Robert M. McKenna's Legal Cases (3)

Government

Madison v. State

Jul 26, 2007

OUTCOME: Prevailed 6-3

Daniel Madison, Beverly DuBois, and Dannielle Garner (respondents) are convicted felons seeking reinstatement of their voting rights. Respondents challenge the constitutionality of Washington's disenfr ... anchisement scheme because it denies the right to vote to convicted felons who have not completed all of the terms of their sentences, Madison v. State, No. 78598-8 including full payment of their legal financial obligations (LFOs)--including court costs, fees, and victim restitution. Respondents argue that the scheme violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution because it denies them the right to vote based on wealth. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the scheme is unconstitutional as to felons who, due to their financial statuses, are unable to pay their LFOs immediately. The State sought direct review and requests that this court reverse the trial court's order and enforce Washington's Constitution and statutes as written. Respondents cross-appeal and ask this court to hold that all felons who have satisfied all the terms of their sentences except for full payment of their LFOs be allowed to vote, regardless of their financial statuses. The Court held that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. It also held that respondents lacked standing to bring their cross-appeal, denied respondents' request for attorney fees because they were not the prevailing party, and reversed the trial court. Source: Decision issued July 26, 2007: http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/wacourts/template.htm?view=mainresults

Election campaigns and political law

Washington v. WEA

Jun 14, 2007

OUTCOME: Unanimous in favor of Washington

Davenport v. Washington Education Association & Washington v. Washington Education Association (consolidated): The Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission ... of Washington State (PDC) alleging that the Washington Educational Association (WEA), a state educational employees union, had violated Washington statute sec. 42.17.760. Section 760, which governs the way the union can use its agency shop fees (the fees paid by educational employees who are not union members), requires the WEA to obtain affirmative consent from nonunion employees for the use of their fees in political activity. After the trial court ruled against the WEA, the court of appeals reversed, finding that section 760 was unconstitutional because it unduly burdoned the speech of the union. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed, holding that section 760's presumption that all nonmembers objected to the use of their fees for political activity violated the speech rights of the union by imposing a costly administrative burden on the union. An opt-out procedure is a less restrictive constitutionally permissible alternative that would protect the rights of dissenting nonmembers. Questions Presented in Washington v. Washington Education Association: Where state law does not prohibit the practice, collective bargaining agreements may contain a union security provision, which requires employees, who are not members of the union, to pay an agency shop fee to the union as a condition of employment. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1986), held that, to protect these nonmembersâ€™ First Amendment rights, the union is prohibited from using these fees to support its political agenda if the nonmember objects (opt-out). Wash. Rev. Code sec. 42.17.760 provides additional protection for nonmembers by requiring them to affirmatively consent (opt-in) before their fees may be used for political purposes. Does the requirement in Wash. Rev. Code sec. 42.17.760 that nonmembers must affirmatively consent (opt-in) before their fees may be used to support the unionâ€™s political agenda violate the unionâ€™s First Amendment rights? (source: Duke Law -http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2006/davvwas) Held: It does not violate the First Amendment for a State to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmemberâ€™s agency fees for election-related purposes. (source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1589.pdf)

Election campaigns and political law

Washington v. Washington Republican Party

N/A

OUTCOME: Undecided

In California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 585-586 (2000), this Court specified how States could structure a top-two primary system that does not violate the associational rights of a pol ... itical party. Pursuant to the Initiative power which the People of the State of Washington reserved to themselves in their State Constitution, the voters of the State of Washington enacted a top-two primary law that the Washington State Grange had drafted to comply with Jones. That law makes the State primary a contest to select the two most popular candidates for the November ballot - regardless of party nominations or party selection. That law also allows candidates for certain offices to disclose on the ballot the name of the party (if any) which that candidate personally prefers. The Ninth Circuit invalidated this top-two primary system in its entirety, holding that the First Amendment (applied to the States through the 14th Amendment) prohibits a State from so allowing a candidate to disclose the name of the party he or she personally prefers on the ballot. Does the First Amendment prohibit top-two election systems that allow a candidate to disclose on the ballot the name of the party he or she personally prefers? (source:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/06-00713qp.pdf)

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained