Courts rule on driving under the influence, fraternities, lawyer liability, and more

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation Join Our Mailing List Email: For Email Marketing you can trust In this issue… Featured case News from Connecticut News from Indiana News from Michigan News from Montana News from Nebraska

Featured case Hide your guns while napping in your car in New Jersey [hide]  Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division In 2009, Dustin Reininger took a nap in his car behind a bank in New Jersey. Police officers peeked into his car and noticed two gun cases. Upon waking him, Reininger stated he was in the process of moving from Texas to Maine and denied having guns in the car, despite two gun cases laying on the back seat of his SUV. The officers subsequently searched Reininger’s car and found a total of 21 guns.[1] Reininger was immediately arrested and charged with “illegal possession of shotguns, rifles, hollow-point bullets and a high-capacity magazine.”[2] A jury in New Jersey convicted Reininger in 2010; he was sentenced to five years in prison but is eligible for parole after three years. Reininger appealed the conviction. On May 20, 2013, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division refused to reverse the jury’s verdict. Reininger will remain in a New Jersey prison for now. The trial court had found that the presence of the guns fairly raised the public safety doctrine and allowed the police to conduct the warrantless search and seize the dangerous items to protect the public. Reininger’s attorney appealed on the basis that the police conducted an illegal warantless search of his client’s car. The state countered Reininger’s argument by stating the gun cases in the back seat were in plain view and thus raised the requisite suspicion necessary, coupled with Reininger’s denial of possessing any guns, to search the car without a warrant. The appellate court’s three-judge panel, which heard the appeal, agreed with the state, holding: “police are allowed to conduct a warrantless search under a ‘plain view’ exception, if potentially suspicious evidence is within their view and they were unaware of its existence beforehand.”[2] The appellate judges found probable cause existed for the officers to search the car. The “plain view discovery of firearm cases on the back seat, and defendant’s subsequent admission that he was transporting long arms to Texas” gave the officer probable cause to believe Reininger possessed firearms illegally.[2] Additionally, Reininger’s attorney asserted that New Jersey’s guns laws violate the Second Amendment, which protects a person’s right to bear arms. The court summarily rejected this argument, however.   Reininger’s attorney has stated he will appeal the appellate court’s decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court.[1]

