DOCSLIB.ORG

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3D ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3D ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS et al., Appellants, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA et al., Appellees. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EDWARD STILL JAMES U. BLACKSHER 130 Wildwood Parkway Counsel of Record Suite 108 PMB 304 P.O. Box 636 Birmingham, AL 35209 Birmingham, AL 35201 E-mail: [email protected] 205-591-7238 Fax: 866-845-4395 PAMELA S. KARLAN E-mail: 559 Nathan Abbott Way [email protected] Stanford, CA 94305 E-mail: [email protected] U.W. CLEMON WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD P. C . 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state violates the requirement of one person, one vote by enacting a state legislative redis- tricting plan that results in large and unnecessary population deviations for local legislative delegations that exercise general governing authority over coun- ties. ii PARTIES The following were parties in the Court below: Plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-691: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus Bobby Singleton Alabama Association of Black County Officials Fred Armstead George Bowman Rhondel Rhone Albert F. Turner, Jr. Jiles Williams, Jr. Plaintiffs in consolidated Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-1081: Demetrius Newton Alabama Democratic Conference Framon Weaver, Sr. Stacey Stallworth Rosa Toussaint Lynn Pettway Defendants in Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-691: State of Alabama Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State Defendants in consolidated Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-1081: State of Alabama Robert J. Bentley, Governor of Alabama Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES .............................................................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. v OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STAT- UTE INVOLVED .............................................. 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 3 A. Factual Background .................................. 3 1. Alabama’s History of Redistricting ..... 6 2. The 2012 Redistricting. ....................... 9 B. Procedural History .................................... 12 REASONS FOR NOTING PROBABLE JURIS- DICTION .......................................................... 20 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 31 APPENDIX Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2013) (majority opinion) ............. App. 1 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 4102154 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2013) (Thompson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ...................... App. 63 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 1397139 (M.D. Ala., Apr. 5, 2013) ........................................ App. 131 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 1397139 (M.D. Ala., Apr. 5, 2013) (Thompson, J., concur- ring) .............................................................. App. 150 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2012 WL 6706665 (M.D. Ala., Dec. 26, 2012) ...................................... App. 160 Notice of appeal, August 12, 2013 ................... App. 177 Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, § 1 ......................................................... App. 181 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 .......................... App. 182 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES: Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997) ..................... 21 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 4102154 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2013) (Thompson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ................................. 2 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2012 WL 6706665 (M.D. Ala., Dec. 26, 2012) ................................................... 2 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 1397139 (M.D. Ala., Apr. 5, 2013), reconsideration denied, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2013) ..................................................... 2 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2013) ............................................................... 1 Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) .... 25, 26, 27 Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (1981) ............................ 26 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) .... 21, 22, 23, 29 Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Mor- ris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) ........................................... 26 Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) ................ 9, 29 Burton v. Hobbie, 561 F.Supp. 1029 (M.D. Ala. 1983) (three-judge court) .......................................... 7 Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) .............................. 21 Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977) ........................ 29 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ............................ 25 Creel v. Freeman, 531 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1066 (1977) ......................... 28 DeJulio v. Georgia, 127 F.Supp.2d 1274 (N.D. Ga. 2001), aff ’d, 290 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948 (2002) ...................... 24, 26 DeJulio v. Georgia, 290 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948 (2002) ................. 17 Duncan v. Coffee County, 69 F.3d 88 (6th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................... 28 Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530 (1st Cir. 1995) ...................................... 