Supreme Court rules in Colorado redistricting
Legal News Center
[##_1L|1389998690.jpg|width="104" height="138" alt=""|_##]The US Supreme Court handed down decisions in two cases Monday, including Lance v. Coffman, where the Court concluded that four Republican voters in Colorado did not have standing to challenge a court-ordered congressional redistricting plan. A state judge in Colorado drew up a redistricting plan in 2002 when the state legislature was unable to agree on a plan in time for elections that year. The legislature drew up a plan in 2003, but that plan was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court because the state constitution allows for a new plan only once per decade. The state supreme court held that "judicially-created districts are just as binding and permanent as districts created by the General Assembly." The redistricting plan was subsequently challenged by four voters, who argued that their rights had been violated under the Elections Clause of the US Constitution, which states that the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." The US Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing, writing:
The only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law - specifically the Elections Clause - has not been followed. This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past. It is quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing. Because plaintiffs assert no particularized stake in the litigation, we hold that they lack standing to bring their Elections Clause claim.
Related listings
-
Homeland Security extends REAL ID compliance deadline
Legal News Center 03/03/2007The US Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Thursday agreed to extend by 18 months the compliance timeline for the REAL ID Act until December 31, 2009. In addition to the extension of the deadline imposed on states, DHS will allow states to use as much a...
-
Washington Senate passes domestic partnership bill
Legal News Center 03/02/2007The Washington State Senate passed a domestic partnership bill (SB 5336) Thursday which would establish a domestic partner registry, giving same-sex couples enhanced rights including inheritance, hospital visitation, and the power to authorize medica...
-
Hawaii lawmakers shelve civil union bill
Legal News Center 02/28/2007Hawaii legislators have shelved a proposal to create civil unions for same-sex couples, indicating that the state legislature did not have enough votes to pass the law. The state House Judiciary Committee declined to vote on the proposal after hours ...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.