News from Connecticut Connecticut lawyers can’t be sued for fraudulent activity in court [hide]  Court: Connecticut Supreme Court The Connecticut Supreme Court cited the doctrine of “absolute immunity” in ruling that lawyers cannot be sued for fraud based on their conduct in court cases. Bob Simms, a former NFL player and founder of Simms Capital Management Inc., has been in an ongoing legal battle over divorce proceedings with his ex-wife, Donna Simms, for 30 years. Bob recently tried to sue Donna and her lawyers for withholding information about approximately $360,000 in inheritance money that she received in 2006 and 2008. A court order brought the facts of the inheritance to the surface in 2008, but a lower court judge ruled that the information had been improperly withheld. At the Supreme Court, however, the justices were focused on a different point: whether or not Donna’s lawyers were liable for the alleged fraud. They ruled 5-1 on May 10 that the lawyers could not be sued for fraud, citing the old doctrine of absolute immunity, as well as decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. Absolute immunity started in medieval England. It was created as a way to encourage free speaking during court proceedings without fear of future lawsuits. Justice Peter Zarella, in the majority’s opinion, wrote, “ The mere possibility of such (fraud) claims, which could expose attorneys to harassing and expensive litigation, would be likely to inhibit their freedom in making good faith evidentiary decisions and representations and, therefore, negatively affect their ability to act as zealous advocates for their clients.”[3] ”   Justice Richard Palmer, the lone dissenter, argued that the decision was “unduly protectionist of attorneys.”[3]	News from Indiana Fraternity will answer in court for alcohol-related student deaths [hide]  Court: Indiana Court of Appeals In a decision that may influence the structure of Greek organizations nationwide, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that national fraternity Delta Tau Delta must stand trial over the death of a Wabash College freshman.[4] Eighteen-year-old Johnny Dupree Smith was found dead in 2008 with a blood alcohol level of nearly .40, according to the complaint his family filed in the wrongful-death case. Smith, originally from Tucson, Arizona, attended a mandatory chapter party known as a “pledge family drink night.” After a night of beer and vodka he was unable to walk, consequently falling down a stairwell. He was later left on an upstairs mattress where he was found dead the next morning.[4] By and large, national fraternities exercise moderate to minimal authority over the behavior of individual chapters, but this scenario and many recent ones like it are prompting them to more closely consider their role—essentially, whether to take their hands off local chapters completely or more actively monitor everyone. Hazing, defined as “any action taken or situation created intentionally … to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule,” is nominally forbidden by Delta Tau Delta but is still commonplace in Greek life.[4][5] The ruling came as a reversal of an order by Circuit Court Judge Don Daniel, which granted summary judgement to the fraternity based on an affidavit from the chapter’s vice president and the testimony of two freshman pledges. As determined in the appellate court‘s reversal on May 8, these statements contained conflicting information and the two witnesses had not been properly certified.[4][5] Wrote Patricia A. Riley in the opinion, “ We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain paragraphs of [the vice president]’s affidavit and by admitting two unsworn, unverified, and uncertified statements. Additionally, we find that the trial court erred in granting Delta Tau Delta’s motion for summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact that (1) an agency relationship existed between the national fraternity and its local chapter and (2) the national fraternity assumed a duty to protect its freshmen pledges.[5] ”   The case has been remanded for further proceedings.
News from Michigan Toking then driving OK’d by Michigan Supreme Court [hide]  Court: Michigan Supreme Court In 2010, when Rodney Koon was pulled over for speeding, he admitted to the police that he was a registered medical marijuana patient and that he had smoked marijuana five to six hours before the traffic stop. Koon’s subsequent blood test was positive for THC, and he was charged with driving under the influence of a Schedule 1 narcotic.[6] At conflict in Michigan were two separate laws: (1) the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) which allows a person to use medical marijuana without fear of prosecution; and (2) the Michigan Vehicle Code which prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle if that person has any amount of a Schedule 1 controlled substance in their body. The issue before the Michigan Supreme Court was whether “MMMA’s protection supersedes the Michigan Vehicle Code’s prohibition and allows a registered patient to drive when he or she has indications of marijuana in his or her system but is not otherwise under the influence of marijuana.”[6] Both the District Court and the Circuit Court held in favor of Koon, finding that the MMMA superseded the Michigan Vehicle Code and that, under the MMMA, patients are only prohibited from driving a vehicle if they are “under the influence of marijuana.” Therefore, the prosecution needed to show that Koon’s ability to drive was actually impaired by the presence of THC in his bloodstream.[7] The Michigan Court of Appeals believed otherwise and reversed the lower courts’ decision, holding instead that the ‘ “zero tolerance” provision of [the Michigan Vehicle Code] which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with any amount of a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the driver’s body, still applies if the driver used marijuana under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).”[8] On May 21, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and unanimously held for Koon. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ strict reading of the Michigan Vehicle Code and stated that… “ “[w]hen the MMMA conflicts with another statute, the MMMA provides that ‘[a]ll other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with [the MMMA] do not apply to the medical use of marihuana…’ [and] [c]onsequently the Michigan Vehicle Code’s zero-tolerance provision, MCL 257.625(8), which is inconsistent with the MMMA, does not apply to the medical use of marijuana.”[6] ” However, the Supreme Court noted that the MMMA does not provide a definition for the meaning of “under the influence”. They decided it must mean something more than having just any amount in a person’s system – it must require to the marijuana to have some effect on that person. In conclusion, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the MMMA was an imperfect statute and invited the Michigan State Legislature to make amendments and clarify any further issues.[6]	News from Montana Montana Supreme Court reverses lower court’s decision releasing Barry Beach [hide]  Court: Montana Supreme Court Last week, in a 4-3 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court reversed former District Judge E. Wayne Phillips’s 2011 decision to allow a retrial for Barry Beach. Beach was convicted of murdering classmate Kim Nees in 1979, but has maintained his innocence in recent decades, claiming that his earlier confession to the murder was coerced.[9][10] The 2011 decision by Judge Phillips allowed Beach 525 days out of prison, during which he had settled into a new life with a house and a job.[11] The Supreme Court’s decision last week sent Beach back to a cell, where he could remain for the rest of his life.[12] “ It was hard enough to be innocent to begin with. But to be going back, still innocent, for the second time, is just unbelievable.[12] – Barry Beach ” Former Judge Phillips said the Supreme Court’s opinion weighed heavily upon him, explaining, “ I am troubled that I got it wrong. I am, however, much more deeply troubled — from the heart outwards — that I may have done a soul-wrenching injustice to Mr. Beach. By my error and giving him a taste of freedom based on that error, he now faces an almost unimaginable return from the freedom any right thinking person cherishes to the confines of a prison cell.[11] ” Justices Beth Baker, Jim Rice, Laurie McKinnon and District Court Judge Richard A. Simonton concurred with the reversal of the district court’s decision, while Justices Patricia Cotter, Michael E. Wheat, and Justice Brian Morris dissented, agreeing with the lower court’s decision to grant a re-trial.[13]   Read the full decision here: State of Montana v. Barry Allan Beach, May 14, 2013
News from Nebraska Nebraska Supreme Court places limits on school searches [hide]  Court: Nebraska Supreme Court The Nebraska Supreme Court made a decision on Friday, May 17, 2013, which was a matter of first impression for the court.[14][15] The relevant facts of J.P. v. Millard Public Schools are as follows: “J.P.”, a student at Millard West High School in Omaha, left school grounds without permission and retrieved items from his pickup truck, parking off-campus on a public street across from the school. Upon returning to the campus, the assistant principal searched the student and the student’s backpack and wallet. This search resulted in nothing of consequence, which led the assistant principal to search the student’s truck, not only without consent, but against J.P.’s direct refusal. The search of the truck resulted in the discovery of drug paraphernalia, which brought about J.P.’s nineteen day suspension. J.P. requested a hearing as allowed by the school’s student handbook, but the school board upheld the suspension. Judge James Gleason, a district judge for the Fourth District Court in Nebraska, reversed the decision of the school board and ordered that J.P.’s record be expunged. Gleason’s decision held that the search was in violation of J.P.’s Fourth Amendment rights.[15][16] An appeal by the school board brought the case before the Nebraska Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the Fourth District Court.[15] This case was the first time that the Nebraska Supreme Court had addressed the off-campus rights of students in regards to searches that do not occur at an off-campus school function.[14] Both the lone dissenting judge and the school district relied on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Morse v. Frederick, where the Court held that schools are allowed to regulate the speech of students at off-campus school functions. The Nebraska Supreme Court majority disagreed with dissenting Chief Justice Mike Heavican and found this situation “readily distinguishable” from that in Morse v. Frederick, according to the opinion written by Justice John Wright.[15] The Nebraska Supreme Court stated that, not only did this case involve a search while Morse did not, but the act of driving to school and parking off-campus did not constitute a “school-sponsored event” which might justify the school’s attempt to regulate the student’s actions.[15] The court’s opinion also stated that this decision does not leave schools without a course of action should suspicion of criminal conduct arise in relation to a student while off-campus. A Nebraska statute actually requires the principal, or a principal’s designee, to report suspected violations of Nebraska‘s criminal code to law enforcement personnel, who are better trained in the circumstances that would allow a lawful warrantless search of a vehicle.[15]   In a colorful analogy, Rich McGowan, the attorney for J.P., compared off-campus searches by school officials to the “tactics…employed by the dean of students in the movie ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.’”[14] The overzealous dean’s attempt to catch Ferris Bueller in the act while playing hooky led the dean to conduct an “illegal search” of Ferris’s home. While the methods of the movie’s dean were outlandish, and would not likely ever be at issue in the future, McGowan used this example to “convince the Millard schools to overturn the suspension of his client”, according to an Omaha World Herald article.[14]

Copyrights, sexual abuse, pay cuts and school vouchers

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation Join Our Mailing List Email: For Email Marketing you can trust In this issue… Featured case News from Utah News from Indiana News from Massachusetts News from Iowa News from Ohio

