|
|
|
NC court blocks law stripping governor of election powers
Headline Legal News |
2017/02/13 10:10
|
North Carolina's Supreme Court on Monday again blocked a state law approved by Republicans that strips the new Democratic governor of powers to oversee elections.
A lower appeals court briefly let the law to take effect last week, allowing a revamped state elections board to meet for the first time Friday. It's one of the changes passed in late December that shift power over running elections away from Gov. Roy Cooper.
"We are pleased the Supreme Court has put the injunction back in place until the judges can hear and decide the full case" early next month, Cooper spokeswoman Noelle Talley wrote in an email.
The law ends the practice of allowing the governor's political party to hold majorities on all state and county elections boards. Instead of Democrats holding sway over running elections and resolving voting disputes, elections board positions would be evenly divided between major-party partisans.
Republicans would control elections during even-numbered years, when big races for president, legislature or other major statewide offices are held. The measure also merges the state ethics and elections boards into one.
Lawyers representing state House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, and Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, did not respond to emails seeking comment after the Supreme Court's decision.
Cooper, Moore and Berger are also fighting in court over another new law aiming to restrict the Democrat's ability to alter the state's recent conservative direction.
A panel of three state trial court judges is considering whether to continue blocking a law requiring Senate confirmation of Cooper's Cabinet secretaries.
The law requiring Senate consent to Cooper's top appointees came during a surprise special session barely a week after Republican incumbent Pat McCrory conceded to Cooper in their close gubernatorial race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competing bills target, affirm high court water decision
Headline Legal News |
2017/01/27 19:33
|
Some lawmakers are taking aim at a recent Washington Supreme Court decision that put the onus on counties to determine whether water is legally available in certain rural areas before they issue building permits.
One bill sponsored by Sen. Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake, amends parts of the state law at the heart of the ruling, known as the Hirst decision. County officials, builders, business and farm groups are among supporting the measure, while environmental groups and tribes oppose it.
A competing bill sponsored by Sen. John McCoy, D-Tulalip, supports the court decision and sets up a program to help counties find ways to meet the requirements.
In October, the high court ruled that Whatcom County failed to protect water resources by allowing new wells to reduce flow in streams for fish and other uses. The court said counties must ensure, independently of the state, that water is physically and legally available before they issue building permits in certain areas.
In the wake of the ruling, some counties have temporarily halted certain rural development, while others changed criteria for obtaining a building permit.
At issue is a struggle to balance competing needs of people and wildlife for limited water, a challenge that has played out across the state for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to unseal Clinton email search warrant
Headline Legal News |
2016/12/21 16:56
|
A federal court in New York is scheduled to release redacted copies Tuesday of the search warrant that allowed the FBI to dig into a trove of Hillary Clinton emails days before the presidential election.
The emails were found on a computer belonging to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide.
A judge ruled Monday that the public had a right to see the warrant application, but said portions would be blacked out to conceal information about an ongoing investigation involving Weiner.
Federal agents have been probing his online contact with a teenage girl.
The discovery of the emails prompted FBI Director James Comey (KOH'-mee) to briefly reopen an investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
French court restores far-right candidate's ties to father
Headline Legal News |
2016/12/07 23:51
|
French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen thought she had cut the political cord with her controversial father by expelling him from the far-right party he founded, but a court ruled Thursday Jean-Marie Le Pen still is the National Front's honorary president.
While campaigning in next spring's presidential election, Marine Le Pen has worked to smooth her image and distance herself from her father's extremist views and anti-Semitic comments. Kicking him out of the party was part of her strategy.
The civil court outside that heard Jean-Marie Le Pen's reinstatement claim upheld the National Front's decision last year to expel him as a rank-and-file member. But the court also ruled that the 88-year-old firebrand can remain the party's honorary president.
As a result, the court ordered the National Front to summon the elder Le Pen to any high-level party meetings and to give him voting rights as an ex-officio member of all the party's governing bodies.
"No statutory provisions specify that the honorary president must be a member of the National Front," the judges said.
The court sentenced the party to pay Jean-Marie Le Pen 23,000 euros ($24,500) in damages and lawyers' fee.
"This can be called a success," his lawyer, Frederic Joachim, told reporters after the ruling was returned.
Joachim had asked the court for 2 million euros ($2.1 million) in damages because "it's a political life they tried to destroy at home and to cast scorn on abroad."
The party's lawyers didn't immediately comment on the ruling, which both sides can appeal.
The National Front ousted the party patriarch for a series of comments, including referring to Nazi gas chambers as a "detail" of World War II history.
Le Pen contends his comments were protected by freedom of expression, though he has been sentenced repeatedly in France for inciting racial hatred and denying crimes against humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICC prosecutors: US forces may have committed war crimes
Headline Legal News |
2016/11/08 22:50
|
U.S. troops and CIA agents could face investigation and possible charges by the International Criminal Court after its chief prosecutor said in a report that they may have committed war crimes by torturing detainees in Afghanistan.
"Members of US armed forces appear to have subjected at least 61 detained persons to torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity on the territory of Afghanistan between 1 May 2003 and 31 December 2014," according to the report issued late Monday by Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda's office. Bensouda didn't immediately give any for further comment Tuesday.
The report added that CIA operatives may have subjected at least 27 detainees in Afghanistan, Poland, Romania and Lithuania to "torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and/or rape" between December 2002 and March 2008.
Most of the alleged abuse happened in 2003-2004, the report said, adding that Afghan government forces and the Taliban were also responsible for atrocities.
Prosecutors said they will decide "imminently" whether to seek authorization to open a full-scale investigation in Afghanistan that could lead to war crimes charges.
Param-Preet Singh, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch, welcomed the publication Tuesday. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
