This letter requests that the House of Representatives investigate whether Calvin Say meets the qualifications to serve as the representative for the 20th district. It summarizes that Mr. Say claims residence at an address where he does not live, but instead lives at a different address outside of the 20th district. The letter provides background on previous legal challenges to Mr. Say's voter registration and requests the House take up the matter, as the Speaker had previously asserted the House has exclusive authority over qualifications of its members.
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Rich Bergeron
Pay particular attention to how this "objection" is worded. Judge O'Neill ends up not only filing the fastest order in my favor in the history of the case, but he also writes it as if he's only addressing it to the prosecution. My initial motion asked for the judge to either schedule a prompt trial date or dismiss the case. It was not a motion to dismiss, but the mere mention of a suggested dismissal made Judge O'Neill act fast, and the language of the request criticizing him so vociferously obviously made him furious.
Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Tells Judge James O'Neill III How ...Rich Bergeron
Pay particular attention to how this "objection" is worded. Judge O'Neill ends up not only filing the fastest order in my favor in the history of the case, but he also writes it as if he's only addressing it to the prosecution. My initial motion asked for the judge to either schedule a prompt trial date or dismiss the case. It was not a motion to dismiss, but the mere mention of a suggested dismissal made Judge O'Neill act fast, and the language of the request criticizing him so vociferously obviously made him furious.
17Supreme Court Cases – the right to voteJesus Mojica.docxdrennanmicah
1
7
Supreme Court Cases – the right to vote
Jesus Mojica
History 121
Ochoa
November 6, 2018
Introduction
The Shelby county V. Holder, the United States V. Reese and the Ohio voter purge are Supreme Court cases which are concerned with the voting right in the United States. The United States being a federal state has to set out different voting rights in order to ensure that the voting processes are carried out efficiently in the state. These rights also define the voting in the different nations which fall under the United States federation. The three cases are therefore related since they are concerned with voting rights in the US. The Shelby county V. holder, 570 US 2 is concerned with a voting act which was passed back in the year 1965 requiring both the state and the local governments not to pass laws or voting policies that denied the American citizens their rights to vote in accordance to race among other differences among the citizens. The Supreme Court later took the case back in the year 2012 and was decided in the year 2013.
The united states V. Reese, 92 US 214 case on the other hand is a case whereby the us supreme court went ahead and interpreted the 15th amendment of the us constitution which was mainly that the citizens should not be restricted of suffrage due to their race, color as well as the fact that one is a slave. This case therefore was mainly restrictions of voters voting rights due to their various differences from the other citizens. The Ohio voter purge supreme court case lastly is mainly about voter’s suppression. It was presented in the Supreme Court back last year due to voter purging in that removing the voter’s registrations which are termed as outdated. This paper therefore explains in detail these three cases that are highly recognized in the United States Supreme Court.
Shelby County V. Holder
As mentioned before this case is mainly regarding the appeal by the Shelby County on the voting rights act which was passed back in 1965 in the American constitution. This case dwelled on two articles in the American constitution. The first article is the section 5 of the voting rights act which requires certain states or rather counties local governments to obtain the federal clearance before changing the voting practices in their areas. The other article is the section 4(b) of the voting rights act which states the jurisdictions of the clearance process and the basis of the local government’s history on voting discrimination. This information is contained in the coverage formula in this section of the voting rights act. The district and the court of appeal courts in USA upheld the constitutionality of the two sections of the voting acts back in 2006 and 2012. The district court had reauthorized the section 5 and also the continuing of the section 4(b) coverage formula back in 2006 while the court of appeal also agreed that the section 5 was justified and the section 4(b) coverage formula continued to outdo the c.
Big Island Election Challenged in Hawaii Supreme CourtHawaii News
A lawsuit filed Thursday, August 21 by Pahoa residents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai‘i Foundation (“ACLU”) asks the State Supreme Court to allow any registered voter affected by Tropical Storm Iselle to cast a vote that will be included in the August 2014 primary results.
GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT372 U.S. 335Gideon v. Wainwright (No.docxbudbarber38650
GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
372 U.S. 335
Gideon v. Wainwright (No. 155)
Argued: January 15, 1963
Decided: March 18, 1963
Reversed and cause remanded.
· Syllabus
· Opinion, Black
· Separate, Douglas
· Concurrence, Clark
· Concurrence, Harlan
Syllabus
Charged in a Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Petitioner conducted his own defense about as well as could be expected of a layman, but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.
Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady,316 U.S. 455, overruled. Pp. 336-345.
[p336]
TOP
Opinion
BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under [p337]Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him, whereupon the following colloquy took place:
The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.
The DEFENDANT: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.
Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument "emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case." The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in the state prison. Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government."[n1]Treating the petition for habeas corpus as properly before it, the State Supreme Court, "upon consideration thereof" but without an op.
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
Court Denies Rust Request for an Injunction to stay on the ballotAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
A Marion County Judge has denied a request by John Rust to get back on the ballot. Rust says he will appeal his decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
649 F.3d 1086United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit..docxalinainglis
649 F.3d 1086
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Melchor GUEVARA, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08–72252.Argued and Submitted Feb. 2, 2010.Filed June 3, 2011.
