DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 ELECTION LITIGATION: the Courts Held

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 ELECTION LITIGATION: the Courts Held Published by the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law. Reprinted with permission. © 2021 Duke University School of Law. All rights reserved. JUDICATURE.DUKE.EDU 8 Vol. 105 No. 1 2020 ELECTION LITIGATION: The Courts Held BY DAVID F. LEVI, AMELIA ASHTON THORN & JOHN MACY Published by the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law. Reprinted with permission. © 2021 Duke University School of Law. All rights reserved. JUDICATURE.DUKE.EDU Judicature 9 WE HAD AN EXTRAORDINARY ELECTION IN and federal, Northern and Southern, Eastern and Western. NOVEMBER 2020. More Americans voted than in any The federal judges who heard these cases were appointed other election, even though an infectious virus still stalked by recent presidents of both parties — Barack Obama and the nation. Immediately following election day, we then Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton experienced an unprecedented series of challenges to the and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. outcome, launched by a sitting president. Like so many of our Despite their different backgrounds, judges came to the institutions, our state and local election systems were not same conclusions and rejected the Trump campaign’s alle- designed for a broad-based “stress test” such as President gations. Across more than 60 cases in 12 states, judges Donald Trump put into place. It was unclear if these systems found that the challenges to the election outcome came up would withstand the pressure. But our courts and judges, short. (A database of election cases is available at Democracy over our long history, have been repeatedly tested, and, once Docket, www.democracydocket.com.) again, they came through this challenge with flying colors — The resoluteness of the judiciary in this time of turmoil inspiring confidence, demonstrating their impartiality, and provided inspiration and calm to the country. While the doing their job in transparent, orderly, and dignified fashion. guardrails of democracy generally may need our attention They deserve our thanks. and shoring up, the judiciary rose to the occasion without Numerous cases were filed in state and federal courts by missing a step. In celebration and remembrance of this the Trump campaign, challenging the results of the election great service, we have here collected a sample of some of in different states and on a variety of grounds. Some of the the cases and decisions following the election. May they cases alleged fraud, while others asserted that votes were remind us that the laws are not self-executing, and that it cast or counted in violation of state-specific election rules. is only through the efforts of wise, impartial, and dedicated The cases came before judges of all types — elected and judges that the promise of democracy may be fulfilled. appointed, Democrat and Republican, rural and urban, state — David F. Levi A Sample of Lawsuits that such ballots violated the Pennsylvania mail-in ballots. According to the campaign, election code and should not be counted. the use of the word “shall” was an indication Challenging the 2020 Those cases were consolidated on appeal that the provision was mandatory. The court Presidential Election and decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme responded by citing numerous occasions in Court in a single opinion. the past where the court found similar lang- In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in The majority opinion, written by Justice uage to be directory. In the court’s view, the Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020 Election Christine Donohue, concluded that mail-in text, context, and legislative intent behind The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ballots signed by a qualified voter could be the election code, in combination with the 241 A.3d 1058 counted even if they lacked a handwritten court’s historical approach to election laws, address, name, or date. The court began by pointed to a finding that the language was Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor; Justices noting that its “longstanding jurisprudence” directory in this case as well. Max Baer, Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, required a determination of whether the The majority’s holding was unanimous Kevin M. Dougherty, David N. Wecht, Election Code made the relevant informa- regarding a voter’s name and address. Sallie Updyke Mundy tion mandatory or merely directory. Citing Indeed, the court pointed out that mail-in a Pennsylvania case from 1954,1 the court ballots were received by voters with their stated that election laws “ordinarily will be name and address already printed on the Shortly after the election, the Trump cam- construed liberally in favor of the right to envelope. Thus, it seemed plausible that paign filed suit in several Pennsylvania vote,” and that “[t]echnicalities should not be many voters would feel no need to hand- counties, seeking to disqualify mail-in or used to make the right of the voter insecure.” write the same information again. The two absentee ballots that were signed by a qual- The Trump campaign pointed to the lan- partial-dissents (although one joined fully ified voter but lacked a handwritten name, guage of the election code that says voters in the judgment) argued that the date address, and/or date. The campaign argued “shall fill out, date, and sign” a declaration on requirement should be treated differently. u Published by the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law. Reprinted with permission. © 2021 Duke University School of Law. All rights reserved. JUDICATURE.DUKE.EDU 10 Vol. 105 No. 1 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of In an order written by Judge Randall H. