Today's Brew highlights how states are changing absentee or mail-in voting due to coronavirus + SCOTUS rules jury convictions in state courts must be unanimous
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

[link removed]

Welcome to the Friday, April 24, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

* Coronavirus update: 22 states have modified absentee or mail-in voting procedures due to the outbreak
* Supreme Court rules jury convictions in state court trials must be unanimous
* Group submits signatures for California ballot initiative on dialysis clinic requirements

_ Updates on stories related to the coronavirus outbreak are current through Thursday afternoon. Click here for the latest news ([link removed]) ._
------------------------------------------------------------


** CORONAVIRUS UPDATE: 22 STATES HAVE MODIFIED ABSENTEE OR MAIL-IN VOTING PROCEDURES DUE TO THE OUTBREAK
------------------------------------------------------------

One aspect of the coronavirus pandemic’s effect on America's political and civic life is the changes states have made to the conduct of elections. Twenty-two states have temporarily modified their absentee/mail-in voting procedures. Of these, nine are Democratic trifectas and seven are Republican trifectas. The remainder are divided governments.

These modifications fall into four broad categories:

* sending mail-in ballots automatically to all eligible voters,
* sending mail-in ballot applications automatically to all eligible voters,
* expanding absentee voting eligibility, and
* extending absentee/mail-in ballot request or submission deadlines.

Our latest edition of The Ballot Bulletin ([link removed]) —published on Wednesday, April 22—reviewed both the permanent statutory framework for absentee/mail-in voting and the temporary modifications states have made in response to the current public health emergency. IT ALSO EXAMINED THE LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR MAKING THESE CHANGES AND THE EMERGING DEBATE SURROUNDING THE ISSUE.

_The Ballot Bulletin_ is published every two weeks and tracks all of the changes to election dates and procedures in response to the coronavirus outbreak. It also covers the prominent events, legislation, and court cases affecting how elections are conducted, redistricting, and election policy. Best of all...it’s free! Click the link below to subscribe to stay on top of the latest developments.

Here are some other notable coronavirus-related updates since Thursday's _Brew_:

* President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order ([link removed]) suspending the issuance of green cards. The order only applies to individuals outside the U.S. at the time of the order and is set to expire in 60 days.
* Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) announced that he would extend the state’s stay-at-home order through May 30. Beginning May 1, anyone over the age of 2 will be required to wear a mask in public spaces unless medically unable to do so. Some businesses previously designated as nonessential, like greenhouses and nurseries, will be allowed to reopen, so long as they follow social distancing requirements.
* North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) announced that he would extend the state’s stay-at-home order through May 8, but did say the first phase of a proposed three-part reopening plan could happen as early May 9. Cooper said the state will need to meet certain benchmarks before that happens, however.
* Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) announced that schools would not reopen for in-person instruction for the remainder of the academic year. Prior to the announcement, schools were closed through May 1.
* The Republican Party of Wisconsin has postponed its state convention, originally scheduled to take place in May, to July 10-11.
* U.S. District Court Judge James Gwin for the Northern District of Ohio ordered the transfer or release of certain vulnerable inmate populations from a federal prison in Ohio due to the coronavirus pandemic. Gwin was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1997.

Learn more ([link removed])

mailto:?&[email protected]&subject=Check out this info I found from Ballotpedia&body=[link removed] [blank] [link removed]'s%20Daily%20Brew [blank] [blank] [link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------
[blank][link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------


** SUPREME COURT RULES JURY CONVICTIONS IN STATE COURT TRIALS MUST BE UNANIMOUS
------------------------------------------------------------

While the U.S. Supreme Court has delayed hearing oral arguments during the coronavirus outbreak, it is continuing to issue rulings on cases it heard earlier this term. The Court issued a ruling this week regarding jury verdicts in state courts.

THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED A LOUISIANA JURY’S CONVICTION OF A DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS NOT UNANIMOUS. The Court ruled 6-3 in _Ramos v. Louisiana_ that "if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court." The six justices in the majority were Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The three dissenting justices were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan.

