Supreme Weekly: Redistricting, ethics charges and major rulings

---

This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia’s current neutrality policies.

---

January 12, 2012

by: Katy Farrell

Redistricting

California

This week, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in the redistricting obstacles discussed in last week's Supreme Weekly. While the Secretary of State verifies signatures collected for the proposed California Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan (2012), the Supreme Court discussed what to do if the referendum makes it to the ballot.

Attorneys for the citizens commission that drew new district maps asked the court to keep the maps created by the group. The opposition expressed the viewpoint that the residents of the state are not comfortable with those maps, as evidenced by the lawsuits and referendum pending.

Justice Goodwin Liu expressed a third concern, "What should happen if the referendum does not qualify and then there is a published opinion by this court?" By this, Justice Liu wondered what the ramifications would be if the court redrew the maps, but the referendum materialized.

The most recent precedent for the court dealing with this issue comes from 1982, when new maps being challenged were authorized for use in the next election.

Missouri

The Missouri Supreme Court today will hear two lawsuits regarding the state's new congressional maps. Both lawsuits contend that districts have been drawn to benefit incumbents or the Republican Party, which has the majority in the Missouri State Legislature. The high court is hearing these cases on appeal, after 19th Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green dismissed both challenges to the new maps. Missouri's filing deadline for the primary election in February 28, so the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the cases quickly.

Idaho

Under a similar deadline is the Idaho Supreme Court, who this week heard a lawsuit challenging its state's new maps. The filing deadline for the primary election in February 27.

A Twin Falls County prosecutor this week argued that splitting his county into two districts leaves voters in the county disadvantaged. Also, though eleven counties were split to create the new districts, he himself created a plan that split only five counties. This demonstrates that the goal of redistricting could have been achieved without dividing so many counties. The redistricting commission defended the split, holding that the plan was in the state's best interest.

Ohio

The Ohio Supreme Court will also hear a challenge to its state's new district maps, one month before the primary election. The majority-Republican high court must decide if the majority-Republican Apportionment Board erred while creating majority-Republican controlled districts. As one would guess, the lawsuit was brought by the Democrats in Ohio. As a response, Republicans in the state say that the maps fit the requirements set by the Ohio Constitution.

News affecting justices

Wisconsin

Justice Michael Gableman of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the subject of a new ethics complaint filed by the group 9to5. The group wants the state's Government Accountability Board to look into free legal services Gableman received while defending a previous ethics complaint. After Gableman's dealings with the firm Michael Best & Friedrich, the firm argued a case before the state's high court (in which 9to5 was a party). 9to5 argues that Gableman's failure to recuse from the case was in violation of state law that prohibits elected officials from accepting gifts that could influence their decisions.

Pennsylvania

Justice Joan Orie Melvin has been calmly dealing with the shadow of an ethics violation hanging over her 2009 campaign for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Though the trial against her sisters ended without a decision last March, more charges have been filed against Janine Orie, who served as an aide to Melvin. The core of the charges against Janine Orie and Joan Orie, former Republican Whip in the Pennsylvania State Senate, is the misuse of state funds during Justice Melvin's 2009 campaign for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. During last month's preliminary testimony, a former judicial clerk of Melvin said that she was forced to travel and write speeches during the 2009 campaign. Also, an inquiry was filed on Justice Melvin last year with the Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania. The citizen who filed the inquiry says that the board is still looking into the matter; ongoing investigations are not public record.

The justice was subpoenaed to appear before the Allegheny County grand jury on December 16, though she did not testify at that time. Melvin has also not been charged with any crime.

Still, some believe that the appearance of misconduct is enough reason for Melvin to take a leave of absence. The executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, an nonprofit organization hoping to reform judicial selection in the state, said, "...judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, should not be permitted to judge others while under the cloud of such a serious investigation."

Rulings

Utah

This week the Utah Supreme Court ruled on a case involving citizen initiatives in the state and simultaneously created a new model for evaluating whether proposed initiatives are valid. The new guidelines follow a decision in which the high court found that the City of Lehi erroneously considered two citizens' initiatives to be administrative, when they were actually legislative. By labeling the initiatives as the former, the city was able adopt a resolution removing them from the ballot. The model created by the court hopes to prevent this interference from occurring in the future.

Connecticut

In ruling this week, the Connecticut Supreme Court announced a shift with ramifications for cases with procedural inconsistencies. A 5-2 decision stated that in order for a new trial to be granted based on withheld evidence, the person seeking the trial must show that the evidence not presented would change the outcome. The majority said that not doing so "would invite endless litigation and deplete judicial resources."

Justices Dennis G. Eveleigh and Christine Vertefeuille dissented, claiming that the court's ruling shifted the burden of evidence on the victim, as opposed to the wrongdoers.

Massachusetts

This week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that excluding legal immigrants from the state's Commonwealth Care health insurance program violates their right to equal protection. The court was ruling on the constitutionality of a law passed by the Massachusetts State Legislature in 2009, which revoked the coverage of 26,000 legal immigrants. Instead, the legislature created the Commonwealth Care Bridge Program, which restricted coverage and services. Though restricting the number of recipients of the Commonwealth Care program was widely seen as an attempt to trim the budget, the state claims that it was really an attempt to improve federal immigration laws.

Playing politics

New Jersey

This week the New Jersey Supreme Court blocked recently elected Gabriela Mosquera from joining the New Jersey General Assembly. Mosquera was elected in November 2011 and has had her candidacy challenged based on her residency. Since two previous rulings in the state came to different conclusions regarding her right to represent the district, the high court temporarily rejected the notion that Mosquera join the legislature.

In order to serve in the state's legislature, candidates must live in the district they are competing for at least one year before the election. Shelley Lovett, the third place finisher in the November race, contends that Mosquera has only lived in the district since December 2010, making her ineligible to serve.

See also

• Supreme Weekly: Redistricting in the state Supreme Courts
• Judgepedia's Supreme Weekly: The States