Synopsis
Background: Alien petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which reversed the immigration judge's (IJ's) decision to grant alien cancellation of removal based on purported legal permanent resident (LPR) status arising from prior approval of his request for employment authorization.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, N.R. Smith, Circuit Judge, held that:
1 court would apply limited Skidmore framework in reviewing BIA's decision;
2 prior grant of employment authorization did not grant alien LPR status; and
3 employment authorization was not equivalent to participation in Family Unity Program (FUP).
Petition denied.
Fisher, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
West Headnotes (7)
Collapse West Headnotes
Change View
1
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Court of Appeals reviews de novo the determinations of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of purely legal questions, including the BIA's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101 et seq., 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.
2
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Court of Appeals applies Chevron deference to the interpretations of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as to ambiguous immigration statutes, if the BIA's decision is a published decision; however, the court need not defer to the BIA if the statute is unambiguous.
1 Case that cites this headnote
3
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Court of Appeals follows the Skidmore framework, under which the measure of deference afforded to the agency depends upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade if lacking power to control, if the relevant decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is unpublished and is not directly controlled by any published decision interpreting the same statute.
1 Case that cites this headnote
4
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had not issued any precedential opinion on whether alien's receipt of employment authorization document equated to admission “in any status,” precluding Court of Appeals from according Chevron deference to BIA's interpretation of relevant statutes and instead Court of Appeals would apply more limited Skidmore framework, under which measure of deference afforded depended upon thoroughness e.
York County, Virginia General District Court Filing Traffic CourtChuck Thompson
http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com Posted for a story posted on the linked website dated April 22nd, 2015. Shows how the court ignored the rules of the court and railroaded a person who was fraudulently charged in our opinion.
“One child, one teacher, one book, and one pen can change the world.” – Malala Yousafzai
“None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody — a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony, or a few nuns — bent down and helped us pick up our boots.” – Thurgood Marshall
“Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.” – Minor Myers
Gov. Ige sent a letter to California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in response to her August 2020 request for information about Hawaii's pandemic response.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/08/california-congresswoman-wants-answers-on-hawaiis-virus-response-effort/
Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...Honolulu Civil Beat
This audit was conducted pursuant to Resolution 19-255,
requesting the city auditor to conduct a performance audit of the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s policies and procedures related to employee misconduct.
Audit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and ControlsHonolulu Civil Beat
The audit objectives were to:
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of HPD’s existing policies, procedures, and controls to identify and respond to complaints or incidents concerning misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by its management and employees;
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of HPD's management control environment and practices to correct errors and prevent any misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by its
management and employees; and
3. Make recommendations to improve HPD’s policies, procedures, and controls to minimize and avoid future managerial and operational breakdowns caused by similar misconduct.
1. October 6, 2014
Hon. Joseph P. Souki
Speaker
House of Representatives
Twenty-Seventh Legislature
State of Hawai'i
Hawaii State Capitol
Honolulu HI 96813
Re: Qualifications of Calvin Say to the Office of Representative of the 20th District
Dear Mr. Speaker,
As you know, I represent Ramona Hussey, M. Ka'imila Nicholson, Natalia Antonia Hussey-
Burdick, Brent S. Dupuis, Marvin D. Heskett, and Joel L. Merchant (the Voters) who challenge
Calvin Say's qualifications to serve as the representative of the twentieth district. They renew their
original request made to you on February 22, 2013 that the House investigate the qualifications of
Say to possess the title to office of representative for the twentieth district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Calvin Say currently possesses title to office of representative of the twentieth district of the
twenty-seventh Legislature of the State of Hawai'i. He has lived and continues to live at 2247 Star
Road in Pauoa Valley, in the twenty-fifth representative district and the house at 2247 Star Road is
where his habitation is fixed. He lives and continues to live with his wife and two adult children at
2247 Star Road and has done so for over two decades. His wife and two adult children are registered
to vote at 2247 Star Road.
Nevertheless, Say has registered to vote using the legal address of 1822 10th Avenue in
Palolo Valley. He has previously admitted he does not actually live there and he does not actually live
there. For instance, at the February 13, 2013 Palolo Neighborhood Board meeting held at Palolo
Elementary School cafeteria, Say was asked about his so-called residency at 1822 10th Avenue. He
1
2. explained that he kept the house at 1822 10th Avenue vacant over the years and had foregone rent
because of his love and commitment to the district. He even became emotional while he was
describing what he considered to be his sacrifice of rental income over the years for the greater
good.
As noted by the Attorney General in Opinion No. 86-10 in determining residency for voter
qualification purposes: “the particular places which one regards as his residence is not material.
What must be ascertained instead is where 'his habitation is fixed,' where he always intends to return,
and where his present 'permanent dwelling place' is.” It continues:
“Residence” when used in defining electoral rights has been said to be essentially
synonymous with “domicile,” which denotes a permanent, as distinguished from a
temporary, dwelling place. It means “the place where a man establishes his abode, makes the
seat of his property and exercises his civil and political rights.” In re Appeal of Irving, 13 Haw.