23 Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) ............... 29 Hadley v. Junior College Dist., 397 U.S. 50 (1970) ................................................................. 25, 27 Harrell v. The Florida Bar, 608 F.3d 1241 (2010) ...................................................................... 23 Hogencamp v. Lee County Board of Education, 722 F.2d 720 (11th Cir. 1984) .................................. 28 Holt Civic Assn. v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978) .................................................................. 27 Kelley v. Bennett, 96 F.Supp.2d 1301 (M.D. Ala.) (three-judge court), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Sinkfield v. Kelley, 531 U.S. 28 (2000) ............................................................ 8 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Knight v. Alabama, 458 F.Supp.2d 1273 (N.D. Ala. 2004), aff’d, 476 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 3014 (2007) ........................... 4 Knight v. Alabama, 787 F.Supp. 1030 (N.D. Ala. 1991), aff ’d in relevant part, 14 F.3d 1534 (11th Cir. 1994) ................................................. 4 Locklear v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elec- tions, 514 F.2d 1152 (4th Cir. 1975) ....................... 28 LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) ........................ 21 Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) ................ 21, 30 Montiel v. Davis, 215 F.Supp.2d 1279 (S.D. Ala. 2002) (three-judge court) ...................................... 8, 9 Phillips v. Andress, 634 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) ..................................................................... 28 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ............ 6, 20, 28 Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973) .......................... 26 Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) .............................. 8 Sims v. Amos, 336 F.Supp. 924 (M.D. Ala.), aff ’d, 409 U.S. 942 (1972) ......................................... 7 Sims v. Baggett, 247 F.Supp. 96 (1965) (three- judge court) ............................................................ 6, 7 Sutton v. Escambia County Bd. of Education, 809 F.2d 770 (11th Cir. 1987) .................................. 28 Tennant v. Jefferson County Comm’n, 133 S.Ct. 3 (2012) .................................................................... 28 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998) .............. 23 United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) ................................................... 22 Vander Linden v. Hodges, 193 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 24 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) ...................... 22 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: 1819 Constitution of Alabama, Art. III, § 9 ................. 4 1819 Constitution of Alabama, Art. III, §§ 10-11 ........ 4 1861 Constitution of Alabama, Art. III, § 9 ................. 4 1861 Constitution of Alabama, Art. III, §§ 10-11 ........ 4 1865 Constitution of Alabama, Art. IV, § 6 .................. 4 1865 Constitution of Alabama, Art. IV, § 7 .................. 4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts
    Article International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts Oona A. Hathawayt, Sabria McElroytt & Sara Aronchick Solowtft I. IN TR O DU CTIO N ................................................................................................................................ 5 1 II. THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT HOME....................................................................56 A . Foundingto W orld War II..............................................................................................57 1. Contract ......................................... ......... 60 2. Property and Inheritance ...................................... 60 3. Detention and Habeas Corpus ................................... 61 4. Right to "Carry on Trade ...................................... 62 B . W orld W ar II to M edellin............................................................................................. 63 1. The Presumption in FavorofEnforcement Weakens....................................... 63 2. The Bricker Backlash .............................................. 68 C. After Medellin ................................................... 70 1. A PresumptionAgainst PrivateRights ofAction..............................................71 2. An End to the Carve-Outfor Private Law ........................... 73 Ill. How INTERNATIONAL LAW COMES HOME................................................................................76 A. Indirect Enforcement .............................................. 77 1. Implementing Legislation ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Education Funding and the Alabama Example: Another Player on a Crowded Field John Herbert Roth
    Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal Volume 2003 | Number 2 Article 10 Fall 3-2-2003 Education Funding and the Alabama Example: Another Player on a Crowded Field John Herbert Roth Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj Part of the Education Law Commons Recommended Citation John Herbert Roth, Education Funding and the Alabama Example: Another Player on a Crowded Field, 2003 BYU Educ. & L.J. 739 (2003). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2003/iss2/10 . This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EDUCATION FUNDING AND THE ALABAMA EXAMPLE: ANOTHER PLAYER ON A CROWDED FIELD John Herbert Roth* I. INTRODUCTION If the fundamental task of the school is to prepare children for life, the curriculum must be as wide as life itself. It should be thought of as comprising all the activities and the experiences afforded by the community through the school, whereby the children may be prepared to participate in the life of the community.' During the birth of the United States, when the many notable proponents of a system of free public education in this nation envisioned the benefits of an educated multitude, it is doubtful that they could have conceived of the free public school system that has become today's reality. Although it is manifest that an educated citizenry is an objective of the utmost importance in any organized and civilized society, the debate concerning how to provide for and fund a system of free public education has continued with little repose.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Studies