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unfairness are serious. But calling an elec- Warner, the court held against the plaintiff U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit tion unfair does not make it so. Charges on all claims. To start, the court dismissed the 830 F. App’x 377 require specific allegations and then proof. claim regarding poll watchers as untimely. We have neither here.” According to the court, the observation pro- District Judge Matthew Brann; Chief Judge The appeals court concluded that any fur- cedures during the presidential election D. Brooks Smith, Circuit Judges Michael ther amendment to the plaintiff’s complaint were identical to those used during the Chagares and Stephanos Bibas would be “both inequitable and futile.” The August primary, and any objection to them court described the second amended com- should have been brought at a time when The Trump campaign sued the Secretary of plaint as “light on facts”; in the context of deficiencies could have been cured. With Pennsylvania in federal court, seeking a pre- the campaign’s equal protection claims, the respect to the other two claims, however, liminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania court noted that the campaign’s amended the court ordered the examination of ran- from certifying its election results. The cam- complaint was devoid of any factual alle- domly selected ballots in order to determine paign alleged that various Pennsylvania gation that the Trump campaign had been whether fraud or widespread error occurred. counties restricted Trump-affiliated poll treated differently from the Biden cam- First, the court ordered that forensic docu- watchers from observing the vote count, paign. Indeed, there was no allegation that ment examiners could review 100 randomly and that some counties allowed voters to fix only Biden voters were given leave to cure selected mail-in ballots to do signature com- technical defects in their mail-in ballots after their ballots, or that only Trump poll watch- parisons. Two document examiners, one they were cast (but prior to election day). ers were prevented from observing the vote for the plaintiff and one for defendants, The Trump campaign asserted that these count. Finding no plausible claim under undertook an investigation of the randomly alleged errors in election administra- the Equal Protection Clause, and citing the selected ballots. Although both examin- tion amounted to violations of the Equal authority of the Iqbal and Twombly line of ers found a few signatures out of the 100 to Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. pleading cases, the Third Circuit affirmed. be “inconclusive,”3 neither examiner found Four days after the Trump campaign filed signs of forgery or simulation, and neither suit in the district court, the Third Circuit Ward v. Jackson et al. found any basis for rejecting the signatures. released a decision in a different election Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa The court noted that each ballot examined case, Bognet, et al. v. Boockvar et al.,2 that County; Arizona Supreme Court listed a phone number that matched a phone cast serious doubt on whether the Trump CV 2020-015285 number on file. After reviewing the ballots campaign had Article III standing to pur- and testimony, the court found that there was sue its claims. The campaign amended its Judge Randall H. Warner no evidence of “misconduct, impropriety, or complaint in hopes of avoiding the unfa- violation of Arizona law” in reviewing the sig- vorable precedent, but it was not successful. Kelli Ward, a Republican nominee to be one natures on mail-in ballots. Judge Brann found that the campaign could of Arizona’s presidential electors, sued var- Second, the court ordered that counsel not establish that it had suffered an “injury ious Arizona state officials in Arizona state could review a random sample of 100 dupli- in fact,” and dismissed the complaint. The court, seeking an injunction preventing cate ballots. Maricopa County voluntarily Trump campaign then moved to amend its the certification of the presidential election made another 1,526 duplicate ballots avail- complaint again. The district court denied results. Ward alleged that poll watchers able, for a total of 1,626. Under Arizona law, this motion, and the campaign appealed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Symposium:Jurocracy and Distrust:Reconsidering The
