacy website] described the bill [official blog post] as a "sheep in wolf's clothing": "Amendment Four would reinstate a former constitutional provision adopted in the 1950s that contains language eliminating the state's duty to educate all of the children of the state. This antiquated provision would again give life to words that say there is no right for our children to have a public education. Amendment Four could give education antagonists leverage to harm public education operationally and financially."

The court also heard arguments in Evans v. Michigan [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on whether double jeopardy [Cornell LII backgrounder] attaches after a trial judge erroneously holds a particular fact to be an element of the offense and then grants a midtrial directed verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove that fact. An attorney for Lamar Evans argued that precedent dictates a judge's determination of not guilty is a final determination of an acquittal where double jeopardy is concerned, even if the judge commits errors of law or fact. The state of Michigan argued that, historically, this was the type of situation the double jeopardy clause was designed to prevent:

The Jeopardy Clause is aimed at prohibiting certain governmental abuses that occurred historically. 12 One of them is when the government would terminate a trial that was not going well, without the consent of the defendant, in order to take another shot at it, to build a better case or perhaps get a better factfinder; and the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits that kind of conduct by establishing through this Court's cases that mistrials without the consent of the defendant bar retrial; that abhorrent practice is barred unless a manifest necessity is shown. ... But if there is consent, as there was in this case—the defendant asked the judge to terminate the trial without going to this jury, so he gave up his valued right to a decision by this tribunal—if he does that, then that—the other side of that coin is, that is ordinarily outcome-determinative the other way. A retrial is permissible unless the government has achieved the first harm by the back door, that is by goading the defendant into the mistrial.

Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno [official website, in Spanish], a supporter of statehood, signed legislation establishing the two-part referendum [JURIST report] last December that would allow Puerto Ricans to voice their opinions regarding Puerto Rico's political status and connection to the US. The Puerto Rican House of Representatives voted to pass the legislation [JURIST report] to permit the referendum that same month. The US House of Representatives approved a bill to establish the referendum [JURIST report] in April 2010, but it was never approved by the Senate. In 2007, the UN Special Committee on Decolonization [official website] called on the US [press release] to resolve the island's political status and release political prisoners. Puerto Ricans last voted on the status of the island in 1998 [results], with the "None of the Above" option winning 50.3 percent, statehood garnering 46.5 percent of the vote and independence only 2.5 percent. The island was established as a US commonwealth in 1952 after Congress adopted the Puerto Rican Constitution. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917, and the island has been under US control since 1898. JURIST Guest Columnist Pedro Pierluisi, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, representing the territory in the US House of Representatives, contends that the Puerto Rico status referendum is historic [JURIST comment] because it is the first to include only the viable status options and will be taken seriously by the federal government.

Maryland electorates also voted to legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] by a slim margin on Tuesday. Question 6, which asked voters whether they wanted to uphold the Civil Marriage Protection Act [HB 438, PDF], was answered in the affirmative by 50 percent of Maryland voters. Maryland joined the seven states that allow same-sex marriage [JURIST report] in March when Governor Martin O'Malley [official website] signed the Civil Marriage Protection Act. The Maryland Board of Elections [official website] officially certified [certification notice, PDF] a referendum petition in July seeking to challenge the state's same-sex marriage law [JURIST report] in Tuesday's election. The law will take effect on January 1, 2013.

Washingtonians have unofficially approved the state's same-sex marriage law [SB 6239 text] in Tuesday's election with nearly 52 percent of the tallied votes favoring the law. Preserve Marriage Washington [advocacy website] presented over 200,000 referendum signatures seeking to overturn the state's same-sex marriage legislation, which was signed [JURIST report] into law by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire in February. The results of the referendum will likely become official [Huffington Post report] in the next few days.

Finally, Minnesota voters struck down a ballot initiative that would have outlawed same-sex marriages in the state. 51 percent of voters opposed Amendment 1 [text], an amendment to the state's Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Laws regarding same-sex marriage have been enacted or presented with legal challenges in many states and countries. Earlier this week Malawi enacted a moratorium [JURIST report] on laws preventing same-sex marriage and homosexuality. In August a gay rights group urged [JURIST report] the US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday to review a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive] that denies benefits to married same-sex couples. In July a New York state appeals court dismissed a challenge [JURIST report] to the state's year-old Marriage Equality Act (MEA) [text, PDF]