Council approves $160,000 in redistricting case
ANDERSON — The redistricting lawsuit filed against the Anderson City Council in 2023 has come to a conclusion.
The city council Thursday voted to approve an appropriation of $160,000 to pay the attorneys for Common Cause of Indiana, the League of Women Voters of Indiana and the local chapter of the NAACP.
Those organizations filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court alleging the six single-member council districts violated federal law based on the one person, one vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Councilman Ollie H. Dixon said before action was taken that he would not vote on the funding and left the meeting.
The $160,000 appropriation was approved by a 7-0 vote. Councilman Joe Newman was in not at the meeting.
Last month, the council voted unanimously on a new map for the six council districts developed by the Virginia-based CensusChannel that was accepted by the plaintiffs.
Under the terms of the settlement, the council agreed to pay the attorneys for the plaintiff $136,680 in fees and costs.
Council President Lance Stephenson said in January the council has $50,000 in the 2025 budget and an additional appropriation had to be approved.
As part of the settlement, the council also passed the precinct and district block information for the new map.
Stephenson said that in the opinion of the Rosemary Khoury, the council's attorney, the vote would settle the case.
The federal court dismissed the lawsuit in January after the settlement was reached.
When the lawsuit was filed in 2023, the council hired the Chicago law firm of Henderson Parks to represent it.
The Chicago firm has been paid $150,000 by the city.
Councilman Jeff Freeman said the council has requested a refund from the Chicago firm, which withdrew from the case in December.
The judge ruled last year the council violated the U.S. Constitution by failing to redraw the city's six district maps.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In major reversal, Kotek seeks return of fugitive suspected of targeting Asian Oregonians
Gov. Tina Kotek delivers her State of the State address on Monday, Jan. 13, 2025. She recently ordered the extradition of a suspected member of a multi-state burglary ring from Texas to Oregon. (Laura Tesler/Oregon Capital Chronicle/pool) Gov. Tina Kotek on Friday said she has ordered the extradition of a suspected member of a multi-state burglary ring from Texas to Oregon who allegedly targeted Asian households throughout the Eugene area, averting some of the blowback she faced for rejecting the extradition earlier this week. The reversal marks the second time in the past two weeks that Kotek has changed course in an extradition decision in the wake of public pressure. The governor made a more explicit reversal in May regarding the transfer of a woman accused of embezzling from Eugene Weekly, a move the locally-beloved newspaper has called 'an about-face.' This time, the decision to extradite came 'after further communication with the Lane County DA's office and review of the information provided,' Roxy Mayer, a Kotek press secretary, said in an email. The governor is 'still not moving forward' with the extradition of another member of the burglary ring who fled Oregon and who is being held in Texas with an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement hold. 'We were notified two days ago that the Governor's Office has changed their position on funding in [a] case where our Asian residents were targeted,' Lane County District Attorney Christopher Parosa said in a statement. 'I am grateful for that. It will go a long way to allowing us to make that community feel welcomed and protected in Lane County.' Parosa told The Register-Guard on Tuesday that Kotek's denial was out of the ordinary and 'seems to be an attempt by the governor's office to put that financial obligation on the local communities, who, of course, have never had that responsibility in the past.' He declined to elaborate on the state's extradition efforts to the Capital Chronicle but shared a statement in an email. 'It is my hope that further dialogue regarding extradition funding requests will occur between the Governor's Office and the Lane County District Attorney in the near future,' he said. Jennifer Jonak, a board member at the Eugene-based Asian American Council of Oregon, said in a statement that the group is 'grateful that the Governor's office has heard and taken into account the impact on our Asian American community.' Jonak said the council is still reviewing further details regarding the suspect still on ICE hold in Texas. 'We deeply appreciate the hard work of local law enforcement agencies and the Lane County DA's office who have worked so hard to obtain justice for the victims of these race-targeted offenses,' she said. The Oregon governor has the discretion to make decisions on extraditions in light of the sometimes high costs, a factor Kotek's office has highlighted when explaining its recent rejections of extradition requests. Costs of retrieving alleged criminals from other states have significantly increased since 2020, according to data shared by Kotek's office. The average cost of extraditions from 'non-shuttle states' – those are states that don't participate in cost-sharing and inter-state coordination with fugitive return – has risen about 30% since the 2019-2021 biennium. Police in Eugene described the burglaries as part of a 'multi-state crime ring targeting wealthy individuals of Asian descent, to include business owners, doctors, and others,' according to one February news release, including states such as Washington and Idaho. The suspects surveilled and targeted homeowners who they believed were likely to store valuables at home, police say. Authorities estimated similar crimes continued throughout summer and fall of 2024. While some suspects have been arrested and charged, many warrants remain standing nationwide as several alleged perpetrators are believed to have fled the country. Officials have not named or released a country of origin for the suspect. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins v. Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top U.S. judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. "While we're obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to revise aspects of our discovery requests, we're pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed," said CREW spokesperson Jordan Libowitz after Friday's decision. Prior to Friday's order, Chief Justice John Roberts had imposed a temporary pause on Cooper's orders to give the court more time to consider the dispute. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
