Michigan high court hears challenge to redistricting measure
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court has heard arguments in a challenge to a proposed November ballot initiative to change who draws congressional and legislative districts every decade.
The justices held a special session Wednesday and asked many questions during 75 minutes of arguments.
The proposal would empower an independent commission to handle redistricting instead of the Legislature, now controlled by Republicans. Critics say the current process results in partisan gerrymandering that hurts democracy.
Under the proposal, the members of the general public could apply for a seat on the redistricting commission. Applications would then be statistically weighted and four Democrats, four Republicans and five independents would be chosen at random from the applications. People who serve on the commission would not be allowed to have run for office in the last six years or work for a party or elected official. The amendment also explicitly says the commission would not be subject to any influence or control from the legislature or governor.
A group backed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce says the constitutional amendment is too broad and proposes a general revision that can only be considered at a constitutional convention. Voters Not Politicians says its proposal addresses a single subject.
The state appeals court ordered the initiative on the ballot. Election officials want a ruling by early August.
ABA urges high court to protect distribution doctrine for legal services organizations
The American Bar Association on Monday filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to preserve cy pres awards in class-action suits because they are an important source of funding for legal services organizations that help provide access to justice.
In its upcoming term, the court will consider whether a class-action settlement in a suit against Google met requirements of federal law. At issue was whether the settlement met the requirement of Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring proposed class action settlements to be “fair, reasonable and adequate.” In this case involving privacy claims, the cy pres award was directed to groups pledging to use the money to protect
internet privacy, according to the cert petition filed by objectors to the settlement, which raised several other issues.
The ABA brief does not take a side in the case but urges the justices to preserve the cy pres doctrine, which it traces to 1974. These awards are particularly appropriate in class actions aggregating small amounts that have been found by a court to be undistributable, the brief said, and now provide an average of $15.5 million annually to legal services organizations.
“If this court reaches beyond the limited scope of the question presented and imposes constitutional restrictions on cy pres awards, it will imperil these state laws and potentially deprive legal services organizations of critical funding and low-income residents of legal representation,” the ABA brief said.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
