SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Court turns down challenge to election system

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court is refusing to review a lower court's ruling that Tucson's elections system for city council races is constitutional.

The justices without comment Monday let stand the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' September ruling that the hybrid system used by Arizona's second most populous city doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution's commitment to one vote per person.

The city is divided into wards, and residents can only vote for candidates in their ward during primary elections. They can vote for any council candidate during general elections.

The 9th Circuit ruling said Tucson can justify its electoral system's design.

The September ruling overturned one by a smaller 9th Circuit panel. It said Tucson's system put many voters at a disadvantage by giving the upper hand to Democratic candidates.

 

Tennessee death row inmates lose appeals

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has rejected appeals from three Tennessee death-row inmates who say they should not be executed because they are intellectually disabled.

The justices on Monday left in place state court rulings upholding the death sentences of inmates Pervis Payne, Michael Sample and Vincent Sims.

The three men said Tennessee has refused to apply a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that affects inmates with borderline cases of intellectual disability.

The Supreme Court ruling prohibited states in borderline cases from relying only on intelligence test scores to determine whether a death row inmate is eligible to be executed.

The issue in the Tennessee cases was whether that decision should apply to older cases.

The Supreme Court outlawed the execution of intellectually disabled prisoners in 2002.

 

Court rejects appeal of former Connecticut governor

By Dave Collins
Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to disturb the convictions of former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland for conspiring to hide his work for two Republican congressional candidates, several years after he resigned from office and served prison time for corruption.

The 59-year-old Republican argued that contracts he prepared, which federal prosecutors said illegally sought to disguise the nature of his role in the campaigns, were not falsified records.

Rowland was convicted by a federal jury in 2014 of plotting to hide political consulting roles through sham contracts in the failed Connecticut 5th District campaigns of Lisa Wilson-Foley in 2012 and Mark Greenberg in 2010. He reported to prison in September to begin serving a 2½ year sentence.

Rowland's lawyer, Yaakov Roth, and the Connecticut U.S. attorney's office declined to comment Monday. Roth said he had yet to talk with the former governor about the high court's decision.

Rowland was governor from 1995 to 2004 and was considered a rising star in the GOP. He was elected to the U.S. House three times, the first time in 1980 when he was 23. He served as chairman of the Republican Governors Association and was mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate or cabinet member.

But he resigned in 2004 amid a corruption scandal that would send him to prison for 10 months for taking more than $100,000 worth of illegal gifts while in office including private flights to Las Vegas, Vermont vacations and repairs and a hot tub at his vacation cottage.

After prison, Rowland regained some popularity while hosting a talk radio show. But then came a second criminal case.

Authorities said Rowland entered into a contract with a nursing home company run by Wilson-Foley's husband, and that contract was used to hide a $35,000 payment to Rowland for consulting for Wilson-Foley's campaign. Rowland said he volunteered for the campaign and denied the allegations.

Wilson-Foley was sentenced to five months in prison and her husband, Brian Foley, got probation in the case. Foley testified that his wife wanted Rowland's help, but believed his involvement - if made public - would attract negative publicity.

Greenberg, who was not charged, testified that he turned down a similar offer from Rowland in his 2010 campaign.

Rowland was convicted of seven federal charges including conspiracy, falsifying records in a federal investigation and causing illegal campaign contributions. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected his appeal of his convictions last year.

In his brief to the Supreme Court, Rowland said the 2nd Circuit was wrong to uphold his conviction for falsifying documents under the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-fraud law, and wrong to rule that omissions of material facts from contracts were equivalent to lies. Roth, Rowland's lawyer, argued the court's decision also expanded the reach of Sarbanes-Oxley and dozens of other federal laws against false statements.

 

Justices won't hear appeal in corruption case

By David Porter
Associated Press

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez's appeal of his corruption indictment, setting the stage for a federal trial in the fall.

The justices let stand a lower court ruling that refused to dismiss charges including conspiracy, bribery and fraud against the Democratic lawmaker.

Menendez was indicted in 2015 after prosecutors said he took official action on behalf of a longtime friend who had given him gifts and campaign donations including flights aboard a luxury jet and a Paris vacation.

The friend, Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, currently is on trial in Florida on multiple counts of Medicare fraud that are separate from the counts he faces in the Menendez indictment.

The indictment alleges Menendez used his official influence to set up meetings with government officials aimed at helping Melgen in a Medicare dispute and with a business interest involving port security in the Dominican Republic.

Menendez has contended he was seeking to influence future policy instead of advocating on behalf of his friend, and that the government is attempting to use the timing of campaign donations to create a quid pro quo between him and Melgen that he claims never existed.

A federal judge in New Jersey and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected Menendez's argument that the meetings were part of his normal legislative duties and were protected under the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause shielding lawmakers from prosecution for those acts.

"It's disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to set a clear, bright line of the separation of powers to ensure that Congress remains an independent and co-equal branch of government, free of interference and retribution from the Executive as the Framers intended," Abbe Lowell, Menendez's attorney, said in an email Monday.

Menendez "has always acted in accordance with the law," Lowell added, and "remains confident that he will be vindicated when all the facts are heard at trial."

In a brief filed last month, the government wrote that the clause is limited to acts that are "integral to the legislative process" and doesn't cover attempts to influence government agencies.

The appeals court said that issue should be argued in front of a jury.

--------

Associated Press writer Sam Hananel in Washington contributed to this report.

Published: Wed, Mar 22, 2017