Tag Archives: requirement

No citizenship proof for voters

The Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, where the Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempted Arizona’s law.  In other words, it held that Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship was in conflict with the National Voter Registration Act.  Thereby, that requirement was rejected.

Arizona’s law required registered voters to show proof of citizenship.  Under Arizona’s law, a person must be a citizen to be eligible to vote.  This case concerned only how Arizona was trying to enforce that qualification.  In 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which provided that voters must “present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.”  If an individual does not provide “satisfactory” proof of citizenship, then the application must be rejected.

The issue here is how this citizenship-proof law and the National Voting Registration Act work together.  The Voter Registration Act required that states must “accept and use” the Federal Form.  The Voter Registration Act provided that a state shall “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election… if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is post-marked.” (italics in original).

Although the Voter Registration Act provides that states can create their own state-specific voter-registration forms, the Voting Registration Act also places a backstop.  The Supreme Court explained that,

No matter what procedural hurdles a State’s own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.

Based on this language, the Supreme Court rejected Arizona’s arguments.  If Arizona, or any other state, could demand Federal Form applicants additional pieces of information, “the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function, and would be a feeble means of ‘increas[ing] the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal Office.” (quotations and marks in original).

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, legal decision, rules, state, Supreme Court

Giving up your password when looking for a job?

Should your potential employer require you to give up your password to Twitter? Facebook? LinkedIn? Will your comments, background information, age, nationality, pictures be used against you?

What if the employer does not use that information, but still has access to it?  Would that raise a concern that it was in fact used against a job applicant?  Allowing the requirement of social media passwords bring potential liability issues to employers.

Minnesota Lawyer (subscription required) has a very interesting article.   The Minnesota proposed bill, introduced by Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria) seeks to ban employers from asking job applicants for their social media passwords as part of the job interview.  It is important to note, as stated by the article, that the bill does not discuss already hired employees and the use of employer laptops, computers, smartphones, etc.

Pending legislation in Minnesota includes H.F. 293, H.F. 611, S.F. 484, and S.F. 596.  All of these bills seek to ban employers fro requiring social network passwords as a condition of employment.

The National Conference of State Legislation reports that there are at least 29 states with introduced or pending legislation seeking to ban employers from requiring/asking for these social media passwords.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, discovery, electronic discovery, Minnesota, Pending Legislation, Privacy Rights

NY Is First State to Require Law Students to Do Pro Bono Work to Get Licensed After Graduation

This is an article from the ABA News website:

In a move that is expected to improve access to the civil justice system for low-income individuals, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announced at a press conference Wednesday a new Court of Appeals rule requiring all law graduates to complete 50 hours of pro bono work before they will be admitted to practice in New York.

It is expected that many will complete the pro bono requirement while they are still law students, according to Reuters. However, the pro bono requirement can also be met after an individual earns his or her law degree.

The pro bono requirement doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2015, so it does not apply to current third-year law students.

What qualifies as pro bono work is broadly defined, the article notes, alleviating concerns by law school deans that the program would be difficult to administer.

A 15-member advisory committee that helped draft the new pro bono rule will also oversee its implementation and evaluate how well it works, the news agency notes.

The New York Law Journal (reg. req.) provides a link to a copy of the new pro bono rule (PDF).

via NY Is First State to Require Law Students to Do Pro Bono Work to Get Licensed After Graduation – News – ABA Journal.

Leave a comment

Filed under attorneys, Law Schools, law students, rules