Supreme Courts (State)

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares69 Views

    In Crucial Judicial Race in Wisconsin, G.O.P. Now Has a Financial Edge

    by

    Two years ago, Democratic money carried a liberal jurist to victory and swung the state’s high court to the left. Now, Elon Musk and other wealthy donors have given Republicans a chance to swing it back.The last time Wisconsin held an election for the state’s Supreme Court, Republicans cried foul over the wave of money from out-of-state Democrats that overwhelmed their candidate.Two years later, Republicans have learned their lesson. It is Democrats who are grappling with a flood of outside money inundating Wisconsin.A super PAC funded by Elon Musk has in just the past week spent $2.3 million on text messages, digital advertisements and paid canvassers to remind Wisconsin Republicans about the April 1 election, which pits Brad Schimel, a judge in Waukesha County and a former Republican state attorney general, against Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge who represented Planned Parenthood and other liberal causes in her private practice.The spending by Mr. Musk, the tech billionaire who is leading President Trump’s project to eviscerate large segments of the federal government, comes as Judge Schimel and his Republican allies have spent more money on television ads than Judge Crawford and Democrats have — a remarkable turnaround in a state where Democrats have had a significant financial advantage in recent years.“When I was a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be fighting the world’s richest man,” Judge Crawford told a crowd over the weekend at a campaign stop in Cambridge, Wis.As of Monday, Republicans had spent or reserved $13.9 million of television advertising time for the Wisconsin court race, compared with $10.7 million for Democrats, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. Because a larger chunk of Republican spending comes from super PACs, which pay a higher rate for TV ads than candidates do, the amount of advertising on Wisconsin’s airwaves has remained roughly equal. But the heavy Republican spending has eliminated what was a significant advantage for Democrats in the last such contest, in 2023.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares105 Views

      in Elections

      Musk and His Millions Enter Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

      by

      Elon Musk’s super PAC has spent $1 million on canvassing operations supporting the conservative candidate in the race, his first election spending after the 2024 campaign.Elon Musk’s super PAC is back.Mr. Musk, the country’s largest donor during the 2024 election, is returning to campaigns by funding a new effort to help elect Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is Mr. Musk’s first public political spending after Election Day.America PAC spent $1 million on canvassing operations in the state, according to a new campaign finance filing that became public Thursday. Pamphlets distributed to some Wisconsin homes read, “President Trump needs you to get out and vote,” and included a link to a website where voters could register to vote and learn about how to cast ballots early.A nonprofit organization that has historically been backed by Mr. Musk, Building America’s Future, this week began a $1.6 million-and-counting television campaign to bolster Judge Schimel, a former state attorney general who is now a judge in Waukesha County. But that group has other major donors and is not as directly tied to Mr. Musk as is America PAC, which is funded almost entirely by the billionaire.Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, but Judge Schimel has been endorsed by the Republican Party of Wisconsin, which is allowed by state campaign finance law to transfer unlimited sums to his campaign. The liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, has been endorsed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Judge Crawford sits on a court in Dane County, Wisconsin’s most Democratic county, which includes Madison.The April 1 election for a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court carries higher stakes than any election this year until the November contests for governor of New Jersey and Virginia. There is now a four-to-three liberal majority on the court, but Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who has sat on the court since 1995, is retiring, putting the court’s majority on the ballot.The state’s abortion laws, as well as its legislative and congressional district lines, are likely to be determined by whichever faction controls the state high court in coming months.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      N.C. Elections Board Rejects G.O.P. Effort to Toss 60,000 Ballots

      by

      The ruling comes in a dispute over a State Supreme Court race that the Democratic incumbent won by 734 votes.The North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected on Wednesday a Republican bid to throw out more than 60,000 votes in a closely contested election for a State Supreme Court seat that an incumbent Democrat won by 734 votes.Two recounts showed that Associate Justice Allison Riggs, the incumbent, had eked out a slim victory out of some 5.5 million ballots that were cast. The losing judge, Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, argued that the state’s failure to enforce technical aspects of registration and election laws should disqualify scores of thousands of voters, most or all of whom cast otherwise legal ballots.The Democrat-controlled elections board disagreed, in a series of votes that went largely along party lines. Republicans on the board called for further hearings to gather more evidence on the issues.“The idea that someone could have been registered to vote, came to vote and then has their vote discarded is anathema to the democratic system,” the board’s Democratic chairman, Allan Hirsch, said at the meeting.The chairman of the state Republican Party denounced the decision, saying that “the board’s continued efforts to engineer political outcomes for Democrats is shameful.”Judge Griffin, who currently sits on the State Court of Appeals, could appeal the ruling to a State Superior Court, kicking off a legal process that could end at the same State Supreme Court where Justice Riggs sits. Republicans hold a 5-to-2 majority on the court, which has been bitterly divided along partisan lines in recent years.The ruling on Wednesday also rejected attempts by three Republican state legislators to overturn their narrow losses on the same grounds.In a protest against the election results filed last month, Judge Griffin argued that upward of 60,000 voters should be disqualified because the state failed to enact one part of a 2004 law requiring new voters to provide a driver’s license or Social Security number when applying to vote. Voters who failed to list numbers should be ineligible, he said, even if they were unaware of the requirement.His complaint also sought to disqualify overseas voters who failed to submit a photo ID with their ballots in accordance with a new voter ID law. Those overseas voters also were not told of the requirement.Lawyers for Justice Riggs, as well as the state Democratic Party, argued that federal law bars throwing out votes for lack of a driver’s license or Social Security numbers. They also said that state law setting out the rules for overseas votes does not require a photo ID. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Mississippi Supreme Court District 1, Position 3 Runoff Election Results 2024