Featured case Appellate court says Grooveshark is liable for copyright infringement for old recordings [hide]  Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division On April 23, 2013, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, tackled the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ruling that its safe harbor provisions don’t apply to songs recorded before 1972.[1] University Music Group had sued online music website Grooveshark for copyright infringement. Websites such as Grooveshark and YouTube, where music may be uploaded by users and then accessed for free by others, are prime candidates for lawsuits by record labels. That’s one reason why, in 1998, the DMCA was passed.[2] This law includes a safe harbor provision which states that websites are not liable for copyrighted material that their users upload, as long as they comply with take-down notices once a copyright infringement is brought to their attention. In the recent New York decision, judges pointed out that the DMCA does not apply to pre-1972 recordings. They thus ruled that Grooveshark is liable for copyright infringement regarding those older songs. This reversed a trial court ruling. The judges wrote, “ It is not unreasonable, based on the statutory language and the context in which the DMCA was enacted, to [conclude] …that Congress intended for the DMCA only to apply to post-1972 works.[1] ” Grooveshark’s lawyers had argued that the whole purpose of the DMCA was so that websites didn’t have to keep such careful tabs on user infringements. They said that this would be negated if the safe harbor provision didn’t apply to the old recordings. The court rejected this notion. They decided that applying the safe harbors provision to pre-1972 songs would unfairly limit Universal’s common law rights.   Similar cases have been ruled in favor of the websites in federal court. Grooveshark could still appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.[1]

News from Utah Guilty plea stands in Utah sex abuse case [hide]  Court: Utah Court of Appeals In February 2011, Keith Brown plead guilty to sexually abusing his now-adult daughters when they were children.[3] Recently, his attorney requested leave to appeal his guilty plea, citing a misplea. Brown plead guilty to one-count of sodomy on a child and two counts of sexual abuse of a child. Both are felonies, first and second degrees, respectively. The first degree felony for sodomy resulted in a 10 year minimum sentence and the two second degree felonies for sexual abuse resulted in a 15 year sentence. The prosecution agreed with Brown’s attorney, Taylor Hartley, to request that the two sentences be served concurrently. Hartley, however, filed a motion for misplea with the Utah Fourth Judicial District in November 2012, but that court denied the request, stating it no longer had jurisdiction to handle the matter. Hartley then filed his motion with the Utah Court of Appeals. In it, he argued that the plea colloquy was improper as Brown was not in “a . . . physical or mental condition to understand the deal he was making.”[4] Hartley went on to state that the court should have noticed Brown was in an unfit condition. Brown had been involved in a severe car accident shortly before pleading guilty and still had lacerations and bruising. Additionally, Harley indicated “[t]he drugs put him in a state where his answers during the plea colloquy were inaudible and inaccurate.”[4] Instead, Hartley asserted the district court should have inquired into Brown’s state and continued the matter until a later date. Despite Hartley’s most persuasive arguments, the court denied the request to hear Brown’s appeal, stating: “The failure to file a timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea extinguishes a defendant’s right to challenge the validity of the guilty plea on appeal.”[4] Brown’s children are in a classical music group known as the 5 Browns. The children, three girls and two sons, have distanced themselves from their father, who is now in prison and no longer manages their musical careers.[5]   Interestingly, Brown was represented by Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union in his 2011 guilty plea.[3]	News from Indiana Indiana school voucher program upheld, expansion likely [hide]  Court: Indiana Supreme Court Indiana citizens hoping to use their tax dollars for private school tuition have been given the green light after a two-year debate between teachers unions and school choice supporters—but the controversy is not over.[6] The Indiana Supreme Court ruling on March 26, issued by Marion County Judge Michael D. Keele, came as a blow to the school officials, teachers and parents who sued the state in 2011 on grounds that the school voucher program violated the Indiana Constitution. In the lawsuit, opponents of the program—which is fast becoming one of the largest in the nation—claimed that it disregarded the state’s duty to provide free and “uniform” public education, also claiming that vouchers unfairly redistribute much-needed funds from public schools to religious organizations.[6] Argued Judge Keele, scholarship recipients are free to choose to use the funding for education at a public, secular private, or religious private school—a conclusion consistent with that of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 when it found Cleveland’s voucher program similarly constitutional.[7] Indiana State Teachers Association vice president Teresa Meredith, listed as the plaintiff in the case, commented, “ Fundamentally at the bottom of it all, we are on very different philosophical ground about what taxpayer dollars should be used for. This is funding a religious activity with public dollars.[7] ” Since the program’s inception, an increasing number of low-income families have redirected tax dollars from their public school district to pay tuition when their children transfer to private schools. Indiana’s program is the fastest growing in history, having distributed 3,919 vouchers in its first year and 9,324 in its second. And now, since the Indiana Supreme Court moved to uphold the law, the central debate has shifted from the program’s overall constitutionality to the possibility of its expansion.[6] Legislators are drawing near to a vote on the expansion bill, which, supported by Governor Mike Pence, could significantly increase the number of students eligible for vouchers this fall.[8] The bill would extend vouchers to special education students, income-qualified siblings of students already using vouchers, and children living within the boundaries of schools rated D or F by the state’s Department of Education.[7]   Democrats, outnumbered 37-13 in the state Senate and 69-31 in the House, continue to push against the bill. A final vote is expected before the legislature adjourns on April 29.[8]
News from Massachusetts Court rules that sharing marijuana is not a crime, growing it is [hide]  Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on April 5, 2013, ruled on four cases dealing with marijuana arrests. Since voters decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of the drug in 2008, the court ruled that sharing a blunt is not a crime. The rulings clarified the state’s relatively new law regarding marijuana.[9] One of the rulings involved Kityan Jackson, who was seen sharing a joint at the 2010 Hempfest at Boston Common. When police saw him pass the joint, they went up and searched his backpack, though they didn’t have a warrant. There they found 10 small bags of marijuana that, together, weighed less than an ounce. Though Jackson was initially prosecuted for possession with intent to distribute, the Supreme Judicial Court threw out the conviction because no crime was committed by sharing the joint. Justice Fernande Duffly wrote, in the unanimous ruling, “ We now decide that the social sharing of marijuana is akin to simple possession, and does not constitute the facilitation of a drug transfer from seller to buyer that remains the hallmark of drug distribution.[10] ” In two other cases, the court ruled against evidence found when police conducted a search based on public marijuana consumption by the defendants. For example, the court threw out illegal gun possession charges against Daniel Clinton and Alyson Tayetto because police found the gun through an unauthorized search of their car after having been informed that the two possessed a small amount of marijuana. However, the court did crack down on a man who was found growing marijuana in 2010. He was in possession of less than one ounce of the drug, but his closet was set up to grow the plant, complete with lights and a thermometer. Justice Margot Botsford wrote, “ [T]he word ‘cultivate’ refers to the process of growing a plant or crop, not the purpose for which the plant or crop is grown. Accordingly, we hold that the cultivation of one ounce or less of marijuana, regardless of its intended use, is a criminal offense.[10] ”	News from Iowa Iowa Supreme Court justices may face pay cuts for decision supporting same-sex marriage [hide]  Court: Supreme Court of Iowa A few justices for the Supreme Court of Iowa are at risk of having their pay cut drastically for a decision made in a case in April of 2009.[11] The case was Varnum v. Brien, originally brought in the District Court in Polk County, by several same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the county recorder. Judge Robert B. Hanson granted the couples summary judgment and the county recorder appealed.[12] Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote the opinion for a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Iowa, affirming the district court by holding that “the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.”[12] Now, three years later, lawmakers in Iowa are attempting to amend the judicial branch budget bill in a way that would reduce the justices’ salaries from about $163,000 annually to only $25,000.[13][14] According to CBS Channel 4 News, “the pay cut wouldn’t be implemented unless voters approved a constitutional amendment stating that marriage was between a man and a woman.”[14] In Iowa, such an amendment would require approval by two legislative assemblies which were elected in consecutive elections before it could be put to the voters to be adopted.[14] According to the Huffington Post, State Representative Tom W. Shaw stated that lawmakers were “just holding [the justices] responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds.”[11] Not all legislative members share this view. State Senator Rob Hogg called the amendment “ridiculous” and, according to the Huffington Post, noted that “the court routinely interprets state law” and that the “Legislature is free to pass clarifying language.”[11] The pay cut would only impact those justices who participated in the unanimous decision, and Senator Hogg feels as though the pay cut will not withstand a court challenge.[11] Iowa made history in the 2010 retention election when voters ousted three of the justices involved in the gay marriage ruling: David Baker, Marsha Ternus and Michael Streit (see: Iowa judicial elections, 2010). That was the first time any state Supreme Court judge was not retained.
News from Ohio Judge Wagner’s Domestic-Violence Court [hide]  Court: Toledo Municipal Court, Ohio Judge Michelle Wagner of the Toledo Municipal Court in Ohio has proposed a plan for a specialized domestic-violence docket in hopes of addressing the system’s failure to protect the victims of domestic violence, which has resulted in the deaths of 70 Toledo women in the past decade.[15] Judge Wagner’s plan calls for one judge to handle all domestic violence cases, which would allow that judge to develop not only the legal knowledge and base to handle any domestic violence case, but it would also allow that judge to acquire the astute skills needed to assess any threats faced by the victims. Currently, a typical domestic-violence case can have several judges presiding over it at various steps along the line. Having one judge handle all domestic violence cases in one docket would, according to the Toledo Blade, “give the court memory and each case continuity” and could make “miscommunication and lack of communication less likely”.[15][16] According to Adam Loukx, the city’s law director, the Toledo Prosecutor’s Office, in conjunction with Judge Wagner’s plan, is establishing a “domestic violence unit” consisting of two prosecutors who will focus on domestic violence. This would allow for those prosecutors to develop trust and a familiarity with victims.[16]   Currently, in the Toledo courts, about 58% of the 1,500 domestic violence cases resolved last year were dismissed, largely due to the victims’ failure to appear in court. A hearing to approve the proposed docket will take place in May.[16]

