Best Shots review: Rick Remender’s Uncanny X-Force "an aesthetically stunning, intelligently written collision course of the relativity of good…

Uncanny X-Force has been a wild ride from the beginning. Curiosity sparked by Esad Ribic's seductive cover art led me to pick up Uncanny X-Force #1. The issue turned out to be a fast-moving art powerhouse and a character goldmine - a sign of things to come in Remender's 37-issue run.

Uncanny X-Force credits

Written by Rick RemenderArt by Jerome Opea, Dean White, Esad Ribic, John Lucas, Matthew Wilson, Rafael Albuquerque, Billy Tan, Rich Elson, Paul Mounts, Mark Brooks, Andrew Currie, Scott Eaton, Andrew Hennessy, Jose Villarubia, Chris Sotomayor, Robbi Rodriguez, James Campbell, Greg Tocchini, Mike McKone, Julian Tedesco, Justin Ponsor, David Williams, Frank Martin Jr., Rachelle Rosenberg and Phil NotoLettering by Cory PetitPublished by Marvel Comics

Beautiful art, powerful characterization, and dichotomous themes are key elements to what make Uncanny X-Force such a solid comic book. But the real magic is in the impeccable pacing Remender employs throughout the entire series. From battling the Horsemen of Apocalypse to Wolverine's pain of failing as a father or Betsy cowering in a corner with a fragmented psyche to Wolverine viciously stabbing Creed for the umpteenth time; Remender moves from the action and violence to the motives of the characters like breathing. It is a brilliant balancing act.

The stakes are extremely high in Uncanny X-Force. It is always a matter of life or death, kill or be killed. Whoever you are rooting for may or may not be wearing a white hat. But when your mission is assassination then who really is? Remender's ever-engaging balancing act shows just how fluid the answer to that question is. "Will there always be bad people trying to kill me?," a young but not-quite-indoctrinated Apocalypse asks. This young boy is being bred by Clan Akkaba to bring humanity on this Earth to extinction, but it is Wolverine and his band of merry executioners that are perceived as "bad" by the boy. This is the first of many instances where the relativity of ethics is played like a drum by Remender.

The first page of the first issue is filled with the deep blue and brilliant greens painted by Dean White onto Jerome Opea's gorgeous art. Opea's signature is in his precise detail and striking perspectives. White's enchanting colors unequivocally define the books visual tone. Every page these two artists create - sometimes dark, sometimes gruesome, sometimes intricate - is a thing of beauty. The symbiosis of Opea and White sets the aesthetic bar very high.

The four-issue, quick-and-dirty opening arc 'The Apocalypse Solution' is an exercise in instant gratification, with illustrations beyond pretty and a story that climaxes so fast you barely have time to meditate on the ethical quid pro quo. Archangel has been tracking the suspected location of Apocalypse. He employs those closest to him to join him in this task. Remender invokes a rapid-fire introduction to the team Wolverine, Psylocke, Fantomex, Deadpool, and Archangel as they square off with the Final Horsemen of Apocalypse on the surface of the moon. As X-Force makes their way past the Horsemen, they find Apocalypse has been reincarnated as a child. And as quickly as X-Force banded together for the greater good, this black ops mission becomes the defining moment of the entire series. Fantomex's actions in the face of opposition from his entire team will tear them apart from within and propel Remenders overarching theme of ethical relativism through the next 36 issues.

Cyborg mutant mash-ups come raining down from the future in hot pursuit of Fantomex and The World. In their future time-line, because of X-Force's Apocalypse solution and its chain of causality - mutantkind is destined to become judge, jury, and executioner. The cyborgs were created to avert this future of standardized X-Force-style preventative retribution. It is here that Remender starts playing with the infinite regress of 'killing a killer' for what might happen.

With the consequences of Fantomex's actions immediately rolling in in the second arc, 'Deathlok Nation,' deep remorse reverberates through the team. Deadpool has the kind of guilt that prompted him to call a meeting of the entire team so he can cope out loud. In this meeting, Wolverine aggressively rationalizes their choice and projects the anger at himself out onto his team. As they confront this together, here is where Remender draws you in. Here is where we see that they are human. The ethics of their actions melt away into how they each carry the burden within themselves. These are not evil people.

Cover artist extraordinaire Esad Ribic takes on interior art duties for this arc. His sequential art is clean and detailed. He creates phenomenal action sequences as a cyborg Hawkeye, Spider-Man, and Captain America are in hot pursuit of Fantomex over snow-covered mountains. Paired with Matthew Wilson on color duties, the two make for a nice consistency of high-quality illustration following Opea and White.

The cyborg known as Deathlok is an anomaly that attempts to save Fantomex, and in doing so becomes a part of the team. The character reads as an examination of ethics in evolution. While the flesh part of Deathlok is a merciless killer, the cyborg artificial intelligence within him evolves to discover the inherent evil of enslavement. To be one of the cyborgs is to be enslaved as they are part of a collective consciousness. Deathlok's affinity for free will keeps the kinder AI consciousness at the forefront, but the evil part of his brain still exists. The character moves between the two sides as is necessary punctuating the notion of free will as well as being a poster child of Utilitarianism. Deathlok actively chooses to be 'good' or 'evil' as the missions call for it.

With this in mind, Remender segues into 'The Dark Angel Saga' with a few one-shot stories, each worthy of mention. He expands upon Psylocke, Wolverine, and Archangel respectively, adding depth to already well-defined characters and to the overall story.

Uncanny X-Force #5.1 takes an intense look at Psylocke. It is, at times, hard to read, but I couldn't look away. This mission pits the team against Lady Deathstrike and the Reavers, placing the Reavers in the sights of Psylocke. The story centers on her rage at what was done to her by the Reavers. They are the reason she is not in her original body. She delights at the opportunity for revenge on this mission. Again, Remender demonstrates the function of X-Force, while showing just how wrong it all is. Rafael Albuquerque illustrates this one issue, and his work is superb. He conveys the tone of grit and gloom with dynamic action and gruesome perspectives. His work makes 5.1 one of the darkest issues in the bunch.

Uncanny X-Force #8, aptly titled 'Unintended Consequences,' sees the art duties baton passed to Billy Tan and the return of colorist, Dean White. A perfectly paced issue that pits Psylocke against the Shadow King in a telepathic battle. A battle not limited by gravity or reality gave Tan and White the opportunity to be beautifully creative, and render some of the most memorable panels in the Uncanny X-Force run. There is one in particular of Psylocke as Lady Mandarin, poised for battle, which is drawn exquisitely and colored with bright magenta, purple and blue. It is in this battle that we see the return of the Dark Angel.

Remender takes a beat in issue #9, an issue between missions. 'High Art' is primarily a visual story that is low on dialogue. Magneto surprises X-Force (and the reader) with a visit. This issue is Magnetos story. Tan is still on art duties, and with White's painting, he really shines here. The panel layout reads like sequential movie screens, wide and four to a page. The simplicity serves Remender's intelligently measured pacing. The facial expressiveness, strong body language, and unique visual perspectives make the scant dialogue still very telling. Warren hides his Archangel influence, Wolverine reiterates the Utilitarian mantra of their black ops outfit. The subtle character reveals that unfold are a perfect build-up to 'The Dark Angel Saga.'

Uncanny X-Force #10 reveals 'The Killer Within Warren,' and the team's next mission is to save Warren from Archangel. This is a necessary moment to the story because it is revealed that Archangel takes full control of Warren's psyche. We need that information to move forward, but as a whole, this is not a great issue. The story moments feel obligatory and it is one of very few where the art suffers. Tan takes assists from Rich Elson, and the consistency and detail are lacking. We also see colors from Paul Mounts who is not Dean White, adding another notch in the inconsistency belt. The art is immediately remedied by Mark Brooks as we begin the next arc. He joins the book as penciller and White returns as X-Force leaves this dimension to go to the Age of Apocalypse, Earth-295.

Heralded by creators and fans alike as one of the best stories of the year, 'The Dark Angel Saga' marks the true climax of Rick Remender's Uncanny X-Force. It is an aesthetically stunning, intelligently written collision course of the relativity of good and evil. Robbi Rodriquez beautifully illustrates the in-between issue of the fallout from 'The Dark Angel Saga' where the consequences of X-Force finally seep into the world of X-Men. Evan, also known as Genesis, is genetically identical to En Sabah Nur. He is byproduct of everything X-Force has done up to this point, a byproduct created by Fantomex unleashed to stop the Dark Angel, and now he is being sent to the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning. Fantomex raised him virtually in the World by a loving family with 'good' values. Nature versus nurture rears its paradoxical head, again. When Wolverine interrogates Fantomex as to why he would do such a thing, another theme becomes clear, too. Redemption.

As Fantomex, Psylocke, Deadpool, and Wolverine travel to the Age of Apocalypse, their worst fears are affirmed as they come face to face with what will happen to their Earth if Apocalypse were to rise to power. In desperate search of the Life Seed that could return their Warren from the grips of Archangel, the team encounters alternate versions of friends, lovers, and foes that have died in their own world. In this dimension, their Wolverine is evil, and so the reaction to X-Force's Wolverine is severe. On the same note, Creed is not evil in the Age of Apocalypse. Genetically the same materials comprised these mutants, yet given their environment - they are very different beings. It begs the question: if evolution is so superior in its natural selection, how is it that nurture weighs so heavily?

With the Life Seed in hand intent on saving Warren, X-Force returns to their dimension to find that Archangel has been freed by the Clan Akkaba. Everything that the team has worked to prevent comes undone as Archangel ascends as the incarnate of Apocalypse, complete with a powerful cult following. Archangel has set in motion the events to bring about the extinction of all life on Earth. Tabula Rasa. From this blank slate, evolution will reign supreme. All X-Force has to do to stop it is plant the Life Seed into Archangel, but it will kill him.

Remender employs every bit of action and emotion that has been built to conclude 'The Dark Angel Saga' in a resolution that would make any grown comic book-loving person cry. X-Force does what X-Force has to do, kill to survive. This chapter of Uncanny X-Force is made even sweeter by the return of Jerome Opea. He illustrates every bit of violence, suffering, and salvation perfectly.