      by

      Source: Election results are from The Associated Press.By The New York Times election results team: Michael Andre, Emma Baker, Neil Berg, Andrew Chavez, Michael Beswetherick, Matthew Bloch, Lily Boyce, Irineo Cabreros, Nico Chilla, Nate Cohn, Alastair Coote, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Leo Dominguez, Tiff Fehr, Andrew Fischer, Martín González Gómez, Joyce Ho, Will Houp, Jon Huang, Junghye Kim, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Jasmine C. Lee, Joey K. Lee, Vivian Li, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Alicia Parlapiano, Jaymin Patel, Dan Simmons-Ritchie, Charlie Smart, Jonah Smith, Urvashi Uberoy, Isaac White and Christine Zhang
      Additional contributions by Grace Ashford, Luke Broadwater, Mathew Brownstein, Amanda Cordero Kenan Davis, Karoun Demirjian, Robert Draper, Catie Edmondson, Nick Fandos, Lalena Fisher, Patrick Hays, Robert Jimison, Annie Karni, Maya Miller, Julie Walton Shaver, Tracey Tully, Lisa Waananen Jones and Jessica White
      Edited by Wilson Andrews, Lindsey Rogers Cook, William P. Davis, Jonathan Ellis, Thomas Gaffney, Amy Hughes, Ben Koski, Allison McCartney and Rachel Shorey
      Source: Election results are from The Associated Press. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mississippi Runoff Election Results 2024

      by

      Source: Election results and race calls are from The Associated Press.By The New York Times election results team: Michael Andre, Emma Baker, Neil Berg, Andrew Chavez, Michael Beswetherick, Matthew Bloch, Lily Boyce, Irineo Cabreros, Nico Chilla, Nate Cohn, Alastair Coote, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Leo Dominguez, Tiff Fehr, Andrew Fischer, Martín González Gómez, Joyce Ho, Will Houp, Jon Huang, Junghye Kim, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Jasmine C. Lee, Joey K. Lee, Vivian Li, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Alicia Parlapiano, Jaymin Patel, Dan Simmons-Ritchie, Charlie Smart, Jonah Smith, Urvashi Uberoy, Isaac White and Christine Zhang
      Additional contributions by Grace Ashford, Luke Broadwater, Mathew Brownstein, Amanda Cordero Kenan Davis, Karoun Demirjian, Robert Draper, Catie Edmondson, Nick Fandos, Lalena Fisher, Patrick Hays, Robert Jimison, Annie Karni, Maya Miller, Julie Walton Shaver, Tracey Tully, Lisa Waananen Jones and Jessica White
      Edited by Wilson Andrews, Lindsey Rogers Cook, William P. Davis, Jonathan Ellis, Thomas Gaffney, Amy Hughes, Ben Koski, Allison McCartney and Rachel Shorey
      Source: Election results and race calls are from The Associated Press. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds Voting Rights for Felons

