Washington
Thomas temporarily blocks Graham testimony in Georgia
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday temporarily blocked Sen. Lindsey Graham’s testimony to a special grand jury investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in the state.
Thomas’ order is intended to prevent Fani Willis, Fulton County district attorney, from compelling Graham to testify while the Supreme Court weighs the senator’s request for a lengthier halt to the proceedings.
Willis has a deadline Thursday to tell the high court why Graham should have to answer the grand jury’s questions. Lower courts have ruled that his testimony can take place.
Thomas acted on his own, as the justice who handles emergency appeals from Georgia.
New York
State law allowing early counting of absentee ballots in limbo
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s plan to start counting absentee ballots early hit a roadblock Friday when a state judge ruled the law unconstitutional.
Saratoga County Judge Diane Freestone said the law clashes with an individual’s constitutional right to challenge ballots in court before they’re counted.
It was unclear immediately Friday if New York Democrats would appeal the decision. Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office didn’t immediately respond to request for comment.
State GOP chair Nick Langworthy on Friday called the judge’s decision a win for election integrity.
In 2020, delays, litigation and mistakes by election boards that faced a flood of absentee ballots led to long waits for election results.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature eventually passed a law allowing for early counting of absentee voting.
Republicans sued in state court to strike down the law.
Democrats defended the law as crucial to ensuring the state can handle the number of people wanting to apply by mail because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans are also suing to strike down a law allowing voters worried about catching COVID-1-9 to vote by absentee.
Louisiana
Judge suspended for abusing power
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Louisiana Supreme Court has suspended a Baton Rouge judge without pay for 180 days for abusing her power to hold people in contempt.
East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court Judge Charlene Charet Day, who has held the seat since 2011, violated the law when she issued a bench warrant that resulted in a teacher being arrested at the school where she works, the high court ruled Friday.
The Louisiana Judiciary Commission, which investigates complaints of judicial conduct, recommended the six-month suspension in July, finding that Day violated rules of conduct and committed “willful misconduct” when she locked up litigants for contempt of court. Day was directed to pay the commission a $6,260 fine.
The justices unanimously agreed that a suspension was warranted, though one thought a less-severe penalty was required, The Advocate reported.
“Judge Day’s conduct harmed the integrity of and respect for the judiciary,” Justice William Crain wrote in the prevailing opinion. “When a judge abuses the immense power to deprive a person of their liberty, it has a profound effect on public confidence in the judiciary.”
Massachusetts
Groups sue to put super PAC question on 2024 state ballot
BOSTON (AP) — Groups pushing for a 2024 ballot question aimed at reining in the spending power of super PACs filed two lawsuits in Massachusetts on Monday that target a decision by the state attorney general’s office to block the question on the grounds that it would infringe on First Amendment rights.
The lawsuits, filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, argue in favor of the proposed question, which would change state law to limit contributions by individuals to independent expenditure political action committees — or super PACs — to $5,000.
Currently, super PACs are able to raise and spend unlimited funds from individuals as long as they don’t directly coordinate with a candidate’s campaign.
The office of Attorney General Maura Healey tossed out the language of the proposed ballot question last month, ruling that it would violate free speech protections.
Supporters of the question however, argue that super PACs can create the appearance of corruption and that the Supreme Court has allowed regulation of corruption.
The group Free Speech For People, which filed one of the lawsuits, argued that the initiative would address both “quid pro quo” corruption and the appearance of corruption created by contributions to super PACs.
“A wealthy donor could tell a politician, ‘If you do X, I’ll write a huge check to your super PAC,’” said Courtney Hostetler, senior counsel for Free Speech For People.
“Voters may not know what was spoken behind closed doors, but they recognize the appearance of quid pro quo corruption,” she added. “Sensible dollar limits on contributions to these fundraising entities will dramatically reduce quid pro quo corruption and its appearance.”
Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor and founder of Equal Citizens, said the arguments in favor of limiting super PAC contributions could resonate with some on the nation’s highest court. The group has filed the second lawsuit.
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court who believe that “originalism” requires the reversal of Roe v. Wade, he said, should apply that principle consistently.
“If you’re an originalist about the First Amendment, there’s no doubt that a Legislature or the people of Massachusetts have the right to regulate super PACs,” he said. “It obviously has to get to the Supreme Court to be resolved.”
In a letter dated Sept. 7 explaining the decision to block the question, Anne Sterman, deputy chief of the state attorney general’s government bureau, said courts across the country have found that limits on contributions to independent expenditure PACs violate free speech protections.
She wrote that although Massachusetts courts have not specifically weighed in on the constitutionality of laws limiting campaign contributions made by an individual to a political committee or entity that makes independent expenditures, “it is clear that this proposed law would violate the free speech rights afforded by the state constitution.”
It’s not just national and statewide candidates who benefit from super PAC spending. Last year’s contested mayoral contest in Boston saw the formation of several super PACs that ended up spending millions to support candidates in the race.
Individuals who give directly to a candidate’s campaign account are limited to a maximum yearly donation of just $1,000.