Revealed as the driving force of causality, Fantomex has been judged for murdering the boy Apocalypse, and Captain Britain and the omniverse watchers of Otherworld intend to punish him for it. Fantomex and Psylocke have sneaked away to Otherworld, and AoA Nightcrawler, Wolverine, and Deadpool follow them to land themselves in the middle of a war. As the three of them are on the verge of becoming casualties in this war raging in Otherworld, Fantomex's judicial fate is in Psylocke's hands.

The emotional storm of the past story arc is punctuated viscerally by the events in Otherworld. It is a particularly cavalier story, the momentum driven by action and violence and only supported by sharp character dialogue. Again, we see how Remender moves through different methods of pacing. The physical chaos in the battle scenes of Otherworld serves as a reprieve from the psychological turmoil of The Dark Angel Saga.

Greg Tocchini's art aptly displays the chaos and intensity happening in Otherworld, but his sketchy, abstract stylization leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to finer detail. However, some interesting perspectives make up for the lack of detail. If you haven't sensed a theme yet, Dean White's colors are a touchstone, and in this instance, a saving grace. Cory Petit, who lettered all but one issue of Remender's run, really shines in this arc. His precise, angular lettering for the Goat Demon added just the right eerie vibe. Collectively, the art works.

After twenty-three issues, Remender's train doesn't lose any steam, and leads us full speed ahead into 'The Final Execution.' In another nod to Remender's penchant for pacing, issue #24 is an in-between issue; AoA Nightcrawler gets his chance at revenge with this Earth's Bobby Drake and we learn what Psylocke gave up in Otherworld to save Fantomex. Drawn to emotional perfection in his signature crispness, Phil Noto joins the ranks of the top-notch artists on this title.

The burden of their missions has left our team battered and broken, especially Psylocke and Fantomex. In spite of Fantomex's detrimental manipulations, he's fallen in love with Betsy. But Betsy is too far gone, traumatized to numbness, to return any such emotion. The fearless leader, Wolverine, is left with AoA Nightcrawler whose sole desire is revenge and a Wade that has a new, pretty face and no healing factor. Things are falling apart, leaving a feeling of desolation and failure. Even though their missions have been a 'success' up to this point, their asses are writing checks that their souls can't cash.

Is killing in the name of good ... really good? When and why is killing the answer? Who decides who is worthy of life and who is sentenced to death? Isn't it just two sides of the same coin? All of these questions permeate Remender's Uncanny X-Force, and he brings it all to a satisfying close in Final Execution.

With the X-Force team shattered, the new Brotherhood of Evil Mutants moves in to exact their form of justice upon X-Force. Said justice sends the team 30 years in the future to witness everything they feared had come to be and what an X-Force of the future looks like. It's a place where Betsy Braddock is leader, and they kill preemptively to prevent crime. It is here that Remender gives one of the most provocative and ethically relative moments of the series when Betsy has a conversation with her future self.

Mike McKone fills in for an issue and his art is good. From backgrounds to facial close-ups, I was impressed by the crispness of it all. McKone's striking clarity combined with White's always vibrant colorwork served as a nice fill-in for Phil Noto. But I was happy when Noto returned, but he is only around for two issues. Then Julian Totino Tedesco and Dave Williams fill in on art duties for a few issues. While neither of them hurt the aesthetic of the book, they don't do anything in particular to raise it. Tedesco has a few really striking panels, but much of the rest, Williams included, feels rushed. A natural consequence of a book that is shipping 18 issues a year. Thankfully, Noto returns to finish out the series.

Noto's work is, as always, crisp, clean, and easy on the eyes. Noto seems to take extra care with the final issues. I don't know where Frank Martin, Jr.'s colors end, and Dean White's begin. That is a good thing. I consider White to be the gold standard in coloring, and Martin's work here is just as good.

The new Brotherhood of Evil Mutants - Daken, Sabretooth, Shadow King, Mystique, Blob, and Skinless Man - is intent on bringing out the evil they believe exists inherently in Evan, the clone of En Sabah Nur. Once they get Evan in their grips, everyone has their own agenda, and inflicting suffering is the modus operandi. Daken is particularly deplorable, but the most captivating moments are with Mystique. She is subtle and demure with her evil, and her calm demeanor almost makes you a sympathizer to her cause. Maybe it is just how beautifully Phil Noto draws her. Best. Returned from the future, X-Force is intent on stopping the Brotherhood from corrupting Evan.

The character exposition of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants creates a provocative juxtaposition with the members of X-Force because their respective motivations aren't that different. In a final push of utilitarianism versus the Kantian ethics of superheroes, Remender illustrates the irony and hypocrisy that is the X-Force. It is an infinite regress of murdering murderers, and the ethical dilemma of X-Force's existence is unavoidable. Isn't the Brotherhood operating under the same ethics as X-Force? Is the way X-Force kills any less cruel? Remender paints the ultimate shade of grey that throws the identity of this story's hero up in the air.

Alpha and Omega. Life and Death. Genesis and Apocalypse. Good and Evil. Nature and Nurture. If we are truly born 'Tabula Rasa,' then our nature is how we are nurtured. If nurture is the true bottom line, then why bother with the superiority or inferiority of a species? The past is the greatest indicator of the future, but who you are now may not be who you become. In Uncanny X-Force #35, the final issue, Remender defines the hero of this story in one of comic books' most heartfelt moments. It's one for the record books, as is the entire series.

Visit link:

Best Shots review: Rick Remender's Uncanny X-Force "an aesthetically stunning, intelligently written collision course of the relativity of good...

Impact Of Covid 19 On Gaming Mouses Market 2020 Industry Challenges, Business Overview And Forecast Research Study 2026 – PRnews Leader

Gaming Mouses Market Data and Acquisition Research Study with Trends and Opportunities 2019-2024The study of Gaming Mouses market is a compilation of the market of Gaming Mouses broken down into its entirety on the basis of types, application, trends and opportunities, mergers and acquisitions, drivers and restraints, and a global outreach. The detailed study also offers a board interpretation of the Gaming Mouses industry from a variety of data points that are collected through reputable and verified sources. Furthermore, the study sheds a lights on a market interpretations on a global scale which is further distributed through distribution channels, generated incomes sources and a marginalized market space where most trade occurs.

Along with a generalized market study, the report also consists of the risks that are often neglected when it comes to the Gaming Mouses industry in a comprehensive manner. The study is also divided in an analytical space where the forecast is predicted through a primary and secondary research methodologies along with an in-house model.

Download PDF Sample of Gaming Mouses Market report @ https://hongchunresearch.com/request-a-sample/77006

Key players in the global Gaming Mouses market covered in Chapter 4:EncoreBlackwebRazerAZioDuble SwallowBLOODYRoccatMADCATZGeniusCyborg R.A.TLenovoLogitechMicrosoftCorsairA4TECHGeniusASUSSteelSeriesAvocentMionixKensingtonHPRAPOO

In Chapter 11 and 13.3, on the basis of types, the Gaming Mouses market from 2015 to 2026 is primarily split into:MMO Gaming MouseFPS Gaming MouseRTS Gaming MouseMOBA Gaming Mouse

In Chapter 12 and 13.4, on the basis of applications, the Gaming Mouses market from 2015 to 2026 covers:ComputerTVGame MachinesOther

Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate, historic and forecast (2015-2026) of the following regions are covered in Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13:North America (Covered in Chapter 6 and 13)United StatesCanadaMexicoEurope (Covered in Chapter 7 and 13)GermanyUKFranceItalySpainRussiaOthersAsia-Pacific (Covered in Chapter 8 and 13)ChinaJapanSouth KoreaAustraliaIndiaSoutheast AsiaOthersMiddle East and Africa (Covered in Chapter 9 and 13)Saudi ArabiaUAEEgyptNigeriaSouth AfricaOthersSouth America (Covered in Chapter 10 and 13)BrazilArgentinaColumbiaChileOthers

For a global outreach, the Gaming Mouses study also classifies the market into a global distribution where key market demographics are established based on the majority of the market share. The following markets that are often considered for establishing a global outreach are North America, Europe, Asia, and the Rest of the World. Depending on the study, the following markets are often interchanged, added, or excluded as certain markets only adhere to certain products and needs.

Here is a short glance at what the study actually encompasses:Study includes strategic developments, latest product launches, regional growth markers and mergers & acquisitionsRevenue, cost price, capacity & utilizations, import/export rates and market shareForecast predictions are generated from analytical data sources and calculated through a series of in-house processes.

However, based on requirements, this report could be customized for specific regions and countries.

Brief about Gaming Mouses Market Report with [emailprotected]https://hongchunresearch.com/report/gaming-mouses-market-size-2020-77006

Some Point of Table of Content:

Chapter One: Report Overview

Chapter Two: Global Market Growth Trends

Chapter Three: Value Chain of Gaming Mouses Market

Chapter Four: Players Profiles

Chapter Five: Global Gaming Mouses Market Analysis by Regions

Chapter Six: North America Gaming Mouses Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Seven: Europe Gaming Mouses Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Eight: Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Nine: Middle East and Africa Gaming Mouses Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Ten: South America Gaming Mouses Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Eleven: Global Gaming Mouses Market Segment by Types

Chapter Twelve: Global Gaming Mouses Market Segment by Applications12.1 Global Gaming Mouses Sales, Revenue and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020)12.1.1 Global Gaming Mouses Sales and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020)12.1.2 Global Gaming Mouses Revenue and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020)12.2 Computer Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)12.3 TV Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)12.4 Game Machines Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)12.5 Other Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)