In 2016, a Louisiana jury voted 10-2 to convict Evangelisto Ramos of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Ramos appealed his conviction to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing his conviction by a non-unanimous jury violated his federal constitutional rights. The court of appeal affirmed Ramos' conviction and sentence.

In its decision ([link removed]) , the Supreme Court said the enactment of non-unanimous jury verdicts in Oregon and Louisiana was a product of racism. Writing for the Court, Gorsuch said, “Courts in both Louisiana and Oregon have frankly acknowledged that race was a motivating factor in the adoption of their States’ respective nonunanimity rules."

In his dissenting opinion, Alito argued ([link removed]) against overturning precedent established in _Apodaca v. Oregon_ (1972), in which the Court said the Sixth Amendment required unanimous juries to convict persons in federal criminal trials but that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend the requirement of unanimous juries to state criminal trials. Alito said overruling _Apodaca _would cause “a potential tsunami of litigation.” The Court’s majority acknowledged the potential number of cases challenging non-unanimous jury verdicts but said it did not justify withholding the Sixth Amendment’s protections from state criminal trials.

Louisiana and Oregon are the only two states that allow non-unanimous verdicts. Louisiana allowed criminal convictions by at least a 10-2 jury vote after a state constitutional convention instituted the requirement in 1973. This was changed in 2018 when voters approved Amendment 2, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that requires the unanimous agreement of the jurors to convict people charged with felonies. Oregon has allowed non-unanimous verdicts in all criminal trials, except for first-degree murder, since voters approved a legislatively referred constitutional amendment authorizing it in 1932.

Learn more→ ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------


** GROUP SUBMITS SIGNATURES FOR CALIFORNIA BALLOT INITIATIVE ON DIALYSIS CLINIC REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------

Californian voters could decide a ballot initiative in November regarding dialysis clinics after a group submitted signatures April 21 for a measure that would enact certain requirements for such facilities. If enough signatures are ruled valid, it would be the second consecutive dialysis clinic measure to go before voters.

Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection is supporting the measure. SEIU-UHW West, a labor union that sponsored Proposition 8—the 2018 initiative—raised $5.9 million for Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection through March 26.

The ballot measure would require chronic dialysis clinics (CDCs) to:

* have a minimum of one licensed physician present at the clinic while patients are being treated, with an exception for when there is a bona fide shortage of physicians;
* report data on dialysis-related infections to the state health department and National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN);
* provide a written notice to the state health department and obtain consent from the state health department before closing a chronic dialysis clinic.

The proposal also says a chronic dialysis clinic cannot "discriminate with respect to offering or providing care" nor "refuse to offer or to provide care, on the basis of who is responsible for paying for a patient's treatment.”

The Stop the Dangerous & Costly Dialysis Proposition PAC was registered to oppose the ballot initiative. The committee had raised $2.0 million through March 26, with $1.0 million coming from DaVita, Inc. and $1.0 million from Fresenius Medical Care.

Voters rejected Proposition 8 in 2018—59.9% to 40.1%—that would have required dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers for profits above a defined threshold. Committees supporting or opposing Proposition 8 raised a combined $130.43 million, MAKING IT THE MOST EXPENSIVE BALLOT CAMPAIGN OF 2018 AND THE THIRD MOST EXPENSIVE IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY. Opponents raised $111.48 million of the total, with 90 percent coming from DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care North America.

Counties have eight working days to count signatures followed by 30 working days to conduct a random sample of signature validity. At least 623,212 valid signatures are required for the measure to gain a spot on the ballot.

Four citizen-initiated measures have qualified for the November 3 ballot in California with four more awaiting signature verification. Groups supporting five additional ballot measure campaigns may submit signatures, but at least two campaigns say social distancing rules have affected their in-person signature drives.

Learn more→ ([link removed]))
------------------------------------------------------------

BALLOTPEDIA DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF OUR READERS.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.


Click here to support our work ([link removed])

------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
_Copyright © 2020, All rights reserved._

OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS:

Ballotpedia
8383 Greenway Blvd
Suite 600
Middleton, WI 53562
Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia.
** Unsubscribe ( [link removed] )
or ** update subscription preferences ( [link removed] )
.