Welcome to Tuesday, October 22nd, glasses and contacts...

Should the American with Disabilities Act apply to Countable?

In declining to hear a case last week, the Supreme Court has left intact a lower ruling that the ADA does, in fact, apply to websites.

SCOTUS declined to consider the case of Guillermo Robles, a blind California resident who tried to place an order through Domino’s mobile app. Robles uses screen readers to access the internet, but the pizza chain’s app and website weren’t compliant. Robles eventually sued Domino’s, arguing the inaccessibility of its sites violated his rights under the ADA.

The district court where Robles filed his case dismissed his suit, so he appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, who ruled in his favor.

"The alleged inaccessibility of Domino's website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises—which are places of public accommodation," the court wrote. "This nexus between Domino's website and app and physical restaurants—which Domino's does not contest—is critical to our analysis."

Domino’s appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business groups who warned of a “a tsunami of litigation” and argued that judges would see the appeals court’s decision as “imposing a nationwide website-accessibility mandate.”

Should the ADA apply to websites?

On the Radar

Censuring Censure Bill

The House of Representatives voted Monday along party-lines 218-185 to table a Republican-sponsored resolution on that would have condemned and censured Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) for misleading the American public in a variety of ways, most notably Schiff’s “parody” of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The censure resolution faulted Schiff for delivering an “egregiously false and fabricated retelling [which] had no relationship to the call itself” during his opening statement of a committee hearing on the Trump-Ukraine call, which Schiff later claimed was meant as “parody”. It also condemned Schiff for claiming that he had “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion between Trump and Russia which wasn’t borne out by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report; concealing his dealings with Ukraine whistleblower from the committee and the public; and for negotiating with Russian comedians who claimed to have damaging materials on Trump during a prank call.

Should Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) be censured for misleading conduct?

Voting Rights for Felons?

Felons in Florida can now vote, even if they have unpaid fines, after a ruling by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the Sunshine State can’t prevent felons from voting, even if they can’t afford to pay court-ordered fees and fines.

“When an eligible citizen misses an opportunity to vote, the opportunity is gone forever; the vote cannot later be cast. So when the state wrongly prevents an eligible citizen from voting, the harm is irreparable.”

Technically, Hinkle’s ruling only applies to the 17 people named in the lawsuit, which was brought by the ACLU, NAACP, and several other organizations.

Last November, Floridians approved a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to over 1 million felons. But in June, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law that requires felons to pay any outstanding court fines or fees before they cast a ballot.

Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, said that "the court made clear that wealth cannot be a barrier to right restoration. And he said the state has to come up with an efficient process so that everyone who cannot pay, can establish that. He was pretty clear that the legislature created a mess.”

Should felons be allowed to vote?

Under the Radar

Committee Watch

Before bills and nominations are brought up for a passage vote in Congress, they typically have to be considered and approved by relevant committees.

We take a thorough look at the hearings Congressional committees will be holding this week in our Committee Watch, but here are a few we're watching extra closely:

• Today, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Securing America’s Elections Part II: Oversight of Government Agencies”. 10am
• On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing titled “An Examination of Facebook and Its Impact on the Financial Services and Housing Sectors”. 10am
• On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on expanding security coverage for Supreme Court justices. 10am

How do you feel about this week's committee hearings?

What You're Saying

Here are some of your thoughts on Preventing ISPs From Blocking or Throttling Content While Allowing Paid Prioritization