Chapter Thirteen: Gaming Mouses Market Forecast by Regions (2020-2026) continued

Check [emailprotected] https://hongchunresearch.com/check-discount/77006

List of tablesList of Tables and FiguresTable Global Gaming Mouses Market Size Growth Rate by Type (2020-2026)Figure Global Gaming Mouses Market Share by Type in 2019 & 2026Figure MMO Gaming Mouse FeaturesFigure FPS Gaming Mouse FeaturesFigure RTS Gaming Mouse FeaturesFigure MOBA Gaming Mouse FeaturesTable Global Gaming Mouses Market Size Growth by Application (2020-2026)Figure Global Gaming Mouses Market Share by Application in 2019 & 2026Figure Computer DescriptionFigure TV DescriptionFigure Game Machines DescriptionFigure Other DescriptionFigure Global COVID-19 Status OverviewTable Influence of COVID-19 Outbreak on Gaming Mouses Industry DevelopmentTable SWOT AnalysisFigure Porters Five Forces AnalysisFigure Global Gaming Mouses Market Size and Growth Rate 2015-2026Table Industry NewsTable Industry PoliciesFigure Value Chain Status of Gaming MousesFigure Production Process of Gaming MousesFigure Manufacturing Cost Structure of Gaming MousesFigure Major Company Analysis (by Business Distribution Base, by Product Type)Table Downstream Major Customer Analysis (by Region)Table Encore ProfileTable Encore Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Blackweb ProfileTable Blackweb Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Razer ProfileTable Razer Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table AZio ProfileTable AZio Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Duble Swallow ProfileTable Duble Swallow Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table BLOODY ProfileTable BLOODY Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Roccat ProfileTable Roccat Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table MADCATZ ProfileTable MADCATZ Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Genius ProfileTable Genius Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Cyborg R.A.T ProfileTable Cyborg R.A.T Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Lenovo ProfileTable Lenovo Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Logitech ProfileTable Logitech Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Microsoft ProfileTable Microsoft Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Corsair ProfileTable Corsair Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table A4TECH ProfileTable A4TECH Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Genius ProfileTable Genius Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table ASUS ProfileTable ASUS Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table SteelSeries ProfileTable SteelSeries Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Avocent ProfileTable Avocent Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Mionix ProfileTable Mionix Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Kensington ProfileTable Kensington Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table HP ProfileTable HP Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table RAPOO ProfileTable RAPOO Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Figure Global Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Global Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020)Table Global Gaming Mouses Sales by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Regions in 2015Table Global Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Regions in 2019Figure North America Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Europe Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Middle East and Africa Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure South America Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure North America Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020)Table North America Gaming Mouses Sales by Countries (2015-2020)Table North America Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure North America Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure North America Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019Table North America Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020)Table North America Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure North America Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure North America Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019Figure United States Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Canada Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Mexico Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth (2015-2020)Figure Europe Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) Growth (2015-2020)Table Europe Gaming Mouses Sales by Countries (2015-2020)Table Europe Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Europe Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Europe Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019Table Europe Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020)Table Europe Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Europe Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Europe Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019Figure Germany Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure UK Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure France Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Italy Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Spain Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Russia Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020)Table Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Sales by Countries (2015-2020)Table Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019Table Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020)Table Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Asia-Pacific Gaming Mouses Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019Figure China Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Japan Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure South Korea Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Australia Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure India Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Southeast Asia Gaming Mouses Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Middle East and Africa Gaming Mouses Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020) continued

About HongChun Research:HongChun Research main aim is to assist our clients in order to give a detailed perspective on the current market trends and build long-lasting connections with our clientele. Our studies are designed to provide solid quantitative facts combined with strategic industrial insights that are acquired from proprietary sources and an in-house model.

Contact Details:Jennifer GrayManager Global Sales+ 852 8170 0792[emailprotected]

NOTE: Our report does take into account the impact of coronavirus pandemic and dedicates qualitative as well as quantitative sections of information within the report that emphasizes the impact of COVID-19.

As this pandemic is ongoing and leading to dynamic shifts in stocks and businesses worldwide, we take into account the current condition and forecast the market data taking into consideration the micro and macroeconomic factors that will be affected by the pandemic.

Here is the original post:

Impact Of Covid 19 On Gaming Mouses Market 2020 Industry Challenges, Business Overview And Forecast Research Study 2026 - PRnews Leader

What is the Justice League Snyder Cut costing HBO Max – Looper

For the record, 2020 is not your typical year at the box office, and 2021 is looking to, similarly, be a year in which filming is reduced and the viability of theaters is limited. Therefore, we can immediately infer that a Snyder Cut of Justice League makes sense in that it's an oddity, its social media presence is huge, most of it is already filmed, and Zack Snyder said he'd work for free!

Early estimates clocked the bill for this new Justice League at around $20-30 million, but more recently, that number has ballooned up to around $70 million as a result of reshoots and loads of new visual effects.

Senior Box Office Analyst Jeff Bock seems to think, however, that the price tag could go even higher. "While Justice League wasn't The Avengers DC was hoping for at the box office, there is no denying superheroes and their machinations are still the champions of social media," says Bock. "Considering content is at a premium right now, and we're in the middle of an all-out war for eyeballs, HBO Max investing upwards of $100 million for an extended comic book caper seems like a solid play for subscribers."

The reigning highest budget for a film is Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides which cost $378.5 million to make back in 2011. If you consider Justice League and the new Snyder cut of the film all one movie, however, then that record is potentially about to be broken.

Will $400 million spent on one superhero story be worth it? Only time will tell. The Snyder Cut of Justice League is set for release in 2021 on HBO Max.

View post:

What is the Justice League Snyder Cut costing HBO Max - Looper

Senior Research Assistant in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics job with THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG | 230871 – Times Higher Education (THE)

Work type: Full-timeDepartment: Department of Physics (25600)Categories: Academic-related Staff, Research Support Staff

Applications are invited for appointment asSenior Research Assistant in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics in the Department of Physics(Ref.: 502385) to commence as soon as possible for one year, with the possibility of renewal subject to satisfactory performance.

Applicants should possess a Masters degree or above in Physics or Mechanical Engineering, or in relevant disciplines with comprehensive experience in Perovskite materials, and/or 3D printing, and/or nano-electronics. Preference will be given to those with a Ph.D. degree in a related area, or who are expecting to complete the degree before March 2021. The appointee will conduct researches on thermoelectric properties of Perovskite nanowires grown by a state-of-art 3D printing technique under the joint supervision of Dr. DongKeun Ki (e-mail: dkki@hku.hk; https://www.physics.hku.hk/~dkkilab/) in Physics and Dr. Jitae Kim (e-mail: jtkim@hku.hk; https://sites.google.com/site/kimlabhku/) in Mechanical Engineering.

A highly competitive salary commensurate with qualifications and experience will be offered, in addition to annual leave and medical benefits.

The University only accepts online application for the above post. Applicants should apply online and upload an up-to-date C.V. and a cover letter, preferably with academic transcript(s) and a publication list.Review of applications will commence as soon as possible and continue untilJanuary 8, 2021, or until the post is filled, whichever is earlier.

Originally posted here:

Senior Research Assistant in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics job with THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG | 230871 - Times Higher Education (THE)

How Integrated Operations is Using a Breakthrough Misting Technology to Stop the Spread of Deadly Viruses and Bacteria – Iosco County News Herald

MACOMB COUNTY, Mich., Oct. 28, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Consumers and businesses require due diligence to ensure they are opting for effective disinfection methods for dangerous viruses and bacteria. Many approaches are less effective than claimed and provide a false sense of security to people in environments that can be germ-ridden including schools, elder care facilities, offices, etc.

To achieve effective protection against surface and airborne germs, engineer, former auto executive and founder of Integrated Operations, Nick Jaksa, has introduced a new line of disinfection equipment that uses ultra-fine misting technology to provide complete coverage towards the elimination of deadly viruses and bacteria.

Current methods of disinfection, including sprays and UVC light, are only effective on areas that are directly touched by the spray or exposed to the light. These methods provide temporary spot elimination of germs, and surfaces may remain contaminated due to inadequate coverage of hard to reach places or insufficient exposure time it takes to cover all surfaces. Integrated Operations' Viral Defense systems utilize a fine mist of nano-particles, allowing the mist to disperse and cover an entire area touching all surfaces. The same misting technology can safely deactivate viruses on people using walk-through booths.

A simple analogy: when one compares fog to rain, both will carry moisture; however, only the fog will reach and surround all places due to the minute water particles while the larger raindrops cannot due to their size and weight. The smaller the particles in the fog or mist, the more effectively they will disperse and reach all surfaces before gravity pulls them down. The fine nano-sized particles in the Viral Defense misting system disperses in seconds to eliminate germs in environments or on people.

Viral Defense technology offers several disinfectant solutions that are chosen based on where and how it is being used. Other common disinfectant solutions that are salt-based are highly corrosive and should be used with care, especially around electronics, particularly in medical/dental treatment rooms, and in offices with computers and other sensitive equipment. One of the Viral Defense disinfectant solutions utilizes a colloidal silver base which is naturally anti-viral, anti-bacterial and non-corrosive. There is an added benefit to using colloidal silver: not only will it deactivate viruses and kills bacteria, the nano-silver solution will provide 24 hours of protection!

"The most comprehensive disinfection ensures that we are not carrying germs on our person nor transporting them on our things, and that they are not present in the environments we enter. Combined with mask wearing and hand washing, it's a highly effective means of protection against bacteria and deadly viruses," says Jaksa.

The breakthrough Viral Defense misting technology is being utilized in walk- through misting booths for full body disinfection, and in mobile systems that thoroughly disinfect surfaces, including rooms, hallways, vehicles, etc. The entire process takes seconds, and the amount of solution needed costs pennies. This is an excellent option for medical/dental treatment rooms, schools, assisted living facilities, retail stores, theatres, restaurants, sporting and entertainment events and other venues that should disinfect on a regular basis.

Through Jaksa's work overseas, he discovered a similar disinfection system in Vietnam, a country that is about one-third the size of the U.S. and has fewer than 1200 cases of Covid-19 with 35 deaths. Jaksa and his team of engineering and medical experts are focused on keeping people and places safe from germs."This is not the first epidemic we have faced nor will it be the last. Our goal is to make technology available that can combat harmful germs today and in the future," concludes Jaksa.