      by

      The Nebraska Supreme Court ordered the secretary of state on Wednesday to allow people with felony convictions to vote after finishing their sentences, resolving confusion about who can participate in this year’s election and rejecting an argument by the state attorney general that lawmakers overstepped in extending voting rights to those with convictions.The ruling, issued with early balloting in the state already underway and voter registration deadlines approaching quickly, will help shape the state’s electorate, which can carry special importance in presidential races because of the way Nebraska splits its Electoral College votes by congressional district rather than using the winner-takes-all approach of most states. Nebraska also has a competitive U.S. Senate race this year, as well as a tightly contested U.S. House race in the Omaha area. The ruling on Wednesday was expected to affect thousands of potential voters.Nebraska, which usually votes Republican in statewide races, was part of a national trend in loosening voting rules for people with criminal records. In 2005, lawmakers in the state abolished a lifetime voting ban for people convicted of felonies, but continued to require people to wait two years to vote after finishing their sentences. This year, in a bipartisan vote, lawmakers got rid of that waiting period, clearing the way for people to cast ballots immediately after finishing prison and parole terms.Gov. Jim Pillen, a Republican, allowed the bill to become law without his signature, but the measure attracted skepticism from Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Secretary of State Bob Evnen, both Republicans.Just before the new measure was set to take effect this summer, Mr. Hilgers released a written opinion saying that both the new law and the 2005 law were improper. He argued that under the Nebraska Constitution, only the state’s Board of Pardons could restore voting rights to someone with a felony conviction. Mr. Evnen then instructed county election officials to stop registering voters with felony convictions. The Board of Pardons is made up of Mr. Pillen, Mr. Hilgers and Mr. Evnen.Reached on Wednesday morning, Cindi Allen, a deputy secretary of state, said Mr. Evnen’s office planned to comment on the ruling on Wednesday afternoon. A spokeswoman for Mr. Hilgers said they were reviewing the ruling.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      In Retrial, Man Convicted of Murder of Transgender Woman

      by

      Rasheen Everett strangled Amanda Gonzalez-Andujar in her Queens apartment. His 2013 conviction was thrown out because of a judge’s error.For the second time, a Manhattan man has been found guilty in the 2010 murder of a transgender woman.The man, Rasheen Everett, was first convicted in 2013 of murdering Amanda Gonzalez-Andujar, 29, but a mistake by the judge overseeing the case led an appeals court to toss the conviction in 2021, forcing prosecutors to retry the case.On Thursday, a jury in Queens found Mr. Everett, 43, guilty of second-degree murder and of tampering with evidence. The killing was just one example of what the American Medical Association has declared an “epidemic” of violence against people who are transgender.In a statement, the Queens district attorney, Melinda Katz, said that prosecutors had been determined to pursue the case regardless of the years that had passed since Ms. Gonzalez-Andujar’s killing.“Upon a reversal of a conviction through no fault of the prosecutors, my office built a strong case against this individual once again, and we successfully proved that he callously murdered a young woman 14 years ago,” Ms. Katz wrote.On a March morning in 2010, Mr. Everett strangled Ms. Gonzalez-Andujar, who had advertised her services as a prostitute, in her apartment in Glendale, Queens. Then, prosecutors said, he doused her body in bleach in an attempt to destroy evidence of his crime and stayed in her apartment for more than a dozen hours. He also stole a camera, a laptop, a coat, a cellphone and keys from her apartment and fled to Las Vegas, according to prosecutors, where he was arrested days later. Prosecutors said that his DNA was found under Ms. Gonzalez-Andujar’s fingernails.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Ballot Drop Boxes Can Again Be Used

      by

      The decision by the court’s liberal majority, delivered four months before the November election, reverses a ruling by conservative jurists two years ago.The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s new liberal majority said on Friday that ballot drop boxes can once again be used widely in the state, reversing a ruling issued two years ago when the court had a conservative majority.On a practical level, the ruling changes how Wisconsin, a closely divided state that could tip the Electoral College, will carry out an election that is just four months away. On a symbolic level, the judicial U-turn is likely to fuel Republican claims that the court has become a nakedly partisan force — claims that Democrats made themselves not long ago, when most of the justices were conservatives.Drop boxes were used in Wisconsin for years as one of several ways, along with early in-person and mail-in voting, for voters to submit ballots before Election Day. The widespread use of drop boxes in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, drew the ire of Republicans and prompted a lawsuit that the court’s previous majority decided by mostly banning their use.“Our decision today does not force or require that any municipal clerks use drop boxes,” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal, wrote for the four-justice majority on Friday. “It merely acknowledges,” she added, what Wisconsin law “has always meant: that clerks may lawfully utilize secure drop boxes in an exercise of their statutorily conferred discretion.”Her conservative colleague, Justice Rebecca Bradley, disagreed, writing in a dissent that “the majority again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda.”The ruling on Friday is part of a broader push by Democrats and progressive groups to have the Wisconsin Supreme Court weigh in on some of the state’s thorniest policy issues. After liberals won a 4-to-3 majority last year, the court ordered the redrawing of state legislative district boundaries, which had long been gerrymandered to benefit Republicans. Earlier this week, the justices announced that they would hear a case that asks them to consider whether the State Constitution includes a right to abortion. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More