    201 OAlabama Course of Study SOCIAL STUDIES Joseph B. Morton, State Superintendent of Education • Alabama State Department of Education For information regarding the Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies and other curriculum materials, contact the Curriculum and Instruction Section, Alabama Department of Education, 3345 Gordon Persons Building, 50 North Ripley Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104; or by mail to P.O. Box 302101, Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2101; or by telephone at (334) 242-8059. Joseph B. Morton, State Superintendent of Education Alabama Department of Education It is the official policy of the Alabama Department of Education that no person in Alabama shall, on the grounds of race, color, disability, sex, religion, national origin, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program, activity, or employment. Alabama Course of Study Social Studies Joseph B. Morton State Superintendent of Education ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE SUPERINTENDENT MEMBERS OF EDUCATION’S MESSAGE of the ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Dear Educator: Governor Bob Riley The 2010 Alabama Course of Study: Social President Studies provides Alabama students and teachers with a curriculum that contains content designed to promote competence in the areas of ----District economics, geography, history, and civics and government. With an emphasis on responsible I Randy McKinney citizenship, these content areas serve as the four Vice President organizational strands for the Grades K-12 social studies program. Content in this II Betty Peters document focuses on enabling students to become literate, analytical thinkers capable of III Stephanie W. Bell making informed decisions about the world and its people while also preparing them to IV Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of IOWA No. 17-2068 DILLON CLARK
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 17-2068 DILLON CLARK, AGNES DUSABE, MUSA EZEIRIG, ZARPKA GREEN, DUSTY NYONEE, ANDABRAHAM TARPEH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. RYAN HOENICKE, DANIELLE WILLIAMS, CLEO BOYD, ALLEN FINCHUM, TERRY VAN HUYSEN, JIM BAILEY, MAX CARKHUFF, SCOTT GEMMELL, JERRY VANBROGEN and TPI IOWA, LLC, Defendants, INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY THE HONORABLE TERRY RICKERS APPELLEE’S BRIEF (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) Keith P. Duffy, AT0010911 Mitchell R. Kunert, AT0004458 NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C. 700 Walnut St., Ste. 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309 ELECTRONICALLY FILED AUG 17, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Phone: (515) 283-3100 Fax: (515) 283-8045 Email: [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................ 3 ISSUES PRESENTED .................................................................... 5 ROUTING STATEMENT ................................................................ 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................... 8 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................... 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ERROR PRESERVATION .......... 9 ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 9 I. Iowa Code Section 517.5 Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause Contained in Article 1, Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Jurisdictions Carved from Territory
    CHAPTER 7 JURISDICTIONS CARVED FROM TERRITORY SOUTH OF THE RIVER OHIO Territory South of the River Ohio - Tennessee In 1790 the State of North Carolina ceded to the United States the area referred to as "a certain district of western territory." Known initially as "the Territory of the United States, south of the river Ohio," it had substantially the same boundaries as the present state of Tennessee. The North Carolina Deed of Cession provided: ... the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into a State or States containing a suitable extent of territory; the Inhabitants of which shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits and advantages set forth in the Ordinance of the late Congress for the Government of the Western territory of the United States ... .1 Eighthly, That the laws in force and use in the State of North Carolina at the time of passing this act shall be and continue in full force within the territory hereby ceded, until the same shall be repealed, or otherwise altered by the Legislative authority or the said territory ....2 This stipulation, among the others set out in the Deed of Cession, was accepted by Congress 3 and incorporated by reference in "An Act for the Government of the Territory of the United States, south of the river Ohio," approved May 26, 1790. 4 Thus from the moment of its organization, "the territory . south of the river Ohio" was provided with a complete body of 1. For the text of the Northwest Ordinance as it appeared in the original journals of the Continental Congress, see 2 Carter ed., Terri­ torial Papers of the United States 39-50 (1934) [hereinafter cited as Carter].