Media Contact:Alise Kreditor516-482-4866257765@email4pr.com

View original post here:

How Integrated Operations is Using a Breakthrough Misting Technology to Stop the Spread of Deadly Viruses and Bacteria - Iosco County News Herald

Impact Of Covid 19 On 3D Print Materials Industry 2020 Market Challenges, Business Overview And Forecast Research Study 2026 – The Think Curiouser

3D Print Materials Market Data and Acquisition Research Study with Trends and Opportunities 2019-2024The study of 3D Print Materials market is a compilation of the market of 3D Print Materials broken down into its entirety on the basis of types, application, trends and opportunities, mergers and acquisitions, drivers and restraints, and a global outreach. The detailed study also offers a board interpretation of the 3D Print Materials industry from a variety of data points that are collected through reputable and verified sources. Furthermore, the study sheds a lights on a market interpretations on a global scale which is further distributed through distribution channels, generated incomes sources and a marginalized market space where most trade occurs.

Along with a generalized market study, the report also consists of the risks that are often neglected when it comes to the 3D Print Materials industry in a comprehensive manner. The study is also divided in an analytical space where the forecast is predicted through a primary and secondary research methodologies along with an in-house model.

Download PDF Sample of 3D Print Materials Market report @ https://hongchunresearch.com/request-a-sample/77278

Key players in the global 3D Print Materials market covered in Chapter 4:LEGOR GROUPFORMLTYPEEight Oclock Coffee PodsEXCELTECArevo LTypeLomiko MetalsNascent Objects, INCADVANCE3D MATERIALSCOOKSON PRECIOUSDSM SOMOSNano SteelEVONIKMaker JuiceGRAPHENE 3D LABARCAMMillstone K CupsCRP GROUPMETALSRahn AGAdvanced Powder and Coating

In Chapter 11 and 13.3, on the basis of types, the 3D Print Materials market from 2015 to 2026 is primarily split into:NylonAbsResinStainless SteelGold&SliverTitaniumCeramicGypsum

In Chapter 12 and 13.4, on the basis of applications, the 3D Print Materials market from 2015 to 2026 covers:AerospaceArchitectureEngineeringOthers

Geographically, the detailed analysis of consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate, historic and forecast (2015-2026) of the following regions are covered in Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13:North America (Covered in Chapter 6 and 13)United StatesCanadaMexicoEurope (Covered in Chapter 7 and 13)GermanyUKFranceItalySpainRussiaOthersAsia-Pacific (Covered in Chapter 8 and 13)ChinaJapanSouth KoreaAustraliaIndiaSoutheast AsiaOthersMiddle East and Africa (Covered in Chapter 9 and 13)Saudi ArabiaUAEEgyptNigeriaSouth AfricaOthersSouth America (Covered in Chapter 10 and 13)BrazilArgentinaColumbiaChileOthers

For a global outreach, the 3D Print Materials study also classifies the market into a global distribution where key market demographics are established based on the majority of the market share. The following markets that are often considered for establishing a global outreach are North America, Europe, Asia, and the Rest of the World. Depending on the study, the following markets are often interchanged, added, or excluded as certain markets only adhere to certain products and needs.

Here is a short glance at what the study actually encompasses:Study includes strategic developments, latest product launches, regional growth markers and mergers & acquisitionsRevenue, cost price, capacity & utilizations, import/export rates and market shareForecast predictions are generated from analytical data sources and calculated through a series of in-house processes.

However, based on requirements, this report could be customized for specific regions and countries.

Brief about 3D Print Materials Market Report with [emailprotected]https://hongchunresearch.com/report/3d-print-materials-market-size-2020-77278

Some Point of Table of Content:

Chapter One: Report Overview

Chapter Two: Global Market Growth Trends

Chapter Three: Value Chain of 3D Print Materials Market

Chapter Four: Players Profiles

Chapter Five: Global 3D Print Materials Market Analysis by Regions

Chapter Six: North America 3D Print Materials Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Seven: Europe 3D Print Materials Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Eight: Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Nine: Middle East and Africa 3D Print Materials Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Ten: South America 3D Print Materials Market Analysis by Countries

Chapter Eleven: Global 3D Print Materials Market Segment by Types

Chapter Twelve: Global 3D Print Materials Market Segment by Applications12.1 Global 3D Print Materials Sales, Revenue and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020)12.1.1 Global 3D Print Materials Sales and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020)12.1.2 Global 3D Print Materials Revenue and Market Share by Applications (2015-2020)12.2 Aerospace Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)12.3 Architecture Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)12.4 Engineering Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)12.5 Others Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2015-2020)

Chapter Thirteen: 3D Print Materials Market Forecast by Regions (2020-2026) continued

Check [emailprotected] https://hongchunresearch.com/check-discount/77278

List of tablesList of Tables and FiguresTable Global 3D Print Materials Market Size Growth Rate by Type (2020-2026)Figure Global 3D Print Materials Market Share by Type in 2019 & 2026Figure Nylon FeaturesFigure Abs FeaturesFigure Resin FeaturesFigure Stainless Steel FeaturesFigure Gold&Sliver FeaturesFigure Titanium FeaturesFigure Ceramic FeaturesFigure Gypsum FeaturesTable Global 3D Print Materials Market Size Growth by Application (2020-2026)Figure Global 3D Print Materials Market Share by Application in 2019 & 2026Figure Aerospace DescriptionFigure Architecture DescriptionFigure Engineering DescriptionFigure Others DescriptionFigure Global COVID-19 Status OverviewTable Influence of COVID-19 Outbreak on 3D Print Materials Industry DevelopmentTable SWOT AnalysisFigure Porters Five Forces AnalysisFigure Global 3D Print Materials Market Size and Growth Rate 2015-2026Table Industry NewsTable Industry PoliciesFigure Value Chain Status of 3D Print MaterialsFigure Production Process of 3D Print MaterialsFigure Manufacturing Cost Structure of 3D Print MaterialsFigure Major Company Analysis (by Business Distribution Base, by Product Type)Table Downstream Major Customer Analysis (by Region)Table LEGOR GROUP ProfileTable LEGOR GROUP Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table FORMLTYPE ProfileTable FORMLTYPE Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Eight Oclock Coffee Pods ProfileTable Eight Oclock Coffee Pods Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table EXCELTEC ProfileTable EXCELTEC Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Arevo LType ProfileTable Arevo LType Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Lomiko Metals ProfileTable Lomiko Metals Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Nascent Objects, INC ProfileTable Nascent Objects, INC Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table ADVANCE3D MATERIALS ProfileTable ADVANCE3D MATERIALS Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table COOKSON PRECIOUS ProfileTable COOKSON PRECIOUS Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table DSM SOMOS ProfileTable DSM SOMOS Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Nano Steel ProfileTable Nano Steel Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table EVONIK ProfileTable EVONIK Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Maker Juice ProfileTable Maker Juice Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table GRAPHENE 3D LAB ProfileTable GRAPHENE 3D LAB Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table ARCAM ProfileTable ARCAM Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Millstone K Cups ProfileTable Millstone K Cups Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table CRP GROUP ProfileTable CRP GROUP Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table METALS ProfileTable METALS Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Rahn AG ProfileTable Rahn AG Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Table Advanced Powder and Coating ProfileTable Advanced Powder and Coating Production, Value, Price, Gross Margin 2015-2020Figure Global 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Global 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020)Table Global 3D Print Materials Sales by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)Table Global 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Regions in 2015Table Global 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Regions in 2019Figure North America 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Europe 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Middle East and Africa 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure South America 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure North America 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020)Table North America 3D Print Materials Sales by Countries (2015-2020)Table North America 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure North America 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure North America 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019Table North America 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020)Table North America 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure North America 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure North America 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019Figure United States 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Canada 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Mexico 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth (2015-2020)Figure Europe 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) Growth (2015-2020)Table Europe 3D Print Materials Sales by Countries (2015-2020)Table Europe 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Europe 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Europe 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019Table Europe 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020)Table Europe 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Europe 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Europe 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019Figure Germany 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure UK 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure France 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Italy 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Spain 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Russia 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020)Table Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Sales by Countries (2015-2020)Table Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Sales Market Share by Countries in 2019Table Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) by Countries (2015-2020)Table Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries (2015-2020)Figure Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2015Figure Asia-Pacific 3D Print Materials Revenue Market Share by Countries in 2019Figure China 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Japan 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure South Korea 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Australia 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure India 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Southeast Asia 3D Print Materials Sales and Growth Rate (2015-2020)Figure Middle East and Africa 3D Print Materials Revenue ($) and Growth (2015-2020) continued

About HongChun Research:HongChun Research main aim is to assist our clients in order to give a detailed perspective on the current market trends and build long-lasting connections with our clientele. Our studies are designed to provide solid quantitative facts combined with strategic industrial insights that are acquired from proprietary sources and an in-house model.

Contact Details:Jennifer GrayManager Global Sales+ 852 8170 0792[emailprotected]

NOTE: Our report does take into account the impact of coronavirus pandemic and dedicates qualitative as well as quantitative sections of information within the report that emphasizes the impact of COVID-19.

As this pandemic is ongoing and leading to dynamic shifts in stocks and businesses worldwide, we take into account the current condition and forecast the market data taking into consideration the micro and macroeconomic factors that will be affected by the pandemic.

Go here to read the rest:

Impact Of Covid 19 On 3D Print Materials Industry 2020 Market Challenges, Business Overview And Forecast Research Study 2026 - The Think Curiouser

Small Satellite Market Size to Hit USD 9.75 Billion by 2027; Presence of Several Large Scale Companies will have a Positive Impact on Market Growth,…

Pune, Oct. 28, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The global small satellite market size is projected to reach USD 9.75 billion by the end of 2027. The increasing number of space programs across the world will emerge in favor of market growth. According to a report published by Fortune Business Insights, titled Small Satellite Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Mini, Micro, Nano), Component (Structures, Payload, Electric Power System, Solar Panel and Antennas System, Propulsion System, Others), Application (Communication, Navigation, Earth Observation, Technology Development, Others), End-User (Commercial, Civil, Military, Government), and Regional Forecast, 2020-2027, the market was worth USD 3.07 billion and will exhibit a CAGR of 18.99% during the forecast period, 2020-2027.

Small satellites are widely used in several space applications including observational and functional purposes. These satellites have a lower massas well as the size and require lesserpropellant fuel than conventional satellites. The increasing demand for small satellites is consequential to the rising awareness as well as debates surrounding high fuel consumption in larger satellites. The huge investments in the research and development of small satellites will bode well for the growth of the market in the coming years. An increasing number of observational space programs by globally renowned organizations such as ISRO and NASA will give the platform for growth for the companies operating in the small satellite market.