1. For sale: Submerged lands

   In 1970, voters in Florida approved an amendment to the state constitution that restricted state sales of submerged lands to instances in which the sale is in the public interest.

2. Beverage container refunds

   Did you ever look at a bottle or can and wonder why your state isn’t one of the ones that allows a 5 or ten cent refund? Guess what, it might have been a ballot measure! Washington (in 1970), Alaska (in 1978) and Colorado (in 1982) defeated amendments that would have mandated a refund on beverage containers.

3. Repealing wildlife regulations

   In 1940, voters in the Show Me state voted down a proposed measure that would have repealed the Wildlife and Forestry Code as well as all laws and regulations ordained and established by the Conservation Commission.

4. Arizona’s State sovereignty

   In 2012, Arizona voters struck down an amendment that would have given Arizona control over the state’s natural resources, including land, air, water, minerals, and wildlife. Yes, that would likely have included Grand Canyon National Park.

5. Outdoor advertising

   Voters in Missouri voted against a 2000 amendment that would have prohibited the construction of new outdoor advertising and restrict existing outdoor advertising along all national highway system highways in the state. Alaska faced a similar question two years earlier, and voters there opted to make the state “be forever free of billboards.”

6. Timber harvesting showdown in Maine

   In 1996, the issue of clear cutting and timber harvesting was on the Maine state ballot in a unique way. Voters had to choose one of three options: approve a proposed change to the laws that was initiated by a citizen petition (2A), approve a competing measure passed by the state legislature (2B), or reject both (2C). That year, the legislatively-referred measure passed with 47.4% of the vote. But because the measure did not receive a majority of the vote, it was re-submitted for the next statewide election as a separate measure. In 1997, the measure was defeated.

About Ballotpedia
Established in 2007, Ballotpedia is an online almanac about state elections and election law. It includes information about the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, ballot measures (including ballot measure law, school bond and tax elections, recall elections and local ballot measures), and state executives. Ballotpedia’s staff includes 15 researchers and writers, as well as volunteer writers and editors. It is published by the non-profit, non-partisan Lucy Burns Institute, which is based in Madison, Wisconsin.

For a District by District break down, see: Federal Court Vacancy Warning System

The vacancy warning level for the U.S. Federal courts is currently set at Blue. There was one new confirmation this past week, leaving the final tally at 83 vacancies or approximately 9.6% of the total Article III posts currently unfilled. The vacancy information for the various court levels is as follows:

There are currently 9 Supreme Court posts, 179 appellate court posts and 680 district court posts for a total of 868 Article III judges. This count includes four temporary posts, one each in the Northern District of Alabama, District of Arizona, Southern District of Florida and the Central District of California. This also includes two shared post between the two Missouri districts and the two Kentucky districts, which count as two posts with separate vacancies.

Weekly map

The new weekly map feature will be updated every week and posted here and on the vacancy warning level analysis page.

New confirmations

Third Circuit

On April 9, 2013, the United States Senate confirmed Patty Shwartz to an Article III post for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with vote of 64-34.^[1][2] Shwartz was originally nominated on October 5, 2011, by Barack Obama to the seat vacated by Maryanne Barry upon her retirement.. At the time of nomination, Nunley was a magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She was rated Unanimously Well Qualified by the American Bar Association. She had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 15, 2012 and you can find her Committee Questionnaire Available Here, her Questions for the Record Available Here and her Renomination Questions for the Record available here. ^[3] The confirmation fills the only vacancy on the court of fourteen, lowering the vacancy warning level from Blue to Green.

