Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025 Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
NINTH CIRCUIT OVERTURNS WASHINGTON STATE'S FELON-DISENFRANCHISEMENT LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Supposed Racial Discrimination in Criminal Justice System Makes Law Discriminatory
Plaintiffs, minority citizens of Washington state who have
lost their right to vote pursuant to the state’s felon disenfranchisement
provision, filed this action in 1996 challenging that
provision on the ground that, due to racial discrimination in
the state’s criminal justice system, the automatic disenfranchisement
of felons results in the denial of the right to vote
on account of race, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights
Act (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973. We earlier reversed the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants. See
Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003),
cert. denied, 543 U.S. 984 (2004) (“Farrakhan I”). On
remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to
Defendants. Plaintiffs timely appeal. We reverse and grant
summary judgment to Plaintiffs.
Reversing from summary judgment for the defendants (twice!) to summary judgment for the plaintiffs?
Gee, you think they sort of knew which way this case "should" come out?
Insta-Analysis From Gabe:
The major problem here is that it's summary judgment. There was no trial. The Court of Appeals takes the plaintiff's witnesses' word for it that there is racial disparity which cannot be explained other than by racism and that compells the conclusion. The problem is that with summary judgment motions, the court is supposed to construe facts in light most favorable to the other party, not the moving party.