Get Sample PDF Brochure with Impact of COVID19:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/request-sample-pdf/small-satellite-market-101917

Covid-19 Pandemic to Halt Production of Proposed Satellites

The recent coronavirus outbreak has had a drastic impact on several businesses across the world. Due to the rapid spread of the disease governments across the world have been compelled to implement strict measures with the aim to curb the spread of the disease. As a result, people have been advised to stay indoors which has ultimately led to a shortage of labor and workforce across the world. Thus several space programs that were lined up during the pandemic have been delayed. Moreover, the coronavirus outbreak has also brought a halt in the production of proposed satellites. These factors have had a direct negative impact on the small satellite market in the past few months. Having said that the efforts taken to recover these economic losses will bring relief to manufacturers in the small satellite sector.

Increasing Number of Company Mergers and Acquisitions will Emerge in Favor of Market Growth

The report encompasses several factors that have contributed to the growth of the overall market in recent years. Accounting to the massive demand for small satellites across the world, larger organizations and businesses are looking to collaborate as well as acquire companies in the mid-level brackets. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of company collaborations and mergers across the world in the past two decades. In February 2020, rocket labs announced that it has signed a contract with NASA,through which it will work onNASAsplans to launch small satellitesto the moon in 2021. The contract is said to be worth an estimated USD 15.5 million. This contract will not just benefit the company but will also encourage other companies of the similar stature as well as small scale businesses. The increasing number of such company collaborations will bode well for the growth of the market in the coming years.

Inquire Before Buying This Research Report:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/queries/small-satellite-market-101917

North America to Emerge Dominant; Presence of Several Large Scale Companies will Emerge in Favor of Market Growth

The report analyzes the ongoing market trends across five major regions. Among all regions, the market in North America is expected to hold the largest market share in the coming years. The presence of several large scale space organizations in the US will have a positive impact on the growth of the market in the coming years. As of 2019, the market in North America was worth USD 1.91 billion, and this value is projected to rise at a considerable pace in the coming years. Besides North America, the market in Asia Pacific will rise at a considerable pace driven by rapid urbanization across the region.

List of the Leading Companies Profiled in the Global Small Satellite Marketare:

Browse Detailed Summary of Research Report with TOC:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/small-satellite-market-101917

Detailed Table of Content:

TOC Continued!

Get your Customized Research Report:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/customization/small-satellite-market-101917

Industry Developments:

April 2020: VOX Space announced that it has signed a contract with the U.S. Space Force (USSF). Through this contract, the company will work towards USSFs plans for the launch of three small satellite missions delivering multiple spacecraft to orbit for the Department of Defense (DoD) Space Test Program- S28 (STP-28).

Have a Look at Related Research Insights:

Satellite Communication Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Component (Receiver, Transmitter/Transponder, Transceiver, Antenna, Modem/Router), By Technology (Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT), SATCOM-On-The-Move (SOTM), SATCOM-On-The-Pause (SOTP), SATCOM Telemetry), By Platform (Commercial and Government & Defense), By End-Use (Portable equipment, Land equipment, Maritime equipment), and Regional Forecast, 2019-2026

US Reusable Launch Vehicle Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Partially Reusable and Fully Reusable), By Stage (Single Stage and Multi-Stage), By Orbit Type (Low Earth Orbit and Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit), and Regional Forecast, 2019-2026

Satellite Payload Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Payload Type (Communication, Imaging, Navigation, and Others), By Vehicle Type (Small, Medium-to-heavy), By Orbit (GEO, LEO, and MEO), By Application (Weather Monitoring, Telecommunication, Scientific Research, Surveillance, Others), By End-Use (Commercial and Military) and Regional Forecasts, 2020-2027

About Us:

Fortune Business Insightsoffers expert corporate analysis and accurate data, helping organizations of all sizes make timely decisions. We tailor innovative solutions for our clients, assisting them to address challenges distinct to their businesses. Our goal is to empower our clients with holistic market intelligence, giving a granular overview of the market they are operating in.

Our reports contain a unique mix of tangible insights and qualitative analysis to help companies achieve sustainable growth. Our team of experienced analysts and consultants use industry-leading research tools and techniques to compile comprehensive market studies, interspersed with relevant data.

At Fortune Business Insights, we aim at highlighting the most lucrative growth opportunities for our clients. We, therefore, offer recommendations, making it easier for them to navigate through technological and market-related changes. Our consulting services are designed to help organizations identify hidden opportunities and understand prevailing competitive challenges.

Contact Us:

Fortune Business Insights Pvt. Ltd.

308, Supreme Headquarters,

Survey No. 36, Baner,

Pune-Bangalore Highway,

Pune - 411045, Maharashtra, India.

Phone:

US: +1 424 253 0390

UK: +44 2071 939123

APAC: +91 744 740 1245

Email:sales@fortunebusinessinsights.com

Fortune Business Insights

LinkedIn | Twitter | Blogs

Read Press Release:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/press-release/small-satellite-market-9484

The rest is here:

Small Satellite Market Size to Hit USD 9.75 Billion by 2027; Presence of Several Large Scale Companies will have a Positive Impact on Market Growth,...

The U.S. Finally Has a Sputnik Moment With China – Foreign Policy

As I researched global innovation over the past four years, the more I looked into Chinas amazing ascent as a technological poweramid growing U.S. angst and anti-China angerthe more one puzzling question constantly jumped out at me: Why has there been no Sputnik moment with China, as occurred early in the Cold War when the Soviet Union launched a satellite into space in 1957? Then, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower elevated science and technology to a national mission, creating NASA and dramatically ramping up support for research and development.

True, theres been no single Chinese achievement that made headlinessave perhaps Beijings recent victory over the coronavirus, muted by having helped spread the virus in the first place. The fields where China is ahead of the United States, such as financial technology, are largely matters of everyday life, not grand and singular achievements. But for all the febrile fear and loathing of China, a panoply of tariffs, tech bans, and an unraveling U.S.-China relationship, the United States has done far more whining about China than competing with it. Huawei as a national security threat, intellectual property theft, bans on Chinese appsAmericas (mostly legitimate) grievances against predatory Chinese industrial policies seem to mount by the day. Yet beyond sanctions and tariffs, there has been little idea how the United States would meet the challenge.

Thats no longer the case. Fears of the United States losing its competitive edge to China have proved so powerful that they have begun to transcend Americas bitter tribal politics, transforming traditional U.S. laissez-faire views into a fervent techno-nationalism that may end up looking like Beijings approach itself. Much of this exists only in potential at the moment, but its becoming the new norm.

Sinophobia has turned traditional free market Republicans into advocates, captured in Sen. Marco Rubios call for a pro-American industrial policy. This is evident in a flood of legislation in the U.S. Congress: 366 pieces of China-focused legislation filed in 2019-2020much on trade, investment, and techthough only a handful are likely to become law. The mostly bipartisan legislation is also mirrored in Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bidens manufacturing plans that look a lot like President Donald Trumps.

Major pending bipartisan tech legislation seeks to boost U.S. manufacturing, promote R&D in key tech sectors, diversify and expand U.S. tech hubs now concentrated on the East Coast and West Coast, and forge a national tech strategy. Most prominently, a bill likely to soon become lawthe Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America Act (CHIPS for America Act)aims to subsidize the semiconductor industry. The CHIPS bill passed as an amendment to the current Defense Authorization Act and may become law before the end of the year.

This is a very big deal. Why? Because semiconductors, a $470 billion global industry, are core drivers of all things digital, the foundation and lifeblood of the entire knowledge economy. China itself, currently dependent on imported chips (many from Taiwan), has been attempting to domesticize its own productionfailing to make a 40 percent domestic target this year, but redoubling efforts to hit a 70 percent target by 2025.

The CHIPS bill aims to boost and reshore semiconductor manufacturing with a 40 percent tax credit to 2024 for investments in semiconductor equipment or manufacturing facilities; creates a $10 billion matching fund for states and cities to incentivize investment in advanced semiconductor manufacturing; includes measures for bolstering STEM workforce development; and parcels out $12 billion in R&D to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation, as well as to establish an advanced manufacturing institute. It also mandates that the administration develop a semiconductor R&D strategy and a public-private national semiconductor technology center.

One provision in the CHIPS bill that moves beyond narrow techno-nationalism seeks to build multilateral cooperation among democracies in supply chain security. It creates a $750 million trust fund to be allocated upon reaching agreement with foreign governments to form a consortium to harmonize policies related to microelectronics, transparency in microelectronics, and greater alignment in policies toward non-market economies.

There is an array of other legislation designed to bolster U.S. tech competitiveness, beef up R&D in high tech, incentivize private sector investment, and change the geography of innovation80 percent of venture capital and 90 percent of tech employment is concentrated in major tech hubs. For example, several bills would rename the National Science Foundation as the National Science and Technology Foundation, creating a center for technology and authorizing $100 billion in R&D funds to support work on artificial intelligence, boost semiconductors, and incentivize geographic diversity, with $80 billion for cities to compete to build tech innovation centers.

The flurry of legislation and the rhetoric of both presidential candidates underscore the degree to which the fear of Chinese tech dominance has animated a newfound bipartisan eagerness to sustain and advance the eroding U.S. innovation edge. While industrial policies have had mixed success in the United States, the sheer breadth and scope of new resources and public and private collaboration will no doubt have a considerable impact on U.S. tech capacity.

What unintended consequences all the positive and negative aspects of this energized techno-nationalism in the United States will have is another question. In the best-case scenario, the results of the new U.S. zeitgeist may better position Washingtonif it can mobilize like-minded partnersto compete with China and pressure Beijing to move back toward promised economic reforms, rolling back many of its state-driven forms of capitalist measures. In the worst case, it may lead to a bifurcated global economy with conflicting rules, norms, and standards. One big fear is that the victim of the techno-nationalism trend will be global innovation, which thrives on openness and transparency.

