Tag Archives: appeals court

Election, States Rights

Federal Court Rules Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

5 Comments

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that the current voter identification law in Texas, which was enacted in 2011 and is one of the strictest in the country, has had a “discriminatory effect” on minorities, and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

While there are similar laws in Wisconsin and North Carolina, the voter ID law in Texas is considered to be one of the strictest in the country because it requires one of seven forms of a government-issued ID, such as a driver’s license, a U.S. passport, a concealed-handgun license or an election identification certificate issued by the State Department of Public Safety. University IDs, voter registration cards and utility bills are not allowed.

“We urge the parties to work cooperatively with the district court to provide a prompt resolution of this matter to avoid election eve uncertainties and emergencies,” wrote the members of the federal Appeal’s Court.

In Oct. 2014, a U.S. district judge blocked Texas’ voter ID law, calling it an “unconstitutional poll tax,” and saying that its purpose was to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens by creating “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”

[RELATED: Voter ID Laws Blocked In Wisconsin And Texas]

The Texas attorney general’s office appealed the decision, and while the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the strict voter ID law would have a “discriminatory impact” that was in violation of the Voting Rights Act, it did not determine whether Texas legislators had a discriminatory purpose in passing the law.

The members of the appeals court claimed that although they saw “the charged nature of accusations of racism, particularly against a legislative body,” they also recognized the fact that “racism continues to exist in our modern American society despite years of laws designed to eradicate it.”

The Associated Press reported that the when the voter ID was used in Texas during the 2014 midterm elections, it required “an estimated 13.6 million registered Texas voters to have a photo ID to cast a ballot.”

[RELATED: Poll: Independents Will Soon Outnumber Republicans And Democrats Combined]

In a statement, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the Department of Justice is “pleased that the court of appeals agreed unanimously with the district court that the Texas statute violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act” and they are “studying the opinion in light of the future proceedings the court of appeals has ordered.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling a victory for the state, rather than a defeat.

“Today’s ruling was a victory on the fundamental question of Texas’ right to protect the integrity of our elections and the state’s common sense Voter ID law remains in effect,” Paxton said. “I’m particularly pleased the panel saw through and rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that our law constituted a ‘poll tax.’ The intent of this law is to protect the voting process in Texas, and we will continue to defend this important safeguard for all Texas voters.”

In a statement from Texas Governor Greg Abbott, he said that the state will continue to fight to uphold its voter ID law.

“In light of ongoing voter fraud, it is imperative that Texas has a voter ID law that prevents cheating at the ballot box,” Abbott said. “Texas will continue to fight for its voter ID requirement to ensure the integrity of elections in the Lone Star State.”

For more election coverage click here.

Politics, US

Supreme Court refuses to act on same-sex marriage issue

4 Comments

While more people are showing support for same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court made the decision Monday to not get involved with any appeals court decisions over same-sex marriage and allow these courts to decide how their states should move forward.

As a result of their refusal to get involved, five additional states have been added to the list of 19 others who allow same-sex marriage.  These five new states are Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to Reuters.  The appeals courts who rule over these states have already ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in the past.

Six other states, who fall under the jurisdiction of those appeals courts, may also be affected by this decision and they may see same-sex marriage soon.  These six are Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

“The court’s letting stand these victories means that gay couples will soon share in the freedom to marry in 30 states,” said president of the Freedom to Marry organization, Evan Wolfson, according to USA Today.  “But we are one country, with one Constitution, and the court’s delay in affirming the freedom to marry nationwide prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places.”

Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said, according to the BBC, “Today is a joyous day for thousands of couples across America who will immediately feel the impact of today’s Supreme Court action.”

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has made a decision which has suggested support for same-sex marriage.  Last year, the Supreme Court invalidated parts of a law which denied legally married same-sex partners spousal benefits.

All of the small victories for those in support of same-sex marriage make many believe the Supreme Court will soon make a decision which will tackle the issue nationwide.

Politics

Appeals court wants execution drug details before lethal injection

2 Comments

An execution in Arizona has been put on hold by a federal appeals court after the court said the man sentenced to death has a right to know what drugs will be used in the cocktail used to carryout his execution.

