Run by the Michigan State University College of Law, the Animal Legal and Historical Center, is a wealth of information and resources regarding animal law. On the site, you can search through the contents in a number of ways: by jurisdiction (state and world), by issues, and by species. Unique content includes maps and comparative tables of laws and detailed summaries of several animal law issues. You can also find briefs and pleadings.
In a joint post on the Law Library of Congress’ blog, Clare Feikert & Margaret Wood post a very lengthy and useful resource guide for those interested in international election law.
The Global Legal Research Center has done a number of briefings and blogs, as well as too many Global Legal Monitor Articles to list, on electoral law across various jurisdictions around the world.
Elections in Liberia: Some Legal Developments, Oct. 2011;
Referendum on New Zealand’s Voting System, Nov. 2011;
Nigeria: Election Law, April 2010;
New Zealand: General Elections, Nov. 2011;
Election Season in Nigeria, April 2011;
Ireland’s Election, Mar. 2011;
The Library of Congress’ collections provide access to books and articles about U.S. and state election law as well as a number of online resources. The Law Library’s Guide to Law Online provides access to Federal and state election laws under the “Legislative” section for each page.
Library of Congress Online Resources:
Library of Congress. National Digital Library. American Memory: Today in History: February 17: Jefferson Victorious
Library of Congress. National Digital Library. American Memory: Today in History: June 2: Indian Citizenship Act
Library of Congress. National Digital Library. American Memory: “I Do Solemnly Swear …”: Presidential Inaugurations
Library of Congress. National Digital Library. The Learning Page: Elections…the American Way
Library of Congress. National Digital Library / Law Library of Congress. A Century of Lawmaking: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates: Presidential Elections and the Electoral College
Books and Articles
After the people vote : a guide to the Electoral College / edited by John C. Fortier ; [includes essays by Walter Berns … et al.]
Best, Judith. The Case Against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. 235 p. Includes index. Bibliography: p. -229.
Butler, Anne M. United States Senate Election, Expulsion, and Censure Cases, 1793-1990. Rev. ed. S.DOC. 103-33. Washington: U.S. GPO, 1995. 486 p.
Cottle, Amber L. Silent Citizens: United States Territorial Residents and the Right to Vote in Presidential Elections, 1995U. CHI. LEGAL F. 315 (1995).
Deschler, Lewis and Wm. Holmes Brown. Deschler-Brown Precedents of the United States House of Representatives. 94th Cong., 2d Sess. H.DOC. 94-661/VOL. 3. Washington: U.S. GPO, 1977. CIS# (Vol. 3): 79-H920-9.
Eisner, Keith Darren. Non-Major-Party Candidates and Televised Presidential Debates: The Merits of Legislative Inclusion, 141 U. PA. L. REV. 973 (1993).
Fein, Bruce. The Fallacy of Direct Popular Elections; Something Is Profoundly Rotten in the Way the United States Elects Its President, 15 LEGAL TIMES 30 (June 22, 1992).
Garand, James, and T. Wayne Parent. Representation, Swing, and Bias in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1872-1988, 35AM. J. POL. SCI. 1011-31 (1991).
Hinds, Asher C. Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, Including References to Provisions of the Constitution, the Laws, and Decisions of the United States Senate. Vol. III. Chapters LVIII – LXII. Washington: GPO, 1907.
Library of Congress. Legislative Reference Service. Election of the President of the United States by the House of Representatives. 68th Cong., 2d Sess. Prepared by George J. Schulz. S.DOC. 227. Washington: U.S. GPO, 1925. 88 p.
Mirvis, Ronald I. Political Candidate Access to the Ballot: A Selective Bibliography, 52 REC. ASS’N. B. CITY OF N.Y. 649 (1997).
Ross, Beverly J. and William Josephson. The Electoral College and the Popular Vote, 12 J.L. & POL. 665 (1996).
Schack, Lawrence L. A Reconsideration of the Single, Six-Year Presidential Term in Light of Contemporary Electoral Trends, 12 J.L. & POL. 749 (1996).