The world is in the early stages of what has been dubbed the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The converging new technologiesAI, big data, robotics, biotech, nanoengineering, new materials, the Internet of Things, 3D printingmerge the digital and physical worlds and will drive economic growth and shape geopolitics in the decades ahead. It should have been obvious to U.S. officialdom long ago that tech innovation was the fulcrum of the future, but they mostly just paid lip service to it. Instead, it has taken an existential fear of being overtaken by China to create an impetus to get changes done. The price may be innovation constrained by techno-nationalismbut the next Sputnik moment is finally here.

Read more:

The U.S. Finally Has a Sputnik Moment With China - Foreign Policy

Invoking Scalia, Sotomayor Presses for Broad Fourth Amendment Protections – Reason

The Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonableseizure" includes the right to be free from unreasonable arrest or detainment. Does it also include the right to be free from what we might call unreasonable attempts or efforts at arrest or detainment? The late Justice Antonin Scalia thought that it did. "The mere grasping or application of physical force with lawful authority, whether or not it succeeded in subduing the arrestee," Scalia wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in California v. Hodari D. (1991), qualifies as a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Earlier this month, however, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a new Fourth Amendment that asks whether Scalia might have got it wrong.

In Torres v. Madrid (2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held that no seizure occurred when officers with the New Mexico State Police shot Roxanne Torres twice in the back, because their bullets did not actually stop her from getting away. According to that court, "an officer's intentional shooting of a suspect does not effect a seizure unless the 'gunshotterminate[s] [the suspect's] movement or otherwise cause[s] the government to have physical control over him.'"

Torres was sitting in her car in her apartment building's parking lot when it went down. The officers were there to arrest somebody else. They claimed they approached her because she was acting suspiciously. According to Torres, she thought she was about to be carjacked, later testifying that the officers never identified themselves as they crowded her vehicle. Fearing for her safety, she drove away. The officers then shot her twice as she fled. She only learned that it was the police who pulled the trigger when she was arrested a day later at the hospital.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Torres v. Madrid on October 14. "Roxanne Torres was not seized by either [Officer] Janice Madrid or [Officer] Richard Williamson," New Mexico lawyer Mark Standridge told the justices. "At no time did the officers acquire possession, custody, or control over her. Indeed, [Torres] never stopped in response to the police action. As the officers did not seize [Torres], they cannot be held liable to her for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Unsurprisingly, the Court's most hawkish Fourth Amendment advocate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, did not seem to find that position particularly palatable. "Counsel, there is an element to the Fourth Amendment that all of our cases, including Hodari, recognized by Justice Scalia," she said, "that has to do with the Fourth Amendment's protection of bodily integrity. It is why we call putting a needle in someone's arm a seizure that requires either probable cause or exigent circumstances, et cetera."

And that conception of bodily integrity, Sotomayor continued, includes "the seizure of the person with respect to the touching of that person because even a touch stops you. It may be for a split second, but it impedes yourmovement and offends your integrity."

What you are asking the Court to do, Sotomayor told Standridge, is "reject the clear line drawn by Hodari and say that Justice Scalia was wrong about what the common law showed." Sotomayor left little doubt that she was with Scalia on that one.

Read the original post:

Invoking Scalia, Sotomayor Presses for Broad Fourth Amendment Protections - Reason

Main Points Of The Fourth Amendment To Chinese Patent Law (Approved On October 17, 2020, Effective From June 1, 2021) – Intellectual Property – China…

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

China's National People's Congress has approved theFourth Amendment to Chinese Patent Law on October 17, 2020. Theamended law will be effective from June 1, 2021. We also expectthat the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law and thePatent Examination Guidelines will also be amended accordingly,before the effective date of the amended law. These regulations andrules will provide more explanation and details regarding theAmendment.

Although the approved version of the Fourth Amendment issomewhat different from the previous versions, we do not think itis necessary to discuss these differences. Rather, we will discusskeys changes in the approved version as compared to the currentlaw. We haveparaphrased and highlighted inblue the key changes below,followed by ourcomments in black.

Article 2.4 Partial designs will be allowed.

A much welcomed change. It will provide flexibility to allapplicants and much convenience to applicants from countries wherepartial designs are allowed.

Article 15.2 For service-inventions, the state encouragesemployers to implement ownership incentives and adopt means such asequities, options, and profit sharing, etc., to allow the inventorsto reasonably share the benefits of innovation.

Although the provision is only an "encouragement",rather than a requirement, we do not think that it is necessary orproper. We think that the employers should be left freely, withinthe boundary of law, to decide on how to reward and remunerate theinventors. We look forward to more details.

Article 20.1 In exercising the application or patent right, oneshould follow the principle of honesty and credibility, but shallnot abuse the right to harm public interest or other'slegitimate rights.

We think that the stated principle is appropriate, but lookforward to further interpretation and details.

20.2 Abusing patent right, excluding or restricting competition,if constituting monopolistic conduct, shall be treated according toAnti-Monopoly Law of China.

This provision corresponds with the Anti-Monopoly Law.

Article 24.1 (1) Newly added exception to novelty-defeatingdisclosures: Disclosures made within 6 months of application dateand for public interest purposes during national emergency orextraordinary situation.

We think that a typical example of the exception would be forsomeone to publish a research paper regarding treatment or vaccinefor the corona virus before filing the relevant patent application,but look forward to further interpretation and details.

Article 29 Applicant may claim priority to its own first-filedChinese design patent application within six (6) months of thefirst filing and for the same subject matter.

Applicant can already do so in invention and utility modelpatent applications.

Article 42.1 Design patent term will be extended to fifteen (15)years, from the current ten (10) years.

It is generally believed that this provision will help clear theway for China to join the Hague Agreement, which other majorcountries have all joined.

42.2 For patents granted after four (4) years since applicationdate and three (3) years since request for substantive examination,applicant may request for patent term extension on the basis ofunreasonable delays during prosecution of the patent, except fordelays caused by the applicant.

We look forward to further details.

42.3 In order to compensate for time used for new drugevaluation and approval, the term of a relevant patent for anapproved new drug in China may be extended by up to five (5) yearsupon request by patentee. However, after the new drug entersmarket, the total remaining term of the relevant patent may notexceed fourteen (14) years.

A much welcomed provision for the pharmaceutical industry. Welook forward to further details.

Articles 50 52 Provisions regarding Open PatentLicenses, setting out mechanisms and procedures whereby patentowners can publish, through the CNIPA, their intentions to licensetheir patents to any interested party. Annuities will be reduced orwaived during the license period.

The provisions will help to further commercialize Chinesepatents. We look forward to more details.

Article 66.2 In an infringement action involving a utility modelor design patent before court or administrative agency, all partiescan submit the Patentability Assessment Report on their own.Currently only the patentee and interested party can do so uponrequest by court.

The report will be more important when enforcing utility modelor design patents.

Article 70.1 CNIPA, at the request of patentee or interestedparty, may handle patent infringement disputes that havesignificant impact nationwide.

We think this is an inappropriate enlargement of the CNIPA'sauthority and jurisdiction, but look forward to more details.

70.2 Patent administrative authority of a local government, atthe request of patentee or interested party to handle patentinfringement disputes, may combine cases involving the same patentwithin its jurisdiction. The authority may also request a higherlevel local government authority to handle cases involving the samepatent across different jurisdictions.

This is further streamlining of the administrativeauthority's handling of patent disputes.

Article 71.1 Patentee's loss and infringer's gain aretreated equally as basis for determining damage amounts.

This provides more option/freedom to the patentee in provingdamage amounts.

71.1 In case of willful infringing act, if the circumstances aresevere, the court may set the amount of damages to be one (1) tofive (5) times of the determined amount.

While this may provide more deterrence, it could also beexcessive.

71.2 Statutory damage amount will be under RMB 5 million (aboutUS$715,000). Currently the amount is under RMB 1 million.

A much welcomed change as damage amounts in most cases are stilldetermined based on the statutory amount.

71.4 In order to determine the amount of damages, if theplaintiff has done everything within its ability and the relevantaccount books and materials are mainly under the infringer'scontrol, the court may order the infringer to provide such accountbooks and materials. If the infringer does not provide or providefalse account books or materials, the court may determine thedamage amount by considering the plaintiff's request andevidence.

This will make it easier for the patentee to prove the damageamount.

Article 74.1 Statute of limitation for filing infringementlawsuit is three (3) years (currently two years) from when patenteeknew or should have known the infringement action and theinfringer.

This is in line with China's civil procedure law.

Article 76.1 During administrative review and approval for adrug, the party seeking drug approval and the patentee of arelevant patent may initiate legal proceeding with the court todetermine whether the drug falls within the protection scope of thepatent. The drug regulatory agency, within a specified period oftime, may decide whether to suspend the drug review and approvalprocess based on an effective judgment by the court.

This generally sets up a mechanism for settling patent disputesin drug regulatory review and approval process. But there are manydetails that will need to be clarified.

76.2 The parties may also request the CNIPA to make anadministrative decision regarding the patent dispute.

This is an enlargement of the CNIPA's jurisdiction. We lookforward to more details.

76.3 The Drug Regulatory Authority and the CNIPA will formulatespecific linkage methods regarding drug marketing approval andpatent dispute resolution during the approval period.

We look forward to more details.

As can be seen, the Fourth Amendment introduced a number ofmajor changes to the Chinese Patent Law. At the same time, theimplementation of these changes will largely depend oninterpretation and further details regarding the provisions. Welook forward to the corresponding Implementing Regulations by theState Council and the Patent Examination Guidelines by the CNIPA inthe coming months. We will keep you informed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Read more here:

Main Points Of The Fourth Amendment To Chinese Patent Law (Approved On October 17, 2020, Effective From June 1, 2021) - Intellectual Property - China...

EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing That Law Enforcement Access to Wi-Fi Derived Location Data Violates the Fourth Amendment – EFF

With increasing frequency, law enforcement is using unconstitutional digital dragnet searches to attempt to identify unknown suspects in criminal cases. In Commonwealth v. Dunkins, currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, EFF and the ACLU are challenging a new type of dragnet: law enforcements use of WiFi data to retrospectively track individuals precise physical location.

