Thank you all who have called to demand justice for the Scott Sisters. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has assigned an individual to investigate  the case of the Scott Sisters. His name is Charlie Rubisoff.

(Jackson, MS) – On Christmas Eve in 1993, sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott left a mini-mart near their home in Scott County, Mississippi. Their car broke down. They hitched a ride from two young men, one of whom they knew. Later that evening the two men were robbed at gunpoint by three teenagers in another car. The robbers took an estimated $11 from the two young men. No one was hurt. Police accused the Scott sisters of setting the victims up.

Their father, James “Hawk” Rasco had experienced problems with law enforcement after he moved his family from Chicago back to Scott County, Mississippi. Rasco took over a nightclub previously owned by a nephew who had turned state’s evidence in a case against the “High White Sheriff” of Scott County, Glenn Warren.

In the case of the Scott Sisters, the gun allegedly used in the robbery was never located, and the “stolen” wallet was recovered according to an affidavit by a trustee of the jail.

Jamie Scott is currently suffering from kidney failure and is gravely ill due to the care she is receiving at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF) in Pearl, Mississippi. Jamie’s condition has grown more critical prompting many groups in Mississippi to start writing letters and making phone calls to elected officials.

Civil Rights Advocate Dr. Adam Reza said “The people of Mississippi demand an investigation into the case of the Scott Sisters and we call on Attorney General Jim Hood to personally look in to the health of Jaime Scott. This is the United States of America and the Scott Sisters are entitled to their civil rights. We shall pursue legal action against the state of Mississippi if matters are not rectified.”

Race, the Supreme Court, voting rights act

Another public conversation about race may be the last thing the Obama administration wants, but thanks to the Supreme Court, one is very likely on the way.

It has been nearly three months since the court “invited” — that is to say, ordered — Solicitor General Elena Kagan to “express the views of the United States” on whether laws that take away the right to vote from people in prison or on parole can be challenged under the Voting Rights Act as racially discriminatory.

The order came in a case from Massachusetts, Simmons v. Galvin, an appeal by prison inmates challenging a 10-year-old state constitutional amendment that stripped them of the right to vote while incarcerated. They seek Supreme Court review of a ruling, issued a year ago by the federal appeals court in Boston, that Congress never intended the Voting Rights Act to apply in prison. The federal government was not involved in the case. Now the administration — presumably under the direction of whomever President Obama names to succeed Ms. Kagan as solicitor general — has to come up with a position.

Given the implications of the case, the Supreme Court’s order has received surprisingly little attention. Forty-eight states, all except Maine and Vermont, deny convicted felons the right to vote, a modern version of the old concept of “civil death” for those convicted of serious crimes. In some states, as in Massachusetts, the ban lasts for the duration of the prison sentence. More often, it extends for years longer, through the parole period, as in New York, where in 2006 the federal appeals court rejected a challenge over the dissent of four judges, including Sonia Sotomayor.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at North Carolina, a state working on it's response to Citizens United:

State: North Carolina

Bill: HB 2023

Passed: N/A

Website: http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?id=22

North Carolina hasn't passed any legislation yet that will amend laws currently on the books prohibiting electioneering communications, but the state is working on it. On May 26, the North Carolina Assembly introduced an act that would amend its election laws in response to Citizens United. If the state does pass the proposed act, it will officially repeal the laws made unconstitutional by the momentous ruling.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're onto our ninth state, Kentucky:

State: Kentucky

Resolution: SR 127

Passed: Yes

Website: http://www.kref.state.ky.us/krefsearch/

Kentucky has issued an advisory opinion that allows corporations to make independent expenditures in order to influence elections, but they’re not happy about it. In a House Resolution, Kentucky has expressed its disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision Citizens United v. FEC case.

The resolution quotes President Obama by stating, "the Court's opinion gives 'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics' and represents a victory for the 'powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.'"

The opinion serves as a way for the state to force disclosure requirements on any corporation that wants to spend its own money independent of a candidate to influence an election. Now, organizations have to register with the state and file a disclosure containing details about the expenditure. Kentucky hasn’t yet repealed the law that was made unconstitutional by the Citizens United decision, but has instead addressed it with the opinion and the resolution. The state did this ahead of the issue being taken up by its legislature.