attorney general

In Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether an attorney general should be permitted to intervene in a lawsuit after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law.  

In 2018 Kentucky passed an abortion law, and the Secretary of Health and Family Services was sued. Lawyers from Health and Family Services and the Office of...

In the latest twist in Virginia’s redistricting saga, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, the Supreme Court must resolve a showdown between the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Attorney General regarding who may litigate the case, among many other issues.

Plaintiffs, a number of Virginia voters, allege that the Virginia legislature engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering when it constructed 12 majority-black Virginia House of Delegates districts during the 2011 redistricting cycle. More specifically, the plaintiffs argue that requiring each of these districts to contain a minimum 55% black voting age population (BVAP) was unnecessary for black voters to elect their preferred candidates per the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs claim this minimum was set to reduce the influence of black voters in other districts.

CSG Midwest

The race for governor in Kansas got off to an unusual start this election cycle — the announced candidacies of six teenagers, the editor of an alternative weekly newspaper in Oregon, and even a dog. The canine’s run was stopped, but at least as of early this year, nothing in the state’s Constitution or statutes prevented minors and out-of-state residents from seeking the governorship.

“If this isn’t changed, people in prison could run,” adds Kansas Rep. Blake Carpenter, noting the lack of a requirement that a gubernatorial candidate be a “qualified elector.”
Carpenter’s HB 2539, which as of late February had passed the House by a wide margin and was awaiting action in the Senate, adds the “qualifying elector” requirement for anyone running for statewide office. (His bill wouldn’t take effect until January 2019, thus not impacting the campaigns of teens or out-of-state residents running this year.)

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sherrif v. Gillie.

Per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) debt collectors may not make false, deceptive, or misleading representations. FDCPA targets independent debt collectors who lack incentives to act fairly because they “are likely to have no future contact with the consumer and often are unconcerned with the consumer’s opinion of them.”

The definition of debt collectors excludes “officers” of the State.