Phones, computers, and tablets connect to WiFi networksand in turn, the Internetthrough a physical access point. Since a single access point can only service a limited number of devices within a certain range, WiFi networks that have many users and cover larger geographic areas have multiple stationary access points. When a device owner moves through a WiFi network with multiple access points, their device seamlessly switches to the nearest available point. This means that an access point can serve as a proxy for a device owners physical location. As an access point records a unique identifier for each device that connects to it, along with the time the device connected, access point logs can reveal a devices precise location over time.

In Dunkins, police were investigating a robbery that occurred in the middle of the night in a dorm at Moravian College in eastern Pennsylvania. To identify a suspect, police obtained logs of every device that connected to the 80-90 access points in the dormabout one access point for every other dorm roomaround the time of the robbery. From there, police identified devices belonging to several dozen students. They then narrowed their list to include only non-residents. That produced a list of three devices: two appeared to belong to women and one appeared to belong to a man who later turned out to be Dunkins. Since police believed the suspect was a man, they focused their investigation on that device. They then obtained records of Dunkins phone for five hours on the night of the robbery, showing each WiFi access point on campus that his phone connected to during that time. Dunkins was ultimately charged with the crime.

We argued in our brief that searches like this violate the Fourth Amendment. The WiFi log data can reveal sensitive location information, so it is essentially identical to the cell phone location records that the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter require a warrant. Just like cell phone records, the WiFi logs offered the police the ability to retrospectively track a persons movement, including inside constitutionally protected spaces like students dorm rooms. And just as the Carpenter court recognized that cell phones are essential for participation in modern life, accessing a college WiFi network is equally indispensable to college life.

Additionally, we argued that even if police had obtained a warrant, such a warrant would be invalid. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching a particular target. But in this case, police only knew that a crime occurredthey did not have a suspect or even a target device identifier. Assessing virtually the same situation in the context of a geofence warrant, two federal judges recently ruled that the governments application to obtain location records from a certain place during a specific time period failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendments particularity and probable cause requirements.

The polices tactics in this case illustrate exactly why indiscriminate searches are a threat to a free society. In acquiring and analyzing the records from everyone in the dorm, the police not only violated the defendants rights but they also wrongly learned the location of every student who was in the dormitory in the middle of the night. In particular, police determined that two women wholly unconnected to the robbery were not in their own dorm rooms on the night of the crime. Thats exactly the type of dragnet surveillance that the Fourth Amendment defends against.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences. In Pennsylvania and across the nation, public WiFi networks are everywhere. And for poor people and people of color, free public WiFi is often a crucial lifeline. Those communities should not be at a greater risk of surveillance than people who have the means to set up their own private networks. We hope the court will realize whats at stake here and rule that these types of warrantless searches are illegal.

Go here to see the original:

EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing That Law Enforcement Access to Wi-Fi Derived Location Data Violates the Fourth Amendment - EFF

IMPD dismissed from Dreasjon Reed lawsuit – WTHR

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws

INDIANAPOLIS A judge has dismissed IMPD from a wrongful death lawsuit in the shooting death of Dreasjon Reed.

The lawsuit alleges four IMPD officers, the city of Indianapolis and IMPD used "excessive force" in violating Reed's Fourth Amendment rights.

The four officers listed are IMPD Chief Randal Taylor, IMPD Deputy Chief Kendale Adams, IMPD Officer De'Joure Marquise Mercer, and IMPD Officer Steven Scott.

IMPD claims Reed was running from police, shot at an officer, and the officer returned fire, killing Reed. The incident was caught on a live video on Facebook that Reed was filming at the time.

Reed's mother, Demetree Wynn, filed the federal lawsuit in June.

On Tuesday, Oct. 27, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws.

"Defendants argue that the IMPD is not a suable entity, and therefore all claims against it must be dismissed. [Filing No. 16 at 3.] Specifically, Defendants assert that although municipal corporations have the capacity to sue and be sued under Indiana law, their individual departments and agencies do not, and courts have consistently recognized that the IMPD is not suable except in the context of lawsuits for access to public records, which is not the case here."

Here are the claims that have been dismissed from the lawsuit:

Following the court's decision, here is what remains in the wrongful death lawsuit:

Originally posted here:

IMPD dismissed from Dreasjon Reed lawsuit - WTHR

Column: Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century – The Oakland Press

Nearly <https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> every American<https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> owns a cell phone that can track their every movement and store sensitive information. But this convenience doesnt mean Michiganders give up their expectation of privacy. On Nov. 3, voters have a chance to ensure that our right to privacy in digital matters is respected by law enforcement when they vote on Proposal 2.

This ballot proposal would require law enforcement to acquire a search warrant before accessing a persons electronic data and communications. This may seem like a commonsense protection of privacy. But, currently, law enforcement is able to access Michiganders data essentially at will.

This issue has been a big deal in Michigan for the better part of a decade. In 2011, as a result of suspected criminal activity in Detroit, the <https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> FBI acquired<https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> several months worth of Timothy Carpenters cellphone location records without a warrant. These records revealed over 13,000 locations Carpenter had visited, yet the FBI didnt even have to ask a judge to get that information.

Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union took on Carpenters case, which went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In 2018, the court held that Fourth Amendment protections apply to cellphone location records and that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before accessing this sensitive information.

But heres the problem: The Supreme Courts decision only applied to location data. It didnt apply to the rest of the data that people access every day financial documents, photos, calendar appointments, and more. Law enforcement can still access this information without a warrant. In fact, law enforcement could conceivably access enough information to put together a profile of virtually every citizen in the state. Location data may be protected, but so much other data that paints an even better picture of a person is still open to access and abuse.

One thing is certain: Americans dont like the status quo. Approximately <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> 88% of Americans<https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> say it is important that there isnt anyone watching or listening to them without their permission. Unfortunately, the law hasnt caught up.

Other states have taken steps to solve this problem. It started in Missouri in 2014. After the passage of a bill in the state legislature, a remarkable 75%<https://time.com/3087608/missouri-electronic-privacy-amendment/> of voters added much broader data protections to the state constitution through a referendum.

Last year, Utah followed suit. Lawmakers introduced a bill stating that a government entity may not obtain, use, copy, or disclose any third-party data without first obtaining a warrant unless the owner has consented or a judicially recognized exception to a warrant exists. After unanimous support from the Utah Legislature, the bill became law.

Now Michigan has a chance to set the standard. In June 2019, Michigan state Sen. Jim Runestad introduced <http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G> Senate Resolution G<http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G>, which is similar to the protection enacted in Missouri. After a year in the Michigan Legislature, it passed and has become <https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)> Michigan Proposal 2: Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment<https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)>.

Justice Samuel Alito once wrote, It would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future.

Rather than punt this issue to the slow-moving courts, its imperative that state legislatures continue discussing, as well as passing these updated protections for the electronic communications and data of various individuals.

Jarrett Skorup is director of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research and educational institute in Midland, MI. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a free-market think tank in Utah.

Read the rest here:

Column: Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century - The Oakland Press

The Criminal Justice of Amy Coney Barrett – Washington Monthly

For all the scrutiny of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her writings on abortion rights, gun rights, and Obamacare, little attention has been paid to her rulings on the rights of criminal defendants and prisoners. She has issued opinions in 34 such cases and signed on to other opinions in her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a relatively thin record, yet one demonstrating a willingness to rule both for and against police, prosecutors, and trial judges.

At times she conveys compassion for the convicted and robust regard for the Fourth Amendments restrictions on police searches. She is occasionally willing to strip officers of their qualified immunity from lawsuits. But she can also adopt extremely narrow interpretations language in the Constitution, statutes, and court precedents to uphold questionable convictions and heavy sentences.

In the area of criminal justice and related civil suits, she has issued only five dissents. Four of them were to the detriment of inmates and defendants, and one argued that a non-violent felon should be allowed to own firearms, which current federal law prohibits. In another dissent, in Sims v. Hyatte, she opposed the exoneration of a man whose attempted murder conviction relied entirely on his identification by the victim, who turned out to have been hypnotized before his trial testimonya fact not disclosed to the defense. Two of the three judges overturned the conviction, and the man was released after 26 years in jail.

Otherwise, she has written for unanimous three-judge panels, putting her in the mainstream of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit. Most of her opinions in criminal cases have been slam dunks, not even close calls given the facts and precedents. Some appeals that reached the 7th Circuit seemed like stretches by defense attorneys; others exposed such egregious behavior by authorities that a contrary ruling would have shocked the conscience.

She has ruled several times against qualified immunity, which precludes civil lawsuits against police officers and other government employees unless their actions would be clearly understood by a reasonable official to violate established constitutional or legal norms. The doctrine, which was invented by the Supreme Court, has created a Catch-22: If the use of force, even deadly force in certain situations, has not been deemed a violation in the past, then it cannot be argued that a reasonable officer would regard it as such now. Hence, police officers as individuals can rarely be sued successfully, even as large judgements and settlements have led to payouts by local governments to victims families in New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere.

Barrett has not addressed the concept itself but has applied it for and against officers depending on the cases specific issues. On the one hand, she dissented from a majority opinion in McCottrell v. White, allowing two inmates to sue guards who wounded them by firing shotguns inside a prison cafeteria. On the other hand, in Rainsberger v. Benner, she cast aside qualified immunity, for an Indianapolis homicide detective who lied in an affidavit to get an arrest warrant; the charges were dropped, and the defendant sued. She also joined opinions rejecting immunity for a prison guard in Wisconsin (Howard v. Koeller)who retaliated against a jailhouse lawyer by falsely labeling him a snitch and guards in an Illinois jail (Broadfield v. McGrath) who were sued for using excessive force against a suicidal prisoner. She ordered a new trial in another prisoners unsuccessful lawsuit (Walker v. Price) against guards he claimed had beaten him because the court had denied his repeated requests to help him find a lawyer. She wrote sympathetically of the inmates unsuccessful struggle to represent himself before the jury by video link, given his IQ of 76 and a grade-school level of comprehension.

She has both upheld and overturned tough sentences, usually with close readings of the law and the federal sentencing guidelines. But she also used fussy grammatical nitpicking about the present-perfect tense to dissent from United States v. Uriarte, a 12-3 opinion of the entire 7th Circuit. The case applied the First Step Act, a new reduced-sentencing law, to a convict awaiting a revised sentence after his first was overturned.