New vacancies

There were no new vacancies this past week.

New nominations

There were no new nominations made this past week.

While there are no new certifications to report this week, the action is heating up as deadlines loom and campaigns for 2014. Two states loom large today, Colorado, in both ballot law and general ballot news, and Michigan, which is seeing activity on the environmental front. Several ballot measure will also be decided today in local elections in Colorado.

Last week we mentioned that a number of groups filed paper work for upcoming ballot campaigns, specifically one related to public school funding, in Colorado. Another high profile proposal submitted to the legislative council concerns health care in the state, or access to it, to be more specific.

Donna Smith is sponsoring not one, but two ballot proposals that would affect health access in Colorado. The first is the Public Health Insurance Amendment, which would establish a universal statewide public health insurance program. The second is the Right to Health Care Amendment, which would enshrine the right to health care in the state constitution.

Smith, who is also executive director of Health Care for All Colorado, said that, “Access to health care is a human right, it’s not something that should be bought and sold as a commodity.” Supporters also say that employment based health care leaves a lot of people uninsured either because their employers do not offer it or they are between jobs.

The proposals are certainly not without their critics, however. Linda Gorman, health care analyst for the libertarian Independence Institute, said that single-payer systems, “eliminate treatment and physician choice, make everyone wait for care, degrade the infrastructure needed to diagnose and cure disease, and result in widespread denial of care to those who are seriously ill.”

Both measures are initiated constitutional amendments and will require 86,105 valid signatures before they are certified for the ballot. Smith says her group is planning to gather around 100,00 names to provide for a comfortable cushion.^[1]

Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) has recently introduced a bill repealing a section of the Nevada constitution declaring that only marriages between one man and one woman will be recognized by the state. However, even if the proposal gain majority approval in the state legislature this year, it would be only the beginning. The bill would also need majority approval in the next legislative session, which is in 2015. Then voters would finally get a chance to weigh in on the issue in 2016.

Even if the proposal survives all these hurdles it still would not actually legalize same-sex marriage. The legislature would get the first chance to do that in 2017, the session following the statewide vote.

Supporters are optimistic, however, Vanessa Spinaloza, a lobbyist for the ACLU who helped work on the proposal, said that she was confident that a majority of the state legislature would support repealing the constitutional language. According to Spinaloza, a proposal was considered that would repeal the ban and legalize same-sex marriage simultaneously, but it was rejected for lack of support.^[2]

In other interesting news from out West, the Idaho State Legislature is currently fast-tracking a new bill to fix some issues in its recently passed Senate Bill 1108. That bill, SB 1108, created tighter restrictions on signature gathering for ballot measure campaigns in the state. It increased the number of signatures required, as well as, created new georgraphic distribution requirements for those names.

The new bill, SB 1191, relaxes some of these new provisions, possibly because lawmakers feared they were vague and unconstitutional. It removes the requirement that petitions contain only signatures from a single legislative district. The new bill also removes the requirement that petition signers state their legislative district when they sign their name. Lawmakers claims these corrections will make the petition gathering process easier and clearer.^[3]

2014 watch

Join Our Mailing List Email: For Email Marketing you can trust

After seeing quite a bit of initiative activity in 2012, Michigan is shaping up to be another state to watch in 2014.

On Wednesday, March 27, the environmental coalition called Keep Michigan Wolves Protected submitted 253,705 signatures to the Michigan secretary of state’s office for a referendum on a bill allowing for the hunting of wolves in the Upper Peninsula.

Because it is a veto referendum, enough preliminary signatures could mean a temporary suspension of the law until a statewide vote on the issue in November 2014. The number required for the suspension is 161,305 valid names, but reports indicate that it could take several months for state election officials to verify the signatures.

Despite the opposition efforts to wolf hunting in the state, the practice is not currently legal because wildlife officials never announced the creation of a season for the practice. A successful referendum would prevent that discussion from ever happening.

There are, however, organizations within the state that do support the possibility of a wolf hunting season and may lead campaigns to oppose the referendum.

One such group is the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC), which has called the humane society an “anti-hunting organization.” Erin McDonough, executive director of the group, said that, “The fact that HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) was able to collect the required number of signatures tells us nothing about the issue other than if you are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and target areas of the state without a wolf population and refuse to educate the public about the issue, you can collect a lot of signatures. MUCC believes that HSUS has vastly underestimated the intelligence level of Michigan’s residents and has grossly overestimated this state’s tolerance for out-of-state extremists attempting to buy election results.”

The Board of State Canvassers has 60 days from the filing of the signatures to determine their validity.^[4]

Michigan voters may also see another environmental initiative on the 2014 ballot, one that failed to secure enough signatures for last year’s election.

That measure is the Fracking Ban Initiative, an initiated state statute being sponsored by the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan. Specifically, the measure would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, to include a prohibition on the practice of horizontal hydraulic fracturing.^[5]

In order to successfully qualify for the ballot, the group will need to gather 258,088 signatures by the petition deadline on May 28, 2014.

Quick hits

• Important donors commit to funding an effort to get medical marijuana on the 2014 ballot in Florida, campaign may cost $10 million: Attorney John Morgan had this to say about the petition for a medical marijuana measure in Florida: “I’m prepared to keep raising money and writing checks until I get the signatures to put it on the ballot.” Ben Pollara, currently the treasurer of the medical marijuana campaign and the man responsible for originally recruiting John Morgan, is hopeful that, with the new backer, the campaign now has the funding and knowledge to put the measure before voters on the 2014 ballot, despite the estimated $10,000,000 it will cost to collect the nearly 700,000 necessary signatures. Pollara also expressed confidence that the measure was likely to pass if it did come to a vote, saying, “Looking at the poll, the support is really broad and I think there is room to grow our support. I don’t think there is going to be well-funded organized opposition to this. I think we’ve got a pretty decent chance if we get on the ballot.”^[6] A recent poll by People United for Medical Marijuana found that there was 70% support for medical marijuana legalization, while only 24% opposed it.^[7]