    [Show full text]
  • Of the National Security Act
    The President’s Compliance with the “Timely Notification” Requirement of Section 501(b) of the National Security Act Under the Constitution, the President has plenary authority to represent the United States and to pursue its interests outside the borders of the country, subject only to limits contained in the Constitution itself and to such statutory limitations as the Constitution permits Congress to impose by exercising one of its enumerated powers. The conduct of secret negotiations and intelligence operations lies at the very heart of the President’s executive power. Statutory requirements that the President report to Congress about his activities in the realm of foreign policy must be construed consistently with his constitutional authority. A statute requiring the President to give Congress notice of covert operations “in a timely fashion” if he withholds prior notification should be construed to permit the President sufficient discretion to choose a reasonable moment for notifying Congress, including withholding notification at least until the secret diplomatic or covert undertaking has progressed to a point when disclosure will not threaten its success. December 17, 1986 M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l This memorandum responds to your request that this Office review the legality of the President’s decision to postpone notifying Congress of a recent series of actions that he took with respect to Iran. As we understand the facts, the President has, for the past several months, been pursuing a multifaceted secret diplomatic effort aimed at bringing about better relations between the United States and Iran (partly because of the general strategic importance of that country and partly to help end the Iran-Iraq war on terms favorable to our interests in the region); at obtaining intelligence about political conditions within Iran; and at encouraging Iranian steps that might facilitate the release of American hostages being held in Lebanon.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-1434 United States V. Arthrex, Inc. (06/21/2021)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 19–1434. Argued March 1, 2021—Decided June 21, 2021* The question in these cases is whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch is consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitu- tion. APJs conduct adversarial proceedings for challenging the valid- ity of an existing patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). During such proceedings, the PTAB sits in panels of at least three of its members, who are predominantly APJs. 35 U. S. C. §§6(a), (c). The Secretary of Commerce appoints all members of the PTAB— including 200-plus APJs—except for the Director, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. §§3(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), 6(a). After Smith & Nephew, Inc., and ArthroCare Corp. (collectively, Smith & Nephew) petitioned for inter partes review of a patent secured by Arthrex, Inc., three APJs concluded that the patent was invalid. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Arthrex claimed that the structure of the PTAB violated the Appointments Clause, which specifies how the President may appoint officers to assist in carrying out his responsi- bilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Filibuster and Reconciliation: the Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S
    The Filibuster and Reconciliation: The Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate Tonja Jacobi†* & Jeff VanDam** “If this precedent is pushed to its logical conclusion, I suspect there will come a day when all legislation will be done through reconciliation.” — Senator Tom Daschle, on the prospect of using budget reconciliation procedures to pass tax cuts in 19961 Passing legislation in the United States Senate has become a de facto super-majoritarian undertaking, due to the gradual institutionalization of the filibuster — the practice of unending debate in the Senate. The filibuster is responsible for stymieing many legislative policies, and was the cause of decades of delay in the development of civil rights protection. Attempts at reforming the filibuster have only exacerbated the problem. However, reconciliation, a once obscure budgetary procedure, has created a mechanism of avoiding filibusters. Consequently, reconciliation is one of the primary means by which significant controversial legislation has been passed in recent years — including the Bush tax cuts and much of Obamacare. This has led to minoritarian attempts to reform reconciliation, particularly through the Byrd Rule, as well as constitutional challenges to proposed filibuster reforms. We argue that the success of the various mechanisms of constraining either the filibuster or reconciliation will rest not with interpretation by † Copyright © 2013 Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam. * Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law, t-jacobi@ law.northwestern.edu. Our thanks to John McGinnis, Nancy Harper, Adrienne Stone, and participants of the University of Melbourne School of Law’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies speaker series. ** J.D., Northwestern University School of Law (2013), [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Reorganization of Federal Executive Authorities: Comparative Analysis of Russia and the USA
    Reorganization of Federal Executive Authorities: Comparative Analysis of Russia and the USA Tigran Zanko, PhD (Law), Associate Professor of the Department of Legal Regulation of Public and Municipal Service, Russian Academy of Public Administration and National Economy (RANEPA); Associate Professor of the Department of Administrative and Financial Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University) Abstract: The article has an aim of comprehensive comparative analysis of approaches to the process of reorganization of federal executive authorities in the Russian Federation and the United States of America. Different legal frameworks significantly influence the logic and intensity of federal executive authorities transformations. One of the key features of the administrative legal framework of the federal executive authorities of the Russian Federation is that the federal law "On executive authorities of the Russian Federation" that is foreseen by the Constitution has not been adopted for over 25 years, and their system and structure are regulated by legal acts of the President of the Russian Federation. As a result, during the period 2004-2019 about 60 decrees of the President of the Russian Federation that modify the system and structure of executive authorities have been adopted. So, based on this figure it can be easily calculated that on average every 85 days the structure of the federal executive authorities faces changes: executive authorities are established, abolished, merged, reformed, renamed or change their subordination. Whereas in the USA starting from 1984 to the present, power to reorganize federal executive bodies has not been granted to the President of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Proposed Statewide Amendments to the Alabama State
