I discussed a story about the rapidly decreasing number of supposed noncitizens on voting rolls. Voting rolls, not actually voting.
Coincidentally, the Supreme Court handed down a related order. I updated the piece. The limited immediate reach makes the opinion less problematic (for now), but also makes it even less necessary for SCOTUS (as Jackson argues) to intervene.
ETA: vs. the second case, where they said: "We meant it, morons."
September 17 was Constitution Day and David Souter's Birthday. Meanwhile, Trump continues to be anti-constitutional, including regarding the Media. Happy Suffrage Day (comments).
Stacy Humphreys
Georgia planned to execute Stacey Humphreys for a double robbery/homicide last December.
The press (as discussed here) tried to obtain more information about the execution. Open access is important for due process and public education.
A state court blocked the execution. He might be eligible pursuant to a state law protecting victims of abuse. Net result: the execution warrant ran out.
Jeffery Lee
Alabama planned to execute Jeffery Lee using nitrogen gas. A lower court, not blocked by the Supreme Court this time, held it was unconstitutionally risky. They used lethal injection.
The final appeal challenged Alabama's ability to switch methods. Lee's lawyers argue the state said "nitrogen gas," and they don't have the right to switch now. Lee offered the firing squad as a backup option (one is required) when challenging the nitrogen gas.
Denied without comment. The liberals pick their spots. The back-and-forth nature of this execution provides some grounds to drop a statement or dissenting opinion. A statement would flag concerns, but not enough to warrant granting a stay of execution and/or a cert. grant.
Lee was convicted of a double homicide. The jury (7-5) voted to apply a life sentence without parole. The judge overruled it and applied the death penalty.
If we set twenty years as "too long," the murders took place in 2003. OTOH, the Supreme Court has never accepted the "taking too long" approach.
Here's a good summary.
LeJames Norman
Norman and a second person (who is scheduled to die later this month) murdered three people in an attempted robbery twenty years ago.
They were 19 and 20. The constitutional line has been set at 18. Age is still a mitigating factor.
See also a citation of "chaotic, impoverished, and violent childhoods." Norman also showed remorse and testified against his co-defendant.*
The final appeal argued that the prosecutor corruptly baited and switched. They used Norman to convict his co-defendant and then badmouthed him, sometimes with lies, during his own trial.
SCOTUS denied it without comment, which is normal enough, though it did take until late afternoon on the day of the execution. He was then executed.
I'm sure the lawyers raised various other claims over the years. Overall, the best reason not to execute is that there are enough mitigating factors.
Two people under 21 committed a horrible crime and have been in prison longer than they were alive. Execution does not improve the public welfare.
==
* I will update this entry regarding that execution.
ETA: His final appeal alleged incompetent counsel (from a dentist who did lawyering on the side) and racial discrimination in jury selection.
Denied on execution day without comment. My general rule is that I support some statement in these final appeals, even if the argument is weak.
The evidence appears clear. I would oppose his execution because of the mitigation of youth, maybe his childhood, and on basic principles.
Not very verbose, but the Supreme Court (with feeling) held up Trump's attempt to screw over mail-in voting. Kavanaugh concurred while noting the rule change might be okay long-term. Alito (with Thomas) dissented. Vladeck with more.
The Administration can still cause problems, including pressuring state officials by threatening them with prosecution.