• North Dakota Senator looks to restrict costly initiatives, pointing to California as an example of what not to do: In a 28-19 vote, the full North Dakota Senate rubber-stamped an amendment that would require 40% state legislature approval of any citizen-initiated measure costing more than $50 million. If this amendment is adopted, any measure initiated by citizens and approved in an election would then go to a three-member commission to determine the cost of the measure. If the cost is found to be greater than $50 million, the measure would go to the legislature, where anything less than 40% approval would overturn it. Senator David Hogue is the main supporter and sponsor of this bill and argued that, if strategies like this are not employed to protect the State from financial disaster caused by costly initiatives, North Dakota could see the same fate as California, which is currently more than $335 billion in the red. Hogue was motivated to push this bill by recent efforts to pass expensive initiatives, one of which would have reportedly cost the state $1.8 billion. Hogue blames expensive citizen-initiated measures for much of California’s current debt problems and, concerning voters deciding important financial questions, Hogue said, “You cannot make good spending decisions at the ballot box… California was once the most prosperous state in the nation and they had the budget surpluses we enjoy today.”^[8]

Spotlight

Over 200 local measures being decided today, including a Nuclear Weapon funding prohibition and nearly a billion dollars in requested bond money.

Colorado Florida Missouri Wisconsin

With 217 measures on the ballots throughout cites, counties and school district across Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Wisconsin, local voters are all set to make big changes in their communities on issues ranging from term limits and salaries of local officials and school bonds and taxes to corporate free speech and prohibiting nuclear weapon production financing.

Throughout Missouri and Wisconsin there are 78 bond measures requesting a total of $941,768,000 in bond money, $852,970,000 of which is being requested by local school districts. Also in Missouri, Kansas City voters have the chance to prohibit the city government from financing or offering any incentives to the Honeywell nuclear weapon plant, which provides 80% of the components for U.S. nuclear weapon production.

In Colorado, there is an effort to increase the salaries of city commissioners in the City of Colorado Springs. This is, according to supporters of the measure, the only way to get young and low-income people to become active in government and thus provide proper representation of the residents.

And in Wisconsin, two cities join the growing movement of local voters requesting country-wide limitations of corporate free speech and campaign donation rights through a constitutional amendment.

To see all of the 2013 local ballot measure elections covered by Ballotpedia follow this page throughout the year.

Ballot Law Update

• Ban on pay-per-signature practice in Colorado overturned: On Monday, April 1, 2013, federal district judge Philip Brimmer overturned the portion of HB 1326 (2009) banning paying petitioners on a by-signature basis. Judge Brimmer ruled that those sections of the law violated First Amendment rights. The lawsuit was first filed in 2010 by the Independence Institute, headed by activist Jon Caldara. Caldera claimed that House Bill 1326 would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the basis of restricting freedom of speech. Caldara also argued that restricting pay-per-signature would make it more expensive to conduct initiative campaigns. Arguments were heard in the District of Colorado federal court on May 13, 2010 on the matter.^[9]

At the time of writing, the Colorado Attorney General had not decided whether or not to file an appeal of the decision.^[10]

• Kansas voters could see clearer ballot language in near future: The Kansas State Senate voted on Monday, March 25, in approval of a new law that would would allow election officials to request a state official write an “explainer” when a ballot measure’s language is deemed too confusing for voters to easily understand. The law, House Bill 2162, does not require that the explainer be placed directly on the ballot, but rather requires that it be posted at polling places. The drive for clearer ballot language was ignited following a vote in Wichita on whether the developer of a downtown hotel should be entitled to a tax break. Because of the measure’s confusing wording, polling places were bombarded with phone calls, but officials were not allowed to say anything other than “Yes means yes. No means no.”^[11]

For a District by District break down, see: Federal Court Vacancy Warning System

The vacancy warning level for the U.S. Federal courts is currently set at Blue. There was one new confirmation this past week, leaving the final tally at 85 vacancies or approximately 9.8% of the total Article III posts currently unfilled. The vacancy information for the various court levels is as follows:

There are currently 9 Supreme Court posts, 179 appellate court posts and 680 district court posts for a total of 868 Article III judges. This count includes four temporary posts, one each in the Northern District of Alabama, District of Arizona, Southern District of Florida and the Central District of California. This also includes two shared post between the two Missouri districts and the two Kentucky districts, which count as two posts with separate vacancies.

Weekly map

The new weekly map feature will be updated every week and posted here and on the vacancy warning level analysis page.

Cloture vote

On March 6, 2013 the United States Senate held a cloture vote on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The vote failed to achieve the required 60 votes with a vote of 51-41. The nomination will most likely be returned to the President shortly. ^[1]

New confirmations

Southern District of New York

On March 4, 2013, the United States Senate confirmed Katherine Failla to an Article III post for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with vote of 91-0.^[2][3] Failla was originally appointed on June 26, 2012, by Barack Obama to the seat vacated by Denise Cote. At the time of appointment, Failla was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. She was rated Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified by the American Bar Association. She had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 19, 2012, and you can find her Committee Questionnaire Available Here, her Questions for the Record Available Here and her Renomination Questions for the Record Available Here.^[4] The confirmation fills the the one of six vacancies on the court of twenty-eight, leaving the vacancy warning level unchanged at Yellow.

Eastern District of New York

On March 4, 2013, the United States Senate confirmed Pamela Ki Mai Chen to an Article III post for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with voice vote.^[2][5] Chen was originally appointed on August 2, 2012, by Barack Obama to the seat vacated by Raymond Dearie. At the time of appointment, Chen was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. She was rated Unanimously Qualified by the American Bar Association. She had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 19, 2012 and you can find her Committee Questionaire Available Here, her Questions for the Record Available Here and her Renomination Questions for the Record Available Here.^[4] The confirmation fills the the only vacancy on the court of fifteen, lower the vacancy warning level from Blue to Green.

New vacancies

Southern District of Texas

On March 2, 2013, Kenneth Hoyt assumed senior status for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas after serving on the court for nearly 15 years.^[6] Hoyt first joined the court on April 1, 1988, after an appointment from Ronald Reagan. At the time of his appointment he was a Justice of the Texas First District Court of Appeals. Born in Saint Augustine, Texas, Hoyt graduated from the Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas with his Bachelor’s degree in 1969 and received a Juris Doctor degree from Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1972.^[7] The transition to senior status creates the third vacancy on the court of nineteen, leaving the vacancy warning level unchanged at Yellow.

New appointments

There were no new appointments this past week.

Edited by Geoff Pallay

MADISON, Wisconsin: It’s official: Nebraskans have a new lieutenant governor and those not paying close attention may confuse him with the currentgovernor. On February 13, Gov. Dave Heineman (R) appointed former state senator Lavon Heidemann to fill the vacancy. Due to the similarity in their names, Heidemann joked that he’s often mistaken for the governor. That role, however, is one he will not be holding. Gov. Heinemann insisted on appointing someone who would not run for governor in 2014, something Heidemann said he agreed to.^[1]

Heidemann represented District 1 in the Nebraska State Senate from 2005 until 2013. He was unable to run for re-election due to term limits. Last November he was elected to a position on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Board of Regents. Heidemann said that, while he regrets leaving the Board so soon after starting his term, he is “excited for this opportunity to serve the people of Nebraska.”^[2]

Until February 2, the lieutenant governor was Rick Sheehy, a Republican appointed in 2005 and elected in 2006 and 2010. Sheehy resigned his post as lieutenant governor on the heels of an investigative report from The World Herald that revealed he had abused his state-issued cell phone privileges by making thousands of personal phone calls to women over the previous four years. “I had trusted him and that trust was broken,” Gov. Heineman explained at a press conference announcing Sheehy’s resignation the morning of Feb. 2.^[3]

Incumbent Gov. Heineman is barred by term limits from seeking re-election in 2014.^[4] Heineman intended to enthusiastically back Sheehy as his successor until the scandal broke.^[5] With Sheehy, the previous front-runner, out of the running, other potential candidates emerged with renewed hope: A few weeks after Sheehy’s resignation and subsequent withdrawal from the race, state Sen. Charlie Janssen declared his candidacy. Although he is a member of the non-partisan of the Nebraska Legislature, Janssen is running for governor on the Republican ticket.^[6] Other potential candidates include state Sen. Beau McCoy (R), state Treasurer Don Stenberg (R), state Auditor Mike Foley (R), and state Sen. Steve Lathrop (D).

Happenings

Federal healthcare exchanges

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, states were given three choices

• Setting up their own health exchange
• Leaving it up to the federal government
• Creating a joint system.

The deadline for deciding came last Friday. The final breakdown is that 26 state health exchanges will be run by the federal government, 17 states and the District of Columbia will run their own exchange, while 7 states will share the responsibility with federal officials.

As was expected, there was a clear divide along party lines, with the majority of Republican-led states leaving it up to the feds and majority of Democratic-led states running their own. Not all states went that way, however. Four states with Republican governors - Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah - will be running their own exchange, while two states with Democratic governors - Missouri andMontana - passed on that option. Rhode Island, home to the nation’s only Independent governor, will also run a health exchange.^[7]

The seven states planning on a joint partnership exchange are: Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire and West Virginia. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stressed the fact that those states who opted out of a state-run or partnership exchange will have the choice to run their own in future years.^[8]

Elections

2013

See also: State executive official elections, 2013

State Executive Official Elections Results in 2013
Office	Incumbent	Incumbent Party	Incumbent Running?	2013 Winner	Partisan switch?
Governor of New Jersey	Chris Christie	Republican	Yes	Pending
Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey	Kim Guadagno	Republican	Yes	Pending
Governor of Virginia	Bob McDonnell	Republican	No	Pending
Lieutenant Governor of Virginia	Bill Bolling	Republican	No	Pending
Attorney General of Virginia	Ken Cuccinelli	Republican	No (running for governor)	Pending
Superintendent of Wisconsin	Tony Evers	Non-partisan	Yes	Pending

There are three states holding state executive official elections in 2013 – New Jersey, Virginia and Wisconsin. A total of six officials will be elected. The attention-grabbing positions up for election are Governor of New Jersey and Governor of Virginia. Both made The Washington Post’s list of the top 5 races to watch in 2013.

Wisconsin

The first state executive election in 2013 will take place in Wisconsin, incumbent Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Eversis running for re-election. Unlike previous elections where multiple challengers filed to run, Evers only had one challenger submit the necessary signatures required to appear on the ballot.^[9][10] The filing deadline passed on January 2, 2013.^[9] This negated the need for the scheduled February 19, 2013 primary election. The two will instead face off in the general election on April 2nd.^[11]

Virginia

Heading into the 2013 election, all three state executive offices up for election this year in Virginia are occupied by Republicans, and none are running for re-election to their current posts. Term-limited Governor Bob McDonnell cannot run, and Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli is vying to replace to him. Meanwhile, incumbent Bill Bolling decided to pursue the governorship rather than seek another term as Lt. Governor, only to find himself shunted aside by Cuccinelli and his party’s decision to change the primary candidate selection format from election to convention. Cuccinelli secured the GOP nomination for governor, being the only member of his party to file by the convention’s Jan. 13th deadline, leaving Bolling to explore an alternative track to the ballot, most likely as an Independent candidate. He is expected to make a formal announcement about his candidacy on March 14, 2013.^[12] Seven Republican candidates filed for Bolling’s seat, while two entered the race to replace Cuccinelli as attorney general.

Democratic primary candidates have until March 28 to file their nominating petitions with the state board of elections. They will be elected at the taxpayer funded primary election on June 11, and the Republican nominee will be voted on by delegates of the Virginia Republican Party at the party-funded statewide primary convention on May 18. The following list of Republican primary conventioncandidates is official as of January 13, 2013:

Lieutenant Governor candidates

•  Pete Snyder - Fox News commentator, tech entrepreneur^[13]
•  Corey Stewart - Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors
•  Scott Lingamfelter^[14]
•  Stephen Martin^[15][16]
•  Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis (former State Senator)^[17]
•  Susan Stimpson – Chairwoman of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors
•  E.W. Jackson – Chesapeake minister, former U.S. Senate candidate.

Attorney General candidates

• Rob Bell - a current state Delegate^[18]
• Mark Obenshain - a current state Senator

New Jersey

One by one, names of potential Democratic candidates for New Jersey Governor have defected to a new list of names- supporters of presumptive nominee Barbara Buono, a state Senator and currently the only individual from her party to formalize a gubernatorial bid for the upcoming election. On February 2, 2013, Buono’s campaign reported that it had surpassed the fundraising threshold to qualify for the public funding program whereby candidates who raise at least $380,000 can accept campaign funds from the state–controlled by the state election law enforcement commission–in amount proportionate to what the campaign receives directly from the public.^[19] The purpose of the program is to lessen the influence of corporate contributions in elections;^[20] candidates who choose to accept public funds may not spend more than $12.2 million on their gubernatorial campaigns, and the maximum amount of public (tax-generated) funds that any candidate may receive is $8.2 million.^[21] New Jersey employs a two-to-one matching program for qualified contributions.

