The Indianpolis Star is reporting that more than one-third of the Indiana House members who voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2011 now won't repeat their votes "or are wavering." "Those statistics reveal how far the debate over gay marriage has shifted in a state where only three years ago, House representatives overwhelmingly approved the ban 70 to 26," The Star concludes.
The Associated Press reports that Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said she is reevaluating her office's defense of that state's ban on same-sex marriage. Masto, according to the AP, says that the state's arguments have been severely weakened after the 9th Circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional to exclude jurors on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Indiana House has advanced a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the Associated Press reports. So far the full House only took a technical vote to accept the action of the House Elections Committee in favor of the measure. A floor debate is expected next week.
The Indiana House Elections Committee voted in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage last night, the Indianpolis Star reports. Nine Republicans were in favor and three Democrats were against the measure. If passed, the measure would go onto the November ballot for voters to consider. The measure has already been passed by legislators once before, but it has to be passed again before voters get the chance to decide whether to amend the state constitution to incorporate the ban.
The bill was changed from the Judiciary Committee to the Elections Committee because there were not enough votes to pass it out of the Judiciary Committee, The Star further reports.
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is slated to announce later today that the state government will join the two same-sex couples asking a federal court to strike down the state's ban on same-sex matrimony as unconstitutional, The Washington Post reports. The action "is a result of November elections in which Democrats swept the state's top offices," The Post reports. Herring will note that Virginia has been on the wrong side of landmark legal issues like school desegregation and interracial marriage, and this is an opportunity to be on the right side what would be a civil-rights milestone, The Post further reports.
Six same-sex couples in Florida have sued over that state's ban on same-sex marriage, Miami New Times reports. While the ban is only five years old, polling shows "that nearly 75 percent of Floridians approve of some sort of recognition of gay couples," the blog further reports.
Pennsylvania's voter ID law has been struck down, The Legal Intelligencer's Sara Spencer reports. The judge reasoned: “'The right to vote, fundamental in Pennsylvania, is irreplaceable, necessitating its protection before any deprivation occurs. Deprivation of the franchise is neither compensable nor replaceable by after-the-fact legal remedies, necessitating injunctive and declaratory relief,'" Spencer writes. Oddly, the decision was not published so it could be citeable.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on whether it is constitutional for the president to make appointments during legislative recesses will not only have a big impact on the separation of powers. A decision rejecting recess appointments will upend hundreds of labor disputes decided by the National Labor Relations Board, The Washington Post reports. '“Regardless of whether you’re in the business community or organized labor, you want to know that the agency is operating with legal authority,' said Steven Bernstein, a labor lawyer who represents employers. 'You want to get it right the first time and make the results stick so you don’t face the possibility of waking up and doing it all over again,'" The Post further reports.
Another state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has been struck down. A federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage violates the guarantee of equal protection in the U.S. Constitution, USA Today reports. The ban, the judge reasoned is "'an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit,"' USA Today further reports. The ruling, unlike a similar one in Utah, was stayed for the inevitable appeal.
A defendant convicted in a terrorism case is challenging the use of warrantless surveillaince in his case, The Washington Post reports: "Late Monday, [Mohamed Osman] Mohamud’s attorneys filed a 66-page motion in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., seeking discovery of information that they believe will aid in an eventual challenge to the constitutionality of the law that authorized the surveillance used in his case. At the very least, they say, Mohamud deserves a new trial because he was not informed that the government used the warrantless program in bringing its case the first time."
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