    User Name: Tyler Cooper Date and Time: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:05:00 PM EDT Job Number: 89258756 Document (1) 1. SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 Client/Matter: -None- | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis Tyler Cooper SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE January, 2005 Reporter 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 * Length: 27441 words Author: Judith Resnik* * Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School. © Judith Resnik 2005. This article stems from presentations at the Symposium, Jurocracy, at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in March of 2004 and at the Symposium, Judicial Appointments in a Free and Democratic Society, at the University of Toronto Law School in April of 2004, and builds on my articles "Uncle Sam Modernizes his Justice System": Inventing the District Courts of the Twentieth Century, 90 Geo. L.J. 607 (2002), Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 924 (2000), and Changing Criteria for Judging Judges, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 889 (1990), as well as on testimony that I submitted to subcommittees of the United States Senate and of the Canadian House of Commons on the topic of judicial nominations. I benefited from comments of other participants, the exchanges at these symposia and hearings, and from discussions with Seyla Benhabib and Deborah Hensler. My thanks to Joseph Blocher, Andrew Goldstein, Paige Herwig, Johanna Kalb, Alison Mackenzie, Jennifer Peresie, Bertrall Ross, Kirby Smith, Laura Smolowe, and Steven Wu for research assistance, to Gene Coakley for all his efforts to locate relevant materials, and to Denny Curtis, Vicki Jackson, Roy Mersky, Roberta Romano, and Albert Yoon for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida's Supreme Court Justicew
    FLORIDA’S SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Charles T. Canady Chief Justice Justice Canady was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in August 2008. He served as chief justice from 2010 – 2012 and, since July 1, 2018, has been serving as chief for a second time. Born in Lakeland, Florida, Justice Canady has the unusual distinction of having served in all three branches of government. Returning to Lakeland after receiving his BA from Haverford College and his JD from Yale Law School, he went into private practice, concentrating on real estate law. In 1984, he successfully ran for a seat in the Florida House and served for three terms. Then in 1993, he was elected to the US House, serving until 2001. Throughout his tenure in Congress, he was a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which sparked his interest in appellate work; he chaired the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution from 1995 to 2001. After leaving Washington, DC, he returned to Florida and settled in Tallahassee, where he served as the governor’s general counsel. In 2002, he was appointed to the Second District Court of Appeal, where he remained until his appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. Justice Canady and his wife, Jennifer Houghton, have two children. Ricky Polston Justice Justice Polston was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in October 2008, and he served as chief justice from 2012 – 2014. A native of Graceville, Florida, Justice Polston grew up on a farm that raised peanuts, watermelon, and cattle. He began his professional life as a certified public accountant: he received his BS in accounting from Florida State University in 1977 and developed a thriving career (in fact, he is still a licensed CPA).
    [Show full text]
  • Guardianship Tracking
    Issue 3, 2018 newsletter of the administrative office of pa courts Guardianship Tracking After careful research, design and development, Pennsylvania’s much-anticipated Guardianship Tracking System (GTS) is now live in almost every county. (continued on page 2) With the new Guardianship Tracking System, everyone wins After careful research, design and development, Pennsylvania’s much-anticipated Guardianship Tracking System (GTS) is now live in almost every county. Developed by AOPC/IT Court-appointed guardians of months, sometimes years. Among its and the Office of Elder incapacitated adults can now receive many benefits, the GTS will ensure that Justice in the Courts automatic reminders about important potential guardianship problems are under the direction filing dates and deadlines. They can identified and responded to quickly. and supervision of the file inventory forms and annual reports Advisory Council on online rather than having to go to Additionally, the GTS integrates Elder Justice in the Courts, the GTS their county courthouse to file reports guardian information into a statewide is a new web-based system in which manually. database rather than separate, guardians of adults of all ages, court individual county databases. staff, Orphans’ Court clerks and judges Historically, court staff in each county “This statewide collection of data will can file, manage, track and submit have been tasked with manually not only eliminate the potential for guardianship reports. scanning and filing guardians’ inventories and annual reports. an unsuitable guardian to relocate to The new system is designed with the However, the Elder Law Taskforce other counties, but will also generate goal of monitoring guardian activity noted in its final report to the Supreme information about guardianship trends in Pennsylvania while streamlining Court that the majority of Orphans’ that will help decision makers draft and improving the guardianship filing Court clerks reported that they do not laws and establish procedures to process.
