pageok
pageok
pageok
ACS Convention Balance:
I want to add to Orin's post about the ACS convention that, months ago, they invited me to speak on their panel on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. I was forced, regretfully, to decline because I was scheduled to be in Germany until Saturday afternoon. After I spoke at their Supreme Court Review at the National Press Club in June, they renewed their invitation and even considered the idea of reordering their program so the panel on Privileges or Immunities took place after my arrival at Dulles. (Ultimately they wisely decided not to do so, as there was a great risk that flight delays from Europe might cause me to miss even a rescheduled later panel. Altering a schedule at that late date would have been extraordinary for any conference.)

Naturally, I was impressed with and grateful for their efforts to include me in their program and look forward to other such opportunities in the future.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. ACS Convention Balance:
  2. ACS Convention Report:
Susan:
The panel was very interesting. Excellent points made by Marc Rosenbaum of the Southern California ACLU and the attorney who argued Saenz v. Roe.

One student suggested a possible avenue for future P&I litigation: felony disenfranchisement. She explained that if someone is convicted of a felony in, say, Florida, and after release from prison moves to another state, his voting rights in that other state will be determined by the rights granted to ex-felons in Florida. Thus, as in Saenz v. Roe, the ex-felon's status in his new state will be determined by his prior residence in Florida.

1. Is her description of felon disenfranchisement correct?
2. Any thoughts on whether this is a reasonable suggestion for future P&I litigation?

One concern I have is that it is not the ex-felon's prior state residence that is dispositive, but rather the state in which he was convicted, which he may not have been a resident in. Thoughts?
8.3.2005 12:16am