Minnesota
Court rules Minneapolis mayor failed to hire more police
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the mayor of Minneapolis hasn’t met a legal duty to hire more police officers or demonstrate why he hasn’t done so.
In a Monday ruling, Chief Justice Lorie Gildea said Mayor Jacob Frey has a “clear legal duty” under the city’s charter to staff the department with at least 731 sworn officers, a number based on the population of Minneapolis.
Interim City Attorney Peter Ginder said the city has about 300 fewer officers than it did before George Floyd was killed by police in May 2020. The city’s former police chief had attributed the departures to retirements and officers who filed disability claims, some citing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder linked to the protests over Floyd’s killing.
Ginder calls it “an unprecedented loss of personnel that is not easily corrected,” but noted that the city has provided funding for additional recruit classes and hiring bonuses.
“Mayor Jacob Frey, the Minneapolis Police Department and city are working in good faith to recruit and hire more community-oriented peace officers as quickly as reasonably possible,” Ginder said.
The ruling sends the case back to district court in Hennepin County.
Eight residents concerned about crime sought the court order to force the city to hire more police as required by the charter. The state Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month from them that the current staffing is about 120 officers less than they believed was required.
Minneapolis attorneys argued that the charter requirement relates only to funding, but the mayor still may determine how the money may be used within the department.
New York
State passes landmark voting rights legislation
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s governor signed a law Monday intended to prevent local officials from enacting rules that might suppress people’s voting rights because of their race.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, named after the late civil rights activist who represented Georgia in the U.S. House, makes New York one of the first states to bring back a version of a process known as “preclearance” that was gutted by a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2013.
Under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, states and counties with a record of suppressing the rights of Black voters once had to seek U.S. Justice Department approval before changing voting rules.
The court’s ending of that practice, on the grounds that federal oversight was no longer needed, helped clear the way for multiple states to enact new rules around voting in recent years.
Now, local governments or school districts with a record of discrimination in New York must gain approval from state officials in order to pass certain voting policies.
“We’re going to change our election laws so we no longer hurt minority communities,” Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said at a bill signing ceremony in Brooklyn.
“I’m so proud to be here to sign this landmark legislation. No state in the nation has stood up with the courage and conviction and the power we have by protecting these important rights,” she said.
The new state law will also expand language assistance for voters who don’t use English as a first language, and also provide legal tools to fight discriminatory voting provisions.
An effort in the U.S. Congress to revive parts of the Voting Rights Act failed to make it through the Senate.
Democrats who back the New York legislation said laws like it are still needed.
“Just last week, several important races around the country were won by people who deny the validity of elections and who will work to reduce access for voters,” said Sen. Zellnor Myrie.
Adam Lioz, a senior policy counsel for the Legal Defense Fund, said the organization has been working for years to push this legislation.
“We believe that this is a way for state leaders to step up and protect votes at a time where Black and brown voters are facing the biggest assault on voters rights since Jims Crow,” Lioz said.
The parts of New York required to get preclearance before changing voting laws will be determined by state officials based on a formula and list of conditions in the legislation.
California
Rob Kardashian and Blac Chyna settle before trial’s sequel
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A settlement agreement has been reached on the eve of a second trial pitting the Kardashian family against former reality TV star Blac Chyna.
Jury selection had been set to begin Monday in the trial over Chyna’s allegations that her former fiance Rob Kardashian maliciously posted nude photos of her in 2017 after their tumultuous breakup, but according to court documents, the parties informed the judge that they had agreed to a settlement.
Emails to attorneys for both sides seeking comment and details on the terms of the settlement were not immediately returned.
A trial had seemed a virtual certainty after the judge last week denied a motion by Kardashian’s attorneys to enforce a settlement agreement they said the two sides had reached.
The trial was to be a sequel of sorts to a defamation trial earlier this year in which Chyna, whose legal name is Angela White, alleged that Kardashian’s mother and sisters — Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian and Kylie Jenner — had defamed her as violent and unstable, and persuaded producers and executives to cancel her reality show, “Rob & Chyna.”
The Kardashians won a clear-cut victory in that trial May 2. The four women had attended most of the proceedings, and all four testified, though they were in New York at the Met Gala when the verdict was read.
Rob Kardashian, who has a daughter with Chyna, was not a defendant in that trial, but he gave often angry and sometimes sad testimony about the late-night fight that led to the end of their relationship.
Chyna had initially filed one lawsuit against the whole family, but the judge ruled that the allegations against Rob — which also included assault accusations — should get their own trial. Fewer members of the famous family had been expected to attend the second trial, and only Rob and Kris Kardashian had been expected to testify.
At the first trial, jurors found that the Kardashians acted in bad faith in their conversations about the couple’s troubles with producers of “Rob & Chyna” and executives from the E! network, which aired it. But they found that it had no substantial effect on Chyna’s contract or the fate of the show, and she was awarded no damages.
Chyna’s attorney Lynne Ciani said after the verdict that she and her client were disappointed but felt vindicated by the jury’s findings, which she said demonstrated that Chyna had not physically abused Rob, and validated their claim that the Kardashian women had attempted to interfere with her contract to be on the show.