    OCTOBER 2018 An Analysis of Proposed Statewide Amendments to the Alabama Constitution: 2018 An Analysis of Proposed Statewide Amendments to the Alabama Constitution: 2018 When voters go to the polls on November 6, they'll not only be electing a governor, legislators, and other state and local officials, they'll also be asked to vote on 19 new amendments to the Alabama Constitution of 1901. Voters statewide will decide whether to add four proposed amendments that will apply throughout the state. In addition, 15 local amendments will be voted on only in the counties in which they would apply. The Alabama Constitution is unusual. It is the longest and most amended constitution in the world. There are currently 928 amendments to the Alabama Constitution. Most state and national constitutions lay out broad principles, set the basic structure of the government, and impose limitations on governmental power. Such broad provisions are included in the Alabama Constitution. Alabama’s constitution delves into the minute details of government, requiring constitutional amendments for basic changes that would be made by the Legislature or by local governments in most states. Instead of broad provisions applicable to the whole state, about three-quarters of the amendments to the Alabama Constitution pertain to particular local governments. Amendments establish pay rates of public officials and spell out local property tax rates. A recent amendment, Amendment 921, grants municipal governments in Baldwin County the power to regulate golf carts on public streets. Until serious reforms are made, this practice will continue and the Alabama Constitution will continue to swell.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Corrupt Practices and Political Activities
    If you have----------------------- issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. 90'l'H CONGRESS.l DOCUMEN'l' 2d Session J SENATE { No. 100 FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT HATCH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ACT SENATOR HOWARD W. CANNON, Chairman SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE JULY 19, 1968.-0rdered'to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE DIHJ3'!' 0 WASHINGTON: 1968 For srua by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office Washiugton. D.C. 20402· Price 20 cents COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina, Chalrmall CARL IIAYDEN, Arizona CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska. HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky CLAIBORNE FELL, Rhode Island HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania. JOSEPH S. CLARK, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. BYRD, WestVirginlll GORDON F. HARRISON, Staff Director HUGH Q. ALEXA.'IDER, Ch~/Cat£mel JOHN P. CODER, Prolmlanal SlaffMember SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada, ChalJ'1/Uln ROBERT C. BYRD, westVlr~a CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska. JAMES H. DUFFY, Chiel Cournrtl BURKE~ VAN KillE:, Minority Cournrel SENATE RESOLUTION 375 IN THE SENATE O]!' THE UNITED STATES, Agreed to Jllly 19, 1968. , Resolved, That a revised edition of Senate Document Numbered 68 of the Eighty-eighth Congress, entitled "Federal Corrupt Practices and Political Activities" be printed as a Senate document; and that there be printed four thousand additional copies of such document for the' use of the Committee on Rules and Administration. " . Attest: ' ;; FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary. (II) FOREWORD This document ~s published as a guide and ready reference to cer­ tain Federal election laws and miscellaneous related acts and regula­ tions applicable to candidate~ for Federal office, political committees, political parties, and others seeking or attempting to influence the results of Federal elections.
    [Show full text]
  • DOE Organization Act in U.S.C..Pdf
    42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2014 Edition Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 84 - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Sec. 7101 - Definitions From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov §7101. Definitions (a) As used in this chapter, unless otherwise provided or indicated by the context, the term the "Department" means the Department of Energy or any component thereof, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (b) As used in this chapter (1) reference to "function" includes reference to any duty, obligation, power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, and activity, or the plural thereof, as the case may be; and (2) reference to "perform", when used in relation to functions, includes the undertaking, fulfillment, or execution of any duty or obligation; and the exercise of power, authority, rights, and privileges. (c) As used in this chapter, "Federal lease" means an agreement which, for any consideration, including but not limited to, bonuses, rents, or royalties conferred and covenants to be observed, authorizes a person to explore for, or develop, or produce (or to do any or all of these) oil and gas, coal, oil shale, tar sands, and geothermal resources on lands or interests in lands under Federal jurisdiction. (Pub. L. 95–91, §2, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 567.) REFERENCES IN TEXT This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a), (b), and (c), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, as amended, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.
    [Show full text]