Supreme Court rejects judge-drawn Texas election maps
Jan. 17, 2012
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in a Texas political dispute, rejecting judge-drawn election maps favoring minority candidates and Democrats in the 2012 congressional and state legislature elections.
In its first ruling on political boundary-drawing based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the high court unanimously set aside the interim maps created by federal district court judges in San Antonio.
The high court said it was unclear whether the judges in Texas followed the appropriate standards and sent the cases back for further proceedings.
At issue were the maps that Texas will use in its primary contests set for April 3 that will decide party candidates for congressional and state legislature elections in November.
To read the full story, click here.
From Lawyer's Weekly.
North Carolina’s Map Act permits the DOT to file a map with the local
register of deeds identifying property where it anticipates putting a road and,
with that, protect all property along the corridor from development or any other
action that might improve the value of the property – in effect, holding down
the purchase price until the DOT is ready to buy.
DOT admits as much. In a fact sheet distributed to affected property owners,
DOT lists a number of frequently asked question, among them, “How long can a
property be in the ‘protected corridor’?” The answer: “For as long as it takes
North Carolina to get enough money to build the road.”
To read the full story, click the PDF above.
A three-judge panel today denied a request to delay the May 8 primaries.
Registered Democrats and advocacy groups are fighting new Republican-drawn districts for legislative and congressional seats.
They wanted the primaries moved from May to July to allow time for courts to rule on their lawsuit.
Alexander Peters, a special deputy Attorney General, said challengers waited too long to ask for the preliminary injunction.
Lindsey Wakely discusses campaign activities and whether certain activities are permissible under NC law. She discusses the difference between informational activities versus campaign activities by state and local officials. She also explains some case law (a California case and a North Carolina case) and the NC General Statutes dealing with this issue.