By the time Buono reached the qualifying mark, incumbent Chris Christie (R) had already raised $2 million for his re-election campaign. Unlike in 2009, Christie stated that he will not accept matching funds in the 2013 primary.^[20] Despite Buono’s expanding campaign coffer and list of endorsements, which now includes the Democratic Governors’ Association, she faces what appears to be an uphill battle. The incumbency advantage aside, Christie’s fundraising prowess and popularity–especially since Hurricane Sandy–among heavyweights from both major parties shield him against an upset in November.

Indeed, a Quinnipiac University Poll released February 20, 2013 reaffirmed Christie’s popularity with New Jersey voters post-Hurricane Sandy. At 74% job approval – “the highest of any New Jersey governor in 17 years of Quinnipiac University surveys” – and 71-23% believing that Christie deserves to win re-election in 2013, the governor is the clear favorite for the 2013 gubernatorial race.^[22]According to the poll, Christie’s strength is just one of Buono’s weaknesses heading into the primary election season. In a head-to-head match-up, respondents preferred Christie to Buono 62-25, a wide margin that the poll summary suggests is related to her anonymity: 83% of respondents said they did not know enough to form an opinion about Buono. Somewhat ominously for the Buono campaign, this figure indicates that her name recognition has diminished slightly since voters were last asked about her back in Jan. 2013.

Appointments

Kansas

The Kansas State Senate unanimously confirmed Lana Gordon as the state’s Secretary of Labor on February 7. Gordon had been serving as interim secretary since September 2012 when Gov. Sam Brownback (R) asked Karin Brownlee to step down for undisclosed reasons.^[23][24][25]

Brownlee said she did not leave the position voluntarily and did not sign a letter of resignation. “I think the governor and I measure performance in different ways. It’s hard to understand,” she stated.^[26]

Gordon is a former Republican member of the Kansas House of Representatives. She represented District 52 from 2001 until her appointment to the department of labor by Gov. Brownback on September 20, 2012.^[24]

Oklahoma

Glenn Coffee resigned the position of Oklahoma Secretary of State on January 31, 2013 in order to return to the private sector.^[27] Michelle Day, who had been serving as Assistant Secretary of State since January 2011, was named as an interim replacement for Coffee.^[28] On February 14, Gov. Mary Fallin (R) named Larry Parman as a permanent replacement. He will take office on March 1.^[29]

Parman, an attorney, has been chief executive officer of Parman & Easterday since 1985. He has been a partner with Notch It Up Strategies, LLC since January 2008, and a partner with CEO Maestro since January 2006. He previously served as President of The Hawthorne Group from June 2001 to December 2003.^[30]

Oklahoma is one of 12 states that appoint the position of Secretary of State.

This week in State Executive Trivia

 Which state executive official won election in 2012 with the most votes; which was elected with the fewest votes?

There were 88 total “elections” on November 6, 2012. The race with the most votes to assume state executive office was Christi Craddick in the Texas Railroad Commissioner election.

The fewest votes received was Carolyn Kennedy Shearman, who garnered 35,889 votes in the New Mexico Public Education Commission District 9 race. Sherman ran unopposed. The candidate to receive the fewest votes in a competitive race was Kirk Bushman, who won a seat on the Montana Public Service Commission in a race with 89,972 votes cast.

By Geoff Pallay

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama: A special election is scheduled for February 26 to fill a vacancy in District 97 of the Alabama House of Representatives.

Yvonne Kennedy (D) died on December 8, 2012. Gov. Robert Bentley (R) scheduled a special election to fill the vacancy, with a primary on February 26, 2013. However, no Republican candidates filed for the seat, which in turn has turned the primary into the general election.^[1][2]

Here are the seven Democratic candidates vying for the seat:

• William Carroll
• Karlos Finley
• Jeffery Ray Jones
• Levi Wright, Jr.
• Kimberly Williams Pettway
• Ronnie L. Williams
• Adline C. Clarke

In 2010, Kennedy won election without any opposition in the general election.

By Justin Haas

HARTFORD, Connecticut: A bill seeking to prevent candidates convicted of political corruption from obtaining public campaign funding is now before the Connecticut General Assembly. The bill was inspired by the most recent arrest of former state senator Ernie Newton.^[1]

Newton was initially convicted of corruption in 2005, after serving 18 years in the Connecticut State Senate. In 2012, he unsuccessfully ran for election to the Senate in an attempt to regain his old seat. He was then arrested in January 2013 and charged with fraud after obtaining $80,550 in public campaign funding for the race.^[1]

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Edward Meyer (D), said “What this bill is saying is if you are convicted of a crime against the state, you should not get a financial benefit from the state. Up to $85,000 in campaign financing is a major benefit.” This is in reference to the Citizen’s Election Program, which provides up to $85,000 in public funding to candidates for state office if they raise $15,000 in private contributions. Newton was charged with reporting fraudulent contributions to obtain this money.^[1]

The bill has raised some concerns about civil rights and whether these types of prohibitions against felons who have already paid for their crimes are legal.^[1]

Newton said the following about the new bill, “If an ex-felon has a right to run for public office, he should be able to participate in every aspect of the game. “It means you’re penalized for the rest of your life.”^[1]

By Maresa Strano

AUSTIN, Texas: Aiming to boost Texas’ influence in Presidential primary nominations, state Senator Dan Patrick (R) filed a bill last week to change the state’s primary election date to the first week in February of even-numbered election years. Patrick makes the case that “For far too long the race for President has been all but decided by the time Texans get a chance to cast their ballot,” and holding the primary earlier in the election year is the solution.^[1] As such, Patrick expects support for Senate 452 will transcend party lines and result in its smooth passage.

The new primary schedule outlined under SB 452 includes a correspondingly earlier filing deadline for candidates running in the potential February election. If the bill is passed during the current session of the Texas Legislature, which began on Jan. 8 and runs through May 27, the adjustments would be applied immediately, shortening the timetable for individuals who had already been planning to run in the 2014 elections. Prospective candidates, Patrick among them, would have to file by the second week in November of this year.

Patrick is exploring a run for Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 2014. He would face incumbent Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, in the Republican primary.^[2]