Stark, Leonard P. The Presidential Primary and Caucus Schedule: A Role for Federal Regulation?, 15 YALE L. & POL’Y REV. 331 (1996).
U.S. Senate. The Action of the Senate and House of Representatives in Regard to the Manner of Counting Electoral Votes for President and Vice-President from 1789 to 1873, with a Statement in Detail of Each of the Electoral Votes for President and Vice-President for the Same Period.. 44th Cong., 2d Sess. December 5, 1876. Washington: U.S. GPO, 1876. 70 p. Prepared by W.J. McDonald. S.MISC.DOC. 5. SERIAL SET 1722-1.
Wilkinson, Donald M. The Electoral Process and the Power of the States, 47 A.B.A. J. 251 (1961).
Williams, Victor. and Alison M. MacDonald. Rethinking Article II, Section 1 and its Twelfth Amendment Restatement: Challenging Our Nation’s Malapportioned, Undemocratic Presidential Election Systems, 77 MARQ. L. REV. 201 (1994).
Students at Yale Law School have compiled and published what they call the Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Although the United States is famously a nation of immigrants, Americans often struggle with the pronunciation of foreign words and names. Mispronunciation of even common foreign words is ubiquitous (Eye-rack and Eye-ran spring to mind). Foreign names in legal matters present a particular challenge for legal professionals. The purpose of the Pronouncing Dictionary of United States Supreme Court cases, … is to help conscientious lawyers, judges, teachers, students, and journalists correctly pronounce often-perplexing case names.
You can either view the names on the website or download the full PDF (15 GREEN BAG 2D 433)
There is also an explanation of the phonetic symbols and transcription practice used pronunciation notes (PDF)
The chart notes the Americanized pronunciation of the difficult name, Bryan Garner’s, and the International Phonetics Association American and Native Speaker Pronunciation. This might be a great asset when having to cite these cases in court or for a class presentation.
Proposed Model Jury Instructions – The Use of Electronic Technology to Conduct Research on or Communicate about a Case. Prepared by the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, June 2012
A proposed 2-page handout in regards to jurors use of technology, (namely Twitter and Facebook) in relation to the case they have been selected to sit for. The instructions review the basic rules of conduct.
1. No researching the case:
You should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the Internet, blogs or use any other electronic tools to obtain information about this case or to help you decide the case.
2. Communication during the case:
You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cell phone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, instant messaging, or in Twitter, through any blog or website including, Facebook, Google+, MySpace, LinkedIn or YouTube.
Similar rules apply after the case has concluded.
The Second Annual Supreme Court Term in Review Program was held yesterday afternoon at the UCI School of Law campus. The discussion was held by a panel of five, a mix of journalists and academics. You might even recognize one or two of the panelists as the authors of your textbooks.
This exciting and entertaining program reviews the Supreme Court’s key cases decided in the October 2011 term
- Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal
- Jennifer Chacón, UCI Law
- Erwin Chemerinsky, UCI Law
- Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal
- Robert Pushaw, Pepperdine University School of Law
- Moderated by Rick Hasen, UCI Law
Watch the archived webcast at this link. No registration necessary. It is an insightful panel. The session is about an hour and 45 minutes in length.
You can also view last year’s program here for the October 2010 term.
Atorneys appearing at the Santa Clara County Superior Courthouse will now have to pay a Court Reporter Fee after every court appearance.
- $30 – Less than 1 hour
- $245 – 1 to 4 hours
- $490 – Full day’s proceedings
The fee is divided equally among all sides and is due at the end of any proceeding. The fee applies to all civil matters, including family and probate.
The new fee is the result of the passage of SB 1021. The bill amended Government Code section 68086(a)(1) to provide:
(A) For each proceeding lasting less than one hour, a fee of thirty dollars ($ 30) shall be charged for the reasonable cost of the services of an official court reporter pursuant to Section 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In compliance with this new law, the Santa Clara County Superior Court has printed forms to drop off with your check in a drop box at the lobby at 191 N. First Street.
In a 5-4 ruling with Justice Roberts as the swing vote, the ACA is upheld in its entirety.