Some Observations on Calls for Senate Reform: Part One of a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this first of a series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers four observations about recent calls for reform of the filibuster device in the U.S. Senate. Dean Amar suggests looking at state experiences with supermajority rules, as well as the Senate’s own recent past, and he considers why senators might be reluctant to eliminate the filibuster. He concludes with a comment on President Joe Biden’s suggestion that the Senate return to the “talking filibuster” and praises a suggestion by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) that the cloture requirement (currently at 60 votes) could be lowered gradually, the longer a measure under consideration is debated.

Read More

State ex rel. Hunley v. Wainwright

Citation: 2021-Ohio-803

Opinion Date: March 18, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Lyneal Wainwright, holding that Appellant was not entitled to immediate release. Between 1992 and 2007 Appellant was paroled four times. In 2008, Appellant was convicted of several offenses and sentenced. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant alleged that the 2008 sentencing court did not order him to serve his firearm-specification sentences consecutively to his two prior robbery sentences and that he should have been released on December 13, 2019. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was not complete his lawfully imposed sentences until 2025 he was not entitled to immediate release.

State ex rel. Walker v. LaRose

Citation: 2021-Ohio-825

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relators compelling Respondents - the Ohio Secretary of State, the Medina County Board of Elections, and the City of Medina - to change the ballot language of a local issue on the May 4, 2021 primary-election ballot, holding that there was no abuse of discretion. In this case arising out of the City's efforts to move the Medina Municipal Court to the Medina County courthouse building and citizen opposition to those efforts, Relators filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents to amend the ballot language for Ordinance No. 222-20, as Relators requested. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) Relators failed to show that the Secretary of State and the City were proper respondents for the relief they sought; and (2) the Board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in approving the ballot language.