Joseph Wood was convicted of the 1989 shooting and deaths of his ex-girlfriend, Debra Dietz, as well as her father Eugene.  Wood was sentenced to death in 1991 and was scheduled to be put to death this Wednesday, but a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this past Saturday Wood was entitled to more information regarding the drugs which would put him to death.

The ruling states, according to the Washington Post, “Information concerning execution protocol is not only of general interest to the public, it is important for consideration by the courts. … We, and the public, cannot meaningfully evaluate execution protocol cloaked in secrecy.”

“Today the court has made a well-reasoned ruling,” said Wood’s lawyer Dale Baich, according to the BBC, after hearing the verdict, “affirming the core First Amendment principles regarding the public’s right to know, which aid all parts of our democratic government.”

This ruling was brought about after Wood, along with five other death row inmates, sued the state of Arizona for not providing adequate information on the drug cocktail to be used in their executions.  The secrecy surrounding the drugs used in botched Ohio and Oklahoma executions is the central issue at hand, and the six inmates say the secrecy surrounding the drugs violates their constitutional rights.

Dissenting judge on the appeals court, Judge Jay S. Bybee, said in a statement according to the NY Times, the court had expanded the right of access under the First Amendment in order to “bar the state from lawfully imposing the death penalty.”

Politics, US

Courts rule in favor of same-sex marriage

128 Comments

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled in a 2-1 decision earlier today that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage and states must recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The ruling comes after a lower court in Utah struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage, but the Utah attorney general’s office said in a statement according to the AP, they would be filing a petition to the Supreme Court for the review of this decision.

“We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry,” reads the court’s decision.  “A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

The decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, will not go into effect immediately though.  As soon as the court ruled, the ruling was put on hold pending an appeal.

A similar decision was made in the state of Indiana today, where a federal judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

District Judge Richard Young made the ruling, stating the ban was unconstitutional, but the Indiana Attorney General’s office said they had plans to appeal the ruling.  No action has yet been taken though.

This decision, unlike that of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, will go into effect immediately, allowing same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses today.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council Perkins and opponent to same-sex marriage, said in a statement after the decisions, “While judges can, by judicial fiat, declare same-sex ‘marriage’ legal, they will never be able to make it right.”

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 19 states including the District of Columbia with recent polls showing a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.

Technology, US

AT&T Hacker Sends Government An Invoice For Time Spent In Prison

19 Comments

Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker charged with accessing personal data of over 100,000 AT&T iPad subscribers who recently had his conviction overturned, published a letter on Tuesday addressed to the New Jersey District Court, the FBI, and Department Of Justice requesting compensation for the time he’s spent in prison.

Auernheimer, an internet security expert who is also known as “weev” in several online communities, was convicted in 2012 of identity theft and unauthorized access to computers. In 2010, Auernheimer’s web security group Goatse Security had discovered a security vulnerability on AT&T’s website that allowed people to acquire the e-mail addresses and ICC-ID of iPad users.

An ICC-ID is an identifier similar to a serial number that is used to authenticate the SIM card in a user’s iPad to the AT&T network. According to Wired, Auernheimer and his associate/co-defendant Daniel Spitler found that the security flaw was fairly simple to exploit:

The iPad was released by Apple in April 2010. AT&T provided internet access for some iPad owners through its 3G wireless network, but customers had to provide AT&T with personal data when opening their accounts, including their e-mail address. AT&T linked the user’s e-mail address to the ICC-ID, and each time the user accessed the AT&T website, the site recognized the ICC-ID and displayed the user’s e-mail address. Auernheimer and Spitler discovered that the site would leak e-mail addresses to anyone who provided it with a ICC-ID. So the two wrote a script – which they dubbed the “iPad 3G Account Slurper” — to mimic the behavior of numerous iPads contacting the web site in order to harvest the e-mail addresses of iPad users.

