Can the Republicans Cancel the Elections, Even Though Trump Can’t?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether (and how) President Trump or his supporters in Congress could cancel the 2020 elections, citing public safety as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Buchanan points out that because states control the procedures for the election, Trump would need Republican governors of certain blue states to shut down their state’s elections—something Buchanan stops short of saying is likely or unlikely.

Read More

The Lessons the Coronavirus Crisis Can Teach Us About the Religious Liberty that Serves the Public Good (aka the Framers’ Religious Liberty)

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, describes some of the lessons the novel coronavirus pandemic can teach us about religious liberty. Hamilton points out that COVID-19 is nondenominational and nonpartisan, yet we are already seeing some groups claim to be exempt from the public-health prohibitions on large gatherings, on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Read More

State v. Ghostbear

Citation: 2020 MT 60

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: Shea

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony sexual assault, holding that the court did not err by denying Defendant's for-cause challenge of a prospective juror. During voir dire, defense counsel moved to remove Juror G. for cause based on her responses to the question of whether jurors would be inclined to believe a child witness's testimony regarding sexual abuse. The district court denied the motion, and defense counsel subsequently used a peremptory challenge to remove Juror G. The jury found Defendant guilty of sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that because Juror G.'s voir dire statements evinced an inability to act with impartiality and without prejudice toward Defendant the district court erred by denying Defendant's for-cause challenge of Juror G.

State v. Holder

Citation: 2020 MT 61

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to strike a prior conviction for purposes of enhancing Appellant's DUI charge to a felony, holding that the district court did not err by relying on a 1990 Texas DWI conviction for purposes of enhancing Appellant's penalty. Appellant pled guilty to felony DUI and other offenses. On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to strike his prior conviction, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that the State provided competent proof of his 1990 Texas DWI conviction because Defendant's National Crime Information criminal record report did not also include information about a sentence or judgment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State provided competent proof of the Texas conviction under application of the presumption of regularity, which Appellant did not rebut.