Tennessee
Prosecutor: Child rape suspect may have victims in 10 states
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — A man arrested on child rape charges last month in Tennessee could have victims in nine other states, a prosecutor said Monday.
Ryan Andrew Meyung, 30, was charged in December with child rape, aggravated kidnapping and other related counts, Hamilton County District Attorney Neal Pinkston said in a statement.
An investigation led to local law enforcement partnering with Homeland Security Investigations and all agencies believe there may be more victims in Tennessee as well as Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, the statement said.
Meyung ran a business based in Indiana called Live Your Dreams MX, which involved him traveling around the U.S. to build motocross tracks and teach and mentor children on how to motocross, Pinkston said.
In addition Meyung has connections with several youth-oriented organizations and youth ministries. Pinkston’s office declined to name the organizations, but said the connections had Meyung traveling across the country.
After stories about Meyung’s arrest, individuals from other states contacted case investigators about potential criminal law violations regarding Meyung and other children, Pinkston said.
WTVC-TV reports the Tennessee charges involve three children. An affidavit says two children accused Meyung of locking them inside a bus and sexually assaulting one of them, according to the station. Another child told his father he had engaged in inappropriate behavior with Meyung, who was a family friend, WTVC-TV reported.
Pinkston urged anyone with information about Meyung to contact Homeland Security Investigations.
Meyung remains jailed in Hamilton County in southeastern Tennessee. It wasn’t immediately clear whether he has an attorney.
New York
GOP sues over law letting noncitizens vote in NYC elections
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Republicans sued Monday to prevent noncitizens from voting in New York City elections under a new local law.
The law allows more than 800,000 noncitizens and “Dreamers” in New York City to vote in municipal elections as early as next year. They still cannot vote for president or members of Congress in federal races, or in the state elections that pick the governor, judges and legislators.
New York Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy and a group of Republican elected officials in New York City filed a lawsuit in state court on Staten Island seeking to block the law and declare it unconstitutional. New York City Mayor Eric Adams allowed the legislation, which the City Council approved a month ago, to automatically become law Sunday.
“The law is clear and the ethics are even clearer: We shouldn’t be allowing citizens of other nations to vote in our elections, full stop,” Langworthy said in a statement.
Republicans said the law violates the state constitution, which says “every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election” provided a citizen is at least 18 years old and a “resident of this state” and the locality for 30 days before an election.
The GOP also argues it violates state election law, which says “no person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States.”
City officials plan to “vigorously defend the law in court,” according to José Bayona, spokesperson for City Hall.
Supporters of the law say it gives an electoral voice to many New Yorkers who have made the city their permanent home and pay taxes there, but can’t easily become U.S. citizens or would rather remain citizens of their home nations for various reasons. Supporters also say it could empower these city residents to become a political force that can’t be easily ignored.
Legally documented, voting-age noncitizens comprise nearly one in nine of the city’s 7 million voting-age inhabitants.
New York City’s measure would allow noncitizens who have been lawful permanent residents of the city for at least 30 days, as well as those authorized to work in the U.S., including
“Dreamers,” to vote in elections for the city’s mayor, city council members, borough presidents, comptroller and public advocate.
North Carolina
After recusal delays, state high court hears amendments case Feb. 14
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina’s highest court has rescheduled oral arguments for next month in a case over whether two amendments to the state constitution should be voided because legislators who approved the ballot referendums were elected from racially biased districts.
The state Supreme Court announced that litigation filed by the NAACP will be heard in its courtroom the morning of Feb. 14 — nearly six months after the arguments were once set.
The delay came after lawyers for the civil rights group asked that two associate justices be disqualified from the case because of conflicts. One was identified as Justice Phil Berger Jr., the son of state Senate leader Phil Berger, who is a defendant in the case. The other is Justice Tamara Barringer, who as a state senator in 2018 voted in favor of holding a referendum on the amendment requiring photo identification to vote. The other amendment reduced the cap on income tax rates. Voters backed both of them in November 2018.
The recusal motions prompted the court to ask lawyers a host of questions about the recusal and disqualification process, leading to a flurry of documents filed in the fall. In late December, the court declared that either a justice decides on their own whether to step away from a case or that person can ask their colleagues to decide instead.
On Friday, lawyers in the case were told of the new date for oral arguments shortly before Barringer and Berger released decisions saying they would remain on the case. Each wrote that they “can and will be fair and impartial.”
At the heart of the case is whether the changes to the constitution are nullified because the General Assembly at the time included legislators elected from nearly 30 legislative districts struck down by federal courts as illegal racial gerrymanders. A trial judge struck down the amendments in 2019. A panel of the state Court of Appeals overturned that decision in 2020, saying that otherwise any law would be subject to challenges now and in the future if judges declared illegal gerrymandering had occurred.