Auernheimer and Spitler ended up acquiring the CC-ID and e-mail addresses of as many as 120,000 AT&T subscribers, including Diane Sawyer of ABC News, studio executive Harvey Weinstein, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Auernheimer brought the discovery to the press ahead of AT&T, and he and Spitler were arrested and charged for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Spitler pleaded guilty while Auernheimer underwent a trial. After Auernheimer’s conviction he was sentenced to 41 months in jail followed by 3 years of probation and an order to pay $73,000 in restitution to AT&T. Auernheimer appealed his conviction, arguing that the information he’d accessed was “freely available” due to AT&T’s negligence in securing its site. In an interview with CNET, he said that he exposed the flaw because “we serve the public and the reason we went public with this is because people have a right to know.”

However, Auernheimer had his conviction vacated in April on a technicality. He was tried and convicted in New Jersey, but the US Court of Appeals ruled that he had been tried in the wrong state.

Now Auernheimer is seeking restitution for the time he’s spent in prison. In his letter, Auernheimer described his discontent with his arrest, trial and conviction. “I have, over the course of 3 years, been made the victim of a criminal conspiracy by those in the federal government. This was a conspiracy of sedition and treason, perpetrated with violence by a limited number of federal agents to deprive me of my constitutional rights to a fair trial and unlawfully put me in prison,” he wrote.

Auernheimer is invoicing the government at a rate of 1 Bitcoin per hour totaling 28,296 Bitcoins, worth about $13 million in US dollars. “I do not accept United States dollars, as it is the preferred currency of criminal organizations such as the FBI, DOJ, ATF, and Federal Reserve and I do not assist criminal racketeering enterprises,” Auernheimer wrote. The letter in its entirety is available below.

Follow Annabelle on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured, US

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Upright Posture and Acne Is Sufficient Evidence For Traffic Stop

50 Comments

New Mexico-  A federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over.

The ruling was made after Cindy Lee Westhoven filed a motion to suppress evidence of marijuana possession resulting from her encounter with Border Patrol Agent Joshua Semmerling. Westhoven challenged the arrest: “She argued the initial stop, her subsequent detention, and her de facto arrest all violated her Fourth Amendment rights,” the ruling stated. Westhoven had been pulled over by Semmerling in April 2012. Preceding the incident, Semmerling and Westhoven passed one another driving in opposite directions on Highway 80 in southern New Mexico.

Semmerling noticed that Westhoven’s arms were “straight and locked out” at a “ten-and-two position on the steering wheel” as she was driving by. Semmerling decided that this was unusual behavior, and made a U-turn to stop Westhoven “for an immigration check to determine the citizenship of the driver and any passengers.” Upon stopping Westhoven he observed that her vehicle, a Ford F-150, had tinted windows and Arizona license plates. Semmerling was convinced that this was suspicious.

Semmerling found Westhoven’s facial complexion suspicious as well; noting acne scars on her face, he believed that she might be a methamphetamine user. He began questioning Westhoven about where she was coming from and where she was heading. Westhoven was visibly anxious during the stop; Semmerling stated that he had  “never seen somebody shaking like that before”.

Westhoven told Semmerling that she had been shopping in Douglas, Arizona and was heading to Tucson. Semmerling believed that her response was odd because “Tucson had better shopping opportunities than Douglas”, and driving on Highway 80 in New Mexico between Douglas and Tucson was an indirect route. During his questioning Semmerling saw that Westhoven had two cell phones in the truck, which he considered to be further evidence that she was smuggling illegal immigrants.

After Semmerling ran Westhoven’s Arizona driver’s license and found no warrants, he requested to search her truck, and she refused. He then called in a canine unit to check her vehicle, and marijuana was found inside the truck. Westhoven was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

Westhoven argued that driving with a stiff posture was no justification for being pulled over. Having facial acne, two cell phones, and tinted windows were not in violation of any law. Judge Scott M. Matheson, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated that none of these characteristics are suspicious on their own. “But when taken together along with driving a vehicle with out-of-state plates in a mountainous smuggling corridor 40-45 miles away from the border, we conclude Agent Semmerling had reasonable suspicion Ms. Westhoven was involved in smuggling activity.”  The three judges of the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the search and threw out Westhoven’s motion to suppress the evidence of marijuana.

Follow Annabelle on Facebook and Twitter.