    [Show full text]
  • ‌Issue 2, 2018
    Issue 2, 2018 newsletter of the administrative office of pa courts Engaging families to combat truancy Pennsylvania schools and magisterial district courts focus on improving school attendance. 1 1 Magisterial district courts: Engaging families to combat truancy Research shows that roughly nine • The restriction of truancy 60-90 days, and if there are no further percent of Pennsylvania students are disciplinary actions that result problems, I’ll dismiss the case,” he said. habitually truant with many of these in excluding students from the truancy cases beginning in elementary regular classroom and middle school, according to the “We’re not just judges. Pennsylvania Department of Education. • Considerable discretion for magisterial district judges to In some of these cases, Following passage of a new truancy impose appropriate penalties in we’re social workers . law in 2016, Pennsylvania schools and individual cases. magisterial district courts continue to and counselors to these focus on improving school attendance Both Judge Corbett and Magisterial students.” using approaches that best help truant District Judge David H. Judy, from – Judge David Judy students by engaging their families Dauphin County, were involved in to support attendance and preserve discussions concerning the 2016 family unity. truancy law during their time as He said that more often than not in members of the Pennsylvania State truancy cases, there are deeper family Roundtable’s Educational Success and problems that explain the root of the “With the new truancy Truancy Workgroup launched in 2009. student’s attendance issues, and his goal is to help solve those problems law, truancy cases The group was tasked with identifying rather than just fine the student or the systemic issues in Pennsylvania have become more parent.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District ______Docket No
    Received 2/5/2018 9:39:17 AM Supreme Court Middle District Filed 2/5/2018 9:39:00 AM Supreme Court Middle District 159 MM 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT _________________________________________________________________ DOCKET NO. 159 MM 2017 _________________________________________________________________ LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., Respondents. __________________________________________________________________ ANSWER OF RESPONDENT, LT. GOVERNOR MICHAEL J. STACK, III TO APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICE DAVID WECHT AND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE BY JUSTICE CHRISTINE DONOHUE __________________________________________________________________ Clifford B. Levine Pa. Id. No. 33507 Alex M. Lacey Pa. Id. No. 313538 Alice B. Mitinger Pa. Id. No. 56781 Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3152 (412) 297-4900 Lazar M. Palnick Pa. Id. No. 52762 1216 Heberton Street Pittsburgh, PA 15206 (412) 661-3633 On behalf of Respondent Michael J. Stack III, in his Capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and President of the Pennsylvania Senate I. INTRODUCTION With its majority decision, this Court has held that the 2011 Plan “plainly, clearly and palpably” violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. All parties, including the Legislative Respondents, exhaustively briefed the issues associated with a constitutional challenge to the gerrymandered congressional map, which was created with obvious partisan intent. This Court conducted an extraordinary session for oral argument, which lasted for over three hours, and thoroughly discussed the issues involved in the challenge. Now, after the Court has rendered its decision, the Legislative Respondents seek disqualification of Justice David Wecht and “full disclosure” from Justice Christine Donohue. Their demand is untimely and should be summarily dismissed.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding Still an Issue County: Get LOCAL a List of Roads with Debris to Water-Related Issues Right-Of-Way 12A by Jan
    Jackson County’s newspaper since 1923 $1.00 SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2019 Vol. 96 No. 4 Cemetery MUST Search on for help with storm-struck graves BY DEBORAH BUCKHALTER was down. It was impossible to READS dbuckhalter@jcfloridan.com drive on into to the cemetery itself, because of those toppled M Jerold and Annette Per- pines. The drive-through en- kins have lovingly tended trance is completely blocked the graves of Jerold’s parents by one big tree, and many oth- and grandparents for years in ers are downed in the burial Dykes Cemetery. It’s located fi eld itself. off State Road 73 South, near But Jerold was determined to Holly Grove Baptist Church. get to his parents. The 72-year- They drove to the cemetery old had to walk through the soon after Hurricane Mi- wreckage to get a better look. chael to see whether it had He found trees over their suffered damage. graves, and many others. The MARK SKINNER/FLORIDAN What they found was a tangle cemetery is the resting place Trees that were brought down by Hurricane Michael have turned parts of up uprooted pines — almost Dykes Cemetery into an obstacle course for people wishing to visit their every tree in the burial fi eld See CEMETERY, Page 12A loved ones’ graves. SPORTS Cottondale tops rival HURRICANE MICHAEL Graceville in high school girls basketball 1B Flooding still an issue County: Get LOCAL A list of roads with debris to water-related issues right-of-way 12A by Jan. 20 Special to the Floridan Jackson County Commission- ers on Friday sent the following press release, which contains a suggested date for getting storm debris to the right-of-way, and other critical information related to Hurricane Michael and its af- termath: MARK SKINNER/FLORIDAN Debris pick-up continues Highway 162 has been closed between Greenwood and Highway 231 because of water over the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversion Therapy
