Search
Filter Search
State Politicians Broaden Attacks on Direct Democracy
Multiple state legislatures have taken steps to make it more difficult for citizens to amend their laws.
Commonwealth v. Govan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release for a defendant whose conduct directly implicated state interests in protecting alleged crime and domestic violence victims and potential witnesses was constitutional under MA’s search and seizure clause. The court also held that an officer’s subsequent retrieval and review of an hour of defendant’s GPS location data in connection with investigating a new crime was not a search for state constitutional purposes because the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the accessed information.
Fremin v. Boyd Racing, LLC
Ruled that statutory amendments that incorporated historical horse racing as a form of authorized pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing without requiring prior local voter approval were unconstitutional under Article XII, section 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution
Welch v. United Medical Healthwest-New Orleans
Held that the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act's (LHEPA) immunity provision did not violate state constitution's access to courts and adequate remedy provision, due process provisions, nor its prohibition of special laws
Happel v. Board of Education
Held that the law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution protects both a parent's right to control her child's upbringing and the right to bodily integrity
Commons of Lake Houston v. City of Houston
Held that a floodplain regulation can effect a regulatory “taking” under the State Constitution even when the regulation is intended to promote compliance with the federal flood-insurance program
State v. Maestas
Held that only fees collected, not fines imposed, by the judicial department are subject to the limitations of Article VI, Section 30 of the New Mexico Constitution and a punitive contempt fee payable to a third party did not violate the provision
In re Doe
Held that the state Board of Medicine did not violate a physician's due process rights when it temporarily suspended his license after finding, ex parte at a regularly scheduled hearing, that there were sufficient facts to prove that he posed an imminent danger to life or health
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
State v. Dias
Held that the Georgia Supreme Court had previously only ruled that the state constitution's right against self-incrimination precluded admission of a suspect's right to consent to a breath test and had never ruled that drawing someone’s blood implicated the right against compelled self-incrimination
