State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in October

Each month, State Court Report previews upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.

In October, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including postmarks and signature verification requirements for voting by mail, a governor’s creative use of a line-item veto, life-without-parole sentences for deaths that occur during the commission of another crime, and whether courts have the power to decide certain state constitutional redistricting disputes.

Challenge to Tennessee House Redistricting that Splits Counties — October 3

Wygant v. Lee, Tennessee Supreme Court

The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit brought by voters challenging state house districts passed by the legislature in 2022. The plaintiffs contend that the boundaries violate a state constitutional provision barring house districts that divide counties. The defendants, who are state officials charged with enforcing the redistricting, including the governor, argue that the court does not have the power to resolve the claim because such a challenge is a purely political question to be left to the legislature.

To reconcile Tennessee’s ban on county-splitting with the federal Equal Protection Clause requirement that state legislative districts contain “substantially equal” populations, the Tennessee high court has interpreted the state constitution as requiring districts to “cross as few county lines as is necessary.” State officials now argue that there are no clear, manageable legal standards for implementing this requirement, only policy judgments that are not in the purview of the courts. They also assert that a separate state constitutional provision gives the legislature “the authority to choose whether and to what extent it will elevate county-line preservation over other redistricting criteria.” The plaintiffs say that the Tennessee Supreme Court’s prior interpretation is appropriately deferential to the legislature and unworkable.

Watch the arguments here.

Is Mandatory Life Without Parole for So-Called “Felony Murder” Constitutional in Pennsylvania? — October 8

Commonwealth v. Lee, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide whether mandating a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, for “felony murder” — a legal doctrine that allows someone to be prosecuted for murder for any death that occurs during the commission of a separate felony, even if the defendant never meant to kill anyone — violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s ban on “cruel” punishments or the federal Eighth Amendment. A minority of states mandate life-without-parole sentences for all felony-murder convictions, and that sentence is the same currently imposed in Pennsylvania for first-degree murder, which requires specific intent to kill.

The defendant urges the state high court to rule that Pennsylvania’s “cruel” punishment ban provides broader protection than the Eighth Amendment in the felony murder context. He points to a growing trend of states interpreting their own similar clauses more expansively than the federal equivalent. The defendant and an unusually broad set of amicus groups — including Gov. Josh Shapiro and current and former prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials — also argue that the state’s practice of requiring life-without-parole sentences for felony-murder convictions, regardless of the offender’s culpability, has caused pervasive racial disparities, eroded public trust in the law, and imposed “enormous” financial strain without commensurate public safely benefit.

Watch the arguments here.

Curing Vote-by-Mail Ballot Mistakes in Nevada — October 8

Republican National Committee v. Aguilar, Nevada Supreme Court

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction that sought to stop the practice of counting as valid mail-in ballots that lack a postmark date but arrive by the statutory deadline. State law mandates that ballots for which the “date of the postmark cannot be determined” must arrive by 5:00 p.m. on the third day after the election.

Plaintiffs, including the Republican National Committee and the Donald Trump campaign, argue that the secretary of state’s policy of treating the lack of any visible postmark on a ballot as an “indeterminate postmark” goes against the plain language of the statute. They also argue the policy constitutes improper rulemaking under the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act. A lower court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits because, among other reasons, they lack standing. The lower court also noted that the plaintiffs’ readings of the statute “would lead to rejection of timely mail ballots — an absurd and unconstitutional outcome that prevents accurate counting of votes.”

Watch the arguments here.

Wisconsin Governor Deletes Digits in Bill to Add 400 Years of School Funding — October 9

LeMieux v. Evers, Wisconsin Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will address the scope of Gov. Tony Evers’s state constitutional authority to approve spending bills passed by the legislature only “in part” — by line-item vetoing other parts. Presented with a 2023 budget bill that approved a two-year increase in school funding limits through the 2024–25 school year, Evers struck the “20” and the dash from references to “2024–25” so that they read “2425.” As altered, the bill increased school funding for 402 years, not 2. Evers’s “creative deployment” of the partial veto is part of a long gubernatorial tradition in Wisconsin, which has prompted two state constitutional amendments, including a 1990 bar to the governor creating “a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill.”

In this lawsuit filed directly with the state high court, taxpayers claim that Evers violated the 1990 amendment. They assert that the clause’s plain meaning, purpose, and history reflect that “word” and “letter” were meant also to encompass the striking of digits to form a new number. They also argue that Evers has exceeded his power to approve a spending bill partially, because a 402-year period cannot be “part” of the two-year duration the legislature passed. Among other points, the governor responds that the common-sense meaning of “letters” does not include numbers.

Watch the arguments here.

Signature Verification and Voter Protection Under Scrutiny in Washington — October 31

Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs, Washington Supreme Court

Civic organizations and voters allege that Washington’s signature verification process for vote-by-mail ballots disproportionally disenfranchises minority voters, young voters, military personnel, voters with disabilities, and non-native English speakers, in violation of state constitutional voting rights protections. The plaintiffs and the state defendants are appealing their respective denials of summary judgment. The Washington Supreme Court will address what standard of judicial review should be used for the state constitutional challenges and whether, under the appropriate standard of judicial review, any party should have been granted summary judgment.

The Brennan Center submitted an amicus brief in support of neither party, arguing that the Washington Constitution provides stronger protections for voters than the federal Constitution, and that the court should use strict scrutiny — the most rigorous form of judicial review — when evaluating laws and practices that burden voting.

Watch the arguments here.

Sarah Kessler is an advisor to State Court Report.

Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Correction: An earlier version of this article said that Pennsylvania is one of only two states that mandates life-without-parole sentences for all felony-murder convictions. The number is higher, though only a minority of states require life without parole for felony murder.  

Suggested Citation: Sarah Kessler & Erin Geiger Smith, State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in October, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Sept. 27, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-october.