Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Notice, Due Process, And Voter Registration Purges, Anthony J. Gaughan
Notice, Due Process, And Voter Registration Purges, Anthony J. Gaughan
Cleveland State Law Review
In the 2018 case of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld the procedures that Ohio election authorities used to purge ineligible voters from the state’s registration lists. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that the Ohio law complied with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) as amended by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). This Article contends that the controlling federal law—the NVRA and HAVA—gave the Supreme Court little choice but to decide the case in favor of Ohio’s secretary of state. But this article also argues …
Clear As Mud: Constitutional Concerns With Clear Affirmative Consent, C. Ashley Saferight
Clear As Mud: Constitutional Concerns With Clear Affirmative Consent, C. Ashley Saferight
Cleveland State Law Review
Rape and sexual assault laws and policies have shifted significantly in recent years, including the introduction of affirmative consent. Unfortunately, both proponents and critics tend to confuse the issues and falsely equate affirmative consent as a substantive social standard versus a procedural standard for adjudication and punishment. Although affirmative consent generally does not represent a significant change in consent law in the United States, statutes and policies requiring a further requirement that affirmative consent be clear and unambiguous (“clear affirmative consent”) are problematic and raise constitutional concerns. When clear affirmative consent policies are used as an adjudicative standard, they increase …
The Problem With Procedure: Some Inconvenient Truth About Aspirational Goals, George Rutherglen
The Problem With Procedure: Some Inconvenient Truth About Aspirational Goals, George Rutherglen
San Diego Law Review
Procedure aspires to lofty goals: fairness, efficiency, and speedy adjudication, or so says Rule 1. The rule states the aims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in admirably succinct terms: “They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Who could oppose any of these goals? Yet for all its virtues as a concise summary of what the Federal Rules seek to achieve, this provision cannot be taken literally as a guide to interpretation. The goals it aspires to are, on even a cursory examination, deeply inconsistent with each …
Judicial Deference And Political Power In Fourteenth Amendment And Dormant Commerce Clause Cases, F. Italia Patti
Judicial Deference And Political Power In Fourteenth Amendment And Dormant Commerce Clause Cases, F. Italia Patti
San Diego Law Review
The Supreme Court lacks a coherent approach to deciding how much to defer to state legislatures when reviewing allegedly unconstitutional legislation. The Court grants very little deference to state legislatures in dormant Commerce Clause cases but significant deference to state legislatures in Fourteenth Amendment cases. The Court has never acknowledged this divergence, let alone justified it. Scholars have also failed to note this divergence or explore whether it can be justified. By ignoring this divergence, the Court and scholars have ignored a situation that exacerbates existing power imbalances and fails to recognize a more promising approach to judicial deference.
This …
Wealth-Based Penal Disenfranchisement, Beth A. Colgan
Wealth-Based Penal Disenfranchisement, Beth A. Colgan
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Article offers the first comprehensive examination of the way in which the inability to pay economic sanctions-fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution-may prevent people of limited means from voting. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of penal disenfranchisement upon conviction, and all but two states revoke the right to vote for at least some offenses. The remaining jurisdictions allow for reenfranchisement for most or all offenses under certain conditions. One often overlooked condition is payment of economic sanctions regardless of whether the would-be voter has the ability to pay before an election registration deadline. The scope of wealth-based penal …
Solitary Confinement Of Juvenile Offenders And Pre-Trial Detainees, Nicole Johnson
Solitary Confinement Of Juvenile Offenders And Pre-Trial Detainees, Nicole Johnson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.