Supreme Court of the United States Opens Its 2007 Term

My party preference is ______
The Supreme Court of the United States opens its 2007 term on Monday, October 1, with consolidated oral arguments in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (No. 06-713) & Washington v. Washington State Republican Party (No. 06-730).  These two cases involve the constitutionality of ballot rules governing the disclosure of a candidates party affiliation.  Currently, Washington state law permits candidates to declare their party preference instead of their official party affiliation.  Concerns over this system are compounded by the fact that all candidates appear on open primary ballots.  The two candidates garnering the most votes during the open primary are then placed on the general election ballot.  In 2000, the Court struck down a similar election system in the state of California.  Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented, however, claiming that the First Amendment does not encompass a right to exclude non-members from voting in a state-required, state-financed primary election.

New York Trial Court Judges
Supreme Court to hear case affecting First Amendment freedom of association rights On Wednesday, October 3, the high court will hear oral arguments in New York Board of Elections v. Torres (No. 06-766), a case challenging the constitutionality of New Yorks system of appointing trial court judges.  This case comes to the Supreme Court from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld a federal district courts finding that the appointment system violates the First Amendment freedom of association rights of both voters and judicial candidates.

In short, New York utilizes a district convention system in which judicial candidates are nominated at political party conventions.  Margarita Lopez Torres, a judicial candidate lacking party endorsement, challenged the system under the First Amendment as unconstitutionally obstructing judicial appointments and restricting elections by requiring judicial candidates to rely on political parties rather than voters.  In defense, the Board of Elections asserts that voters are not excluded from the elections process since they vote for the delegates who, in turn, vote for the judicial candidates.
 
Child porn law goes too far?
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in United States v. Williams (06-694) on Tuesday, October 30.  This case appeals the decision of a federal appeals court which struck down a key provision of the PROTECT Act of 2003federal legislation providing prosecutors with another tool to combat trafficking in child pornography.  The PROTECT Act outlaws the pandering, or promoting, of any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe that such material contains child pornography.  As such, the PROTECT Act encompasses a laudable congressional attempt to protect children by proscribing all sexually explicit imageswhether real or virtualof children.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, however, said that the Act goes too far.  According to the Eleventh Circuit, the PROTECT Act would prohibit some constitutionally protected speech in the process of prohibiting actual child pornography.  The ACLJ filed a friend of the court brief representing itself and 18 members of Congress in support of the governments position.