    :<44,9 | 2013 :<44,9c SEXUAL ORIENTATION CONVERSION THERAPY: Can the Government BRIEFS Ban a “Cure?” *(5@6<9-094:<9=0=,(+0:(:;,9& How Many Days Can You Afford To Be Closed? PALINDROME CONSULTING’S EXCELLENT REPUTATION PROVIDES ESSENTIAL “INFORMATION PROTECTION” SERVICES *VZ[LMMLJ[P]LTVUP[VYPUN :LJ\YP[`PKLU[P[`[OLM[ MYH\K\SLU[ZV\YJLZ 7YVHJ[P]L WYL]LU[P]LTHPU[LUHUJL ,MMLJ[P]LKPZHZ[LYYLJV]LY`ZVS\[PVUZ *\[[PUNLKNL[LJOUVSVN`[YLUKZ"PUJS\KPUN *SV\K:VS\[PVUZ -SH[MLL0; Delivering Peace of Mind “DISASTER PROOFING” YOUR BUSINESS For a free book email INFORMATION SO YOU CAN WORK WHILE [email protected] OTHERS TRY TO RECOVER FROM A DISASTER 5,4PHTP.HYKLUZ+Y:\P[L5VY[O4PHTP)LHJO-3 ;LS! L_[,THPS!0:YLKUP'WJPPJWJVT www.pciicp.com 2 www.cabaonline.com :<44,9 2013 CONTENTS 06 President’s Message 08 Editor’s Message 10 Legal Round Up 20 Bishop Leo Frade Evangelist and Convicted Felon? 24 Excerpt from Cubans: An Epic Journey, the Struggle of Exiles for Truth and Freedom 35 Hypnosis: Unlearn the Fear Response of the Subconscious Mind 36 Antitrust and The NCAA Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA 40 Celebrating “El Día Del Abogado”: Spotlight on Jose “Pepe” Villalobos 50 News from the Nation’s Highest Court 64 Dichos de Cuba 66 La Cocina de Christina 67 Moving Forward “LAWYERS ON THE RUN” THE EVENT, WHICH WAS HELD ON APRIL 20, 2013, 56 AT TROPICAL PARK, HAD OVER 500 PARTICIPANTS, ON THE AND RAISED APPROXIMATELY $25,000! COVER :<44,9:<44,9cc SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGE EFFORTS 32 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals soon will address the constitutionality of California’s first-of-its-kind ban on gay conversion therapy for minors.
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Chuck Grassley and Judicial Confirmations
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2019 Senator Chuck Grassley and Judicial Confirmations Carl Tobias University of Richmond - School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Senator Chuck Grassley and Judicial Confirmations, 104 Iowa L. Rev. Online 31 (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CARL_PDF PROOF FINAL 12.1.2019 FONT FIX (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 2:15 PM Senator Chuck Grassley and Judicial Confirmations Carl Tobias* I. 2015–16 PROCESSES ....................................................................... 33 A. THE 2015–16 DISTRICT COURT PROCESSES ............................... 34 1. The Nomination Process ................................................ 34 2. The Confirmation Process .............................................. 36 i. Committee Hearings ..................................................... 36 ii. Committee Votes ........................................................... 37 iii. Floor Votes ................................................................... 38 B. THE 2015–16 APPELLATE COURT PROCESSES ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Regional Economies of Pennsylvania and COVID-19
    SENATE MAJORITY POLICY COMMITTEE Senator David G. Argall (R-Schuylkill/Berks), Chairman REPORT ON REGIONAL ECONOMIES OF PENNSYLVANIA AND COVID-19 Senate Majority Policy Committee Report on Regional Economies of Pennsylvania and COVID-19 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... Page 1 The Safe Re-Opening of Western Pennsylvania’s Economy ........................................................ Page 2 Northeastern Pennsylvania’s Economy and COVID-19 ............................................................... Page 3 Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Economy and COVID-19 ............................................................... Page 4 Southcentral Pennsylvania’s Economy and COVID-19 ............................................................... Page 5 Our thanks to all who testified before the Senate Majority Policy Committee on this issue ........ Page 6 Introduction In March 2020, the first cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On March 19, Governor Wolf ordered that all non-life sustaining businesses in the state needed to close physical locations in order to slow the spread of the virus. Those businesses that did not comply with the Governor’s mandate faced potential legal actions including citations, fines, and license suspensions. Many businesses applied for waivers to stay open during the shutdown and claims were solely handled by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judiciary Tracker