22, 24 (1900) quoting from Chase v. Miller, 41 Pa. 420. A “house of stone or brick or even of
wood is not essential to enable one to become a resident of a precinct and a qualified voter
therein... there must be some definite and permanent place designated and occupied.” Id at
25
In 2006, several voters challenged the propriety of Say's voter registration in the former fifth
precinct of the former twentieth representative district. On appeal to the Board of Voter
Registration, affirmed by a vote of 2-1, that Say's homeowner's real property tax exemption claimed
at 1822 10th Avenue created a rebuttable presumption that it was Say's legal residence even though
he was absent from the dwelling place because he “intends to return.”
In 2010, several voters again challenged the propriety of Say's voter registration in the
former fifth precinct of the former twentieth representative district. The City Clerk denied the
challenge on the basis of the 2006 Board of Registration decision holding: “It is my determination
that 1822 10th Avenue continues to be Mr. Say's voter registration residence.”
In 2009, the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled:
If a person who has been living on the mainland packs up their belongings and ships them
to Hawai`i, flies to Honolulu and moves in with family members with the intent of making
Hawai`i their permanent home, they could be considered residents from the day they arrived.
At the other extreme, consider a person who has a home in Los Angeles, flies to Honolulu
and registers to vote, and then returns to Los Angeles on the same day, all with the stated
intent of making Honolulu his or her permanent residence. Recognizing such a person as a
Honolulu resident would render the physical presence requirement in HRS § 11-13(4) an
absurdity.” Dupree v. Hiraga, 121 Haw. 297, 323 (2009)
As has been noted elsewhere, voter registration is not a qualification of voting but a regulation
2
3. thereof. Therefore, voter registration is not dispositive of the issue of voter qualification.
It is true that some courts have held that where the constitution prescribes the qualifications
of voters and does not include registration among them, the legislature cannot add that,
although it is said to be the better opinion that the legislature may, as a matter of regulation,
require registration in such cases and even prevent persons from voting who become
otherwise qualified after the last session of the board of registration and before election day,
provided that interval is not unreasonably long.
Fairchild v. Smith, 15 Haw. 265, 269-270 (Terr., 1903) See also Right to Life Party v. Rockefeller, 319
F.Supp 642, 646 (SDNY 1970) (“To be a qualified voter is only to be eligible to register, it is not the
same as being registered.”); Piuser v. Sioux City, 262 N.W. 551, 554 (Iowa, 1935) (“[O]ne may be a
qualified voter although not registered, and that one may not vote unless registered even though a
qualified voter. It is generally recognized that ... registration is a regulation of the exercise of the
right of suffrage and not a qualification for such right.”)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2012, the Voters filed a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto in the First
Circuit Court challenging Calvin Say's possession of title to office of representative of the twentieth
district in special proceeding entitled Ramona Hussey et al v. Calvin Say, S.P. No. 12-1-0736 KTN.
On February 20, 2013, the Circuit Court dismissed the Petition and the Voters appealed.
I met with you at your office at the Capitol on February 22, 2013 to request, on Voters'
behalf, that the House entertain their challenge pursuant to Article III, Section 12 of the Hawai'i
State Constitution and to appoint a committee or engage some other process to receive evidence
and decide questions of law and to determine or recommend for decision to the whole House the
issue of Say's qualifications. At that time, you indicated that the House does not get involved in such
disputes. The credentials committee solely looks to the validity of the certificate of election before
seating members. You indicated that all other matters are resolved in the courts.
Subsequently, however, you authorized the Attorney General to intervene on the House of
Representative's behalf in the Hussey v. Say case asserting that “the Hawaii Constitution vests the
House exclusive authority to 'judge' the 'qualifications of its own member[.]” (House of
Representatives Motion to Dismiss, filed August 29, 2014, page 1)
On September 30, 2014, Judge Nakasone granted the House's Motion to Dismiss on this
ground: “where the House has not yet exercised its power, nor conducted any investigation or
3
4. determination thereto, this court's interference at this juncture would not only be unconstitutional,
but also premature, unwise and inefficacious.” (Conclusions of Law and Order Granting House of
Representatives Motion to Dismiss, filed September 30, 2014, page 25)
ISSUE
Whether Calvin Say is eligible to serve as a member of the house of representatives for the
twentieth district pursuant to Article III, Section 6 where he is not a qualified voter of the twentieth
district
RELIEF REQUESTED
Voters renew their request for the House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry and make
a determination regarding whether Calvin Say's Article III, Section 6 qualifications to serve as a
member of the house of representatives for the twentieth district and for a decision by the House to
expel Calvin Say for his usurpation of office and lack of constitutional qualifications
The request was originally lodged on February 22, 2013 but no action was taken because you
determined the matter was for the courts to decide. Given that you authorized the House to
intervene and assert it has exclusive jurisdiction over this matter much more recently, the House will
have the courtesy to promptly address this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICE OF LANCE D COLLINS
LANCE D COLLINS
Attorney for Petitioners
c: Clients
All Representatives
4