    Federal Judiciary Tracker An up-to-date look at the federal judiciary and the status of President Trump’s judicial nominations October 23, 2020 Trump has had 225 federal judges confirmed while 25 seats remain vacant without a nominee Status of key positions 25 President Trump inherited 108 federal requiring Senate 41 judge vacancies confirmation As of October 22, 2020: ■ No nominee ■ Awaiting confirmation 157 judiciary positions have opened up ■ Confirmed during Trump’s presidency and either remain vacant or have been filled Total: 265 potential Trump nominations 225 Source: United States Courts Trump has had more circuit judges confirmed than the average of recent presidents at this point Number of Federal Judges Nominated and Confirmed Trump 161 53 2 ■ District court judge ■ Circuit court judge ■ Supreme Court judge Obama 128 30 2 Source: Federal Judicial Center Bush 165 35 Clinton 169 30 2 HW Bush 148 42 2 In three and a half years, Trump has confirmed a higher number of circuit judges as prior presidents in four years Number of Federal Judges Nominated and Confirmed Trump 161 53 2 ■ District court judge ■ Circuit court judge Obama 141 30 2 ■ Supreme Court judge Source: Federal Judicial Center Bush 168 35 Clinton 169 30 2 HW Bush 148 42 2 An overview of the Article III courts US District Courts US Court of Appeals Supreme Court Organization: Organization: Organization: • The nation is split into 94 • Federal judicial districts • The Supreme Court is the federal judicial districts are organized into 12 highest court in the US • The District of Columbia circuits, which each have a • There are nine justices on and four US territories court of appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Reporters Workshop Notebook
    2019 ­ Reporters' ­ Workshop ­ O C T OBE R 2 8 -2 9 , 2 0 1 9 Tallahassee, Florida floridabar.org/news/resources/rpt-nbk #TFBRW2019 Presented by: The Florida Bar Media & Communications Law Committee 2019 Florida Bar Reporter's workshop ­ Locations & information ­ DoubleTree Hotel - 101 S. Adams St, . Florida Supreme Court - 500 S. Duval St. The Reporters' Workshop is primarily an educational experience, not a news event. This policy on quotation of remarks furthers that primary goal. Comments during the program. Unless otherwise specified, all comments made as part of the program, in remarks addressing the group as a whole, are on the record. A speaker may unilaterally, before or promptly after a comment, designate it as off the record, meaning it is for the reporters' information only and may not be quoted or attributed in any manner. In such a circumstance, a reporter is welcome to follow up with the speaker in an interview that is made clearly on the record and may ask the speaker to remove or modify the off-the-record restriction. Informal discussions. All comments made in informal conversations, including mealtime conversations, among participants and panelists are on background, meaning the speaker may not be quoted by name or title but may be quoted in a generic manner that reasonably masks the speaker's identity. A speaker may designate a greater restriction before or immediately after making a comment. A participant is free to use the information for other reporting. In publishing any information gained at the workshop, participants are urged to reflect upon the possible adverse effects on future programs from how the material is used.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdfaclu-PA Opposition to HB 38 PN 17 House
    MEMORANDUM TO: ​Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee FROM: ​Elizabeth Randol, Legislative Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania DATE: ​January 12, 2021 RE: OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 38 P.N. 17 (DIAMOND) ​ ​ Background House Bill 38 ​(PN 17) is a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would create judicial districts for the purpose of electing judges and justices to Pennsylvania’s appellate courts. While judges and justices on the Commonwealth, Superior, and Supreme Courts are currently elected at-large across the state, the proposed amendment would allow the legislature to draw geographic districts based on population. The stated reason for this amendment is to create a more geographically diverse judiciary and limit the number of judges and justices from Allegheny and Philadelphia counties.1 Proposed constitutional amendments must pass with identical language in two consecutive sessions. Having passed last session, if HB 38 passes for a second time this session, it could be placed on the ballot for ratification as early as the May primary. If approved by a simple majority vote of electors, it would become part of the Pennsylvania Constitution. On behalf of over 100,000 members and supporters of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, I respectfully urge you to oppose House Bill 38 (PN 17). Bill Summary House Bill 38 would: ■ Create seven districts for the election of Supreme Court justices, one for each justice on the Court; ■ Create judicial districts for the election of Superior Court judges, in a number determined by the 2 legislature;
    [Show full text]