In light of calls by Democrats to recuse herself from any election case that might reach the Supreme Court, its worth noting that Barrett ordered a reduced sentence because Judge Colin S. Bruce, a former federal prosecutor, had failed to recuse himself after having chummy, private conversations about other cases with prosecutors from his old office. (United States v. Atwood)

She also rejected a prison sentence that was lengthened based on an unproven assumptionthat a man convicted of stealing guns had sold them to people he supposedly knew were prohibited from having firearms. Nothing in the record suggests that he knew the buyers legal status, she wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. The court plainly crossed the line that separates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible speculation. (United States v. Moody)

A man with both drugs and guns in his house was unduly given an enhanced sentence, she found in United States v. Briggs, for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, as the federal sentencing guidelines provide. But because the district court made essentially no factual findings connecting the guns and the drug possession, she wrote for a unanimous court, the case was sent back down for resentencing.

Barretts several opinions and comments on the constitutional right to be secure against government searches offer the possibility that she might be willing to rescue the Fourth Amendment from near oblivion. Largely because of the war on drugs, the proliferation of warrantless searches of vehicles and frisks of pedestrians led Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman to tell me a decade ago: I dont think that theres much left of the Fourth Amendment in criminal law. Since 9/11, digital surveillance rationalized by anti-terrorism policies has swept the country as well.

The amendment requires a warrant from a judge, backed by probable cause that evidence of a specific crime will be found in a particular place. But the courts have devised so many exceptions in allowing warrantless searches in so many situations that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, in the amendments words, has been severely undermined.

At her confirmation hearing, Barrett gave this significant response to Republican Senator Ben Sasses question about how the Fourth Amendment would deal with cell phones and other technology that didnt exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791:

No, the Fourth Amendment, so the Constitution, one reason why its the longest-lasting written constitution in the world is because its written at a level of generality thats specific enough to protect rights, but general enough to be lasting so that when youre talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791 as a search or seizure, now we can apply it, as the Court did in Carpenter versus the United States, to cell phones [requiring a warrant to get phone location records]. So, the Fourth Amendment is a principle. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it doesnt catalog the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. So, you take that principle, and then you apply it to modern technology like cell phones. Or what if technological advances enable someone with Superman x-ray vision to simply see in your house, so theres no need to knock on the door and go in? Well, I think that could still be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.

Although Barrett calls herself an originalist akin to her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, her answer did not sound very different from what a liberal judge supporting a living constitution would offer. The proof always lies in how the principle is applied to the specifics of a case. But her respect for the Constitutions level of generality, enough to be lasting, suggests that she might not join the most conservative justices who dissented in Carpenter.

Writing for unanimous panels, she overturned two convictions that relied on unconstitutionally seized evidence. In one, United States v. Terry, she ruled that a woman in a bathrobe who answered the door to federal agents did not have authority to consent to a search of a male suspects apartment. The agents had arrested the man, did not have a warrant, and did not ask the woman who she was until well into the search. (She was the mother of his son but did not live there.) They found four cell phones and a drug-dealing ledger. Barrett wrote, A bathrobe alone does not clothe someone with apparent authority over a residence, even at 10:00 in the morning.

In another, United States v. Watson, she threw out a judgment based on a guilty plea because the police, acting on a 911 call from a 14-year-old boy on a borrowed phone, lacked reasonable suspicion to block a car matching his description of boys playing with guns. A passenger with a felony conviction was found to have a gun. Barrett called the 911 call not sufficiently reliable and concluded that his sighting of guns did not describe a likely emergency or crimehe reported gun possession, which is lawful.

Barrett has such a well-schooled intellect that all her opinions are intricately woven out of existing case law and statutory text, soin the criminal justice arena, at leastshe has not departed wildly from the web of precedent that confines her. She said more than once at her hearing that a judge is obliged to rule where the law takes her, which may violate her personal views. But once shes on the Supreme Court and freer to chart her course, then what?

Read more here:

The Criminal Justice of Amy Coney Barrett - Washington Monthly

A guide to the statewide constitutional amendments on the ballot in November 2020 – Yellowhammer News

In this Novembers general election, voters will get to decide the fate of six statewide amendments to the Constitution of Alabama.

Yellowhammer News has prepared a guide to each statewide amendment and its impact on Alabama if enacted.

The six amendments mentioned will be on every ballot handed to an Alabamian on Election Day. Other local amendments may appear on the ballot in certain counties.

How the first amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to amend Article VIII of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 177 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, to provide that only a citizen of the United States has the right to vote.

More directly, the Alabama constitution would be changed to say only a citizen of the United States who meets certain qualifications has the right to vote

It currently says every citizen of the United States who meets certain qualifications has the right to vote.

The change that would occur if Amendment 1 passes is primarily technical; legal scholars agree current Alabama law permits only citizens to vote. Proponents of the amendment say the change is a needed clarification.

Alabama Senate Pro Tem. Del Marsh (R-Anniston) sponsored Amendment 1, and it passed the upper chamber unanimously. Marsh told Yellowhammer News at the time that his goal was to affirm that only citizens can vote in Alabamas elections.

How the second amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to increase the membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and further provide for the appointment of the additional members; further provide for the membership of the Court of the Judiciary and further provide for the appointment of the additional members; further provide for the process of disqualifying an active judge; repeal provisions providing for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and appellate judges and the removal for cause of the judges of the district and circuit courts, judges of the probate courts, and judges of certain other courts by the Supreme Court; delete the authority of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint an Administrative Director Courts; provide the Supreme Court of Alabama with authority to appoint an Administrative Director of Courts; require the Legislature to establish procedures for the appointment of the Administrative Director of Courts; delete the requirement that a district court hold court in each incorporated municipality with a population of 1,000 or more where there is no municipal court; provide that the procedure for the filling of vacancies in the office of a judge may be changed by local constitutional amendment; delete certain language relating to the position of constable holding more than one state office; delete a provision providing for the temporary maintenance of the prior judicial system; repeal the office of circuit solicitor; and make certain nonsubstantive stylistic changes.

The Fair Ballot Commission summarized in plain language the six primary changes that would be made by Amendment 2:

1. It provides that county district courts do not have to hold city court in a city with a population of less than 1,000.

2. It allows the Alabama Supreme Court, rather than the chief justice, to appoint the administrative director of courts.

3. It increases from nine to 11 the total membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and determines who appoints each member (the Judicial Inquiry Commission evaluates ethics complaints filed against judges).

4. It allows the governor, rather than the lieutenant governor, to appoint a member of the Court of the Judiciary (the Court of the Judiciary hears complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission).

5. It prevents a judge from being automatically disqualified from holding office simply because a complaint was filed with the Judiciary Inquiry Commission.

6. It provides that a judge can be removed from office only by the Court of the Judiciary.

Amendment 2 also changes the statutes governing Alabamas constables; these changes are opposed by the Alabama Constables Association.

The amendment was sponsored by State Senators Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Cam Ward (R-Alabaster).

Amendment 2 is the result of work done by a task force comprised of legislators and members of the judicial branch of government.

Advocates for the amendment say it simplifies several administrative procedures that govern Alabamas judicial system, which they argue is needed since many of the current procedures were written several decades ago and are no longer relevant.

Opponents of the measure argue that removing municipal courts from small towns with less than 1,000 residents will inconvenience the people who live there.

They also say that removing the legislatures ability to impeach judges the amendment makes the Judicial Inquiry Commission the only institution that can do so takes away the ability of the peoples representatives to get rid of bad judges.

More information on what the Judicial Inquiry Commission is and what it does can be found here.

How the third amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a judge, other than a judge of probate, appointed to fill a vacancy would serve an initial term until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election after the judge has completed two years in office.

Most simply, the amendment would extend the time that judges who are appointed to fill an empty seat may serve.

If Amendment 3 is approved, appointed judges would run for reelection in the first general election after they have served two years in their appointed job.

Currently, appointed judges run in the first general election to occur after they have served for one year.

Tom Spencer of the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama (PARCA)authored a report on the proposed amendments.

He noted with regards to Amendment 3, This change might make it more attractive for nominees to accept a judicial appointment. At the same time, this change gives the appointee longer to build up the advantage of incumbency before running for a full term.

Judgeships come open when a sitting judge dies, resigns, retires or is removed. The amendment would not apply to probate judges.

Amendment 3 was sponsored by State Representative David Faulkner (R-Mountain Brook) and co-sponsored by State Representative Matt Fridy (R-Montevallo).

How the fourth amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to authorize the Legislature to recompile the Alabama Constitution and submit it during the 2022 Regular Session, and provide a process for its ratification by the voters of this state.

If Amendment 4 is passed, state legislators would have permission to rearrange the state constitution to do four things, per the Fair Ballot Commission:

1. Remove racist language.2. Remove language that is repeated or no longer applies.3. Combine language related to economic development.4. Combine language that relates to the same county.

Only changes in those four categories could be made.

The proposed changes would be submitted during the 2022 legislative session for approval by both chambers of the legislature.

If the updated constitution is approved by the legislature, it would then be voted on by the people of Alabama in the 2022 general election.

Only if the legislature and the people of Alabama give the updated constitution their approval in 2022 would the changes become permanent. Amendment 4 could be thought of as permission for lawmakers and legislative staff to get started on the process.

As such, Amendment 4 will not affect how the state is governed; it only permits cosmetic changes and even those have to be approved by the public in two years.

Proponents say removing racist and redundant language is a worthy change to the states primary governing document.

Amendment 4 comes from a bipartisan place; it was sponsored by State Representative Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) and co-sponsored by State House Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R-Monrovia), among others.

How the fifth and sixth amendments will appear on the ballot:

Relating to Franklin County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.

Statewide Amendment 6 reads in full:

Relating to Lauderdale County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.

Both amendments would create special stand your ground laws for the churches in their respective counties.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall already interprets Alabamas statewide stand your ground law as applicable to churches.

Local legislators in both Franklin and Lauderdale counties believe an additional measure stating the stand your ground law applies to churches in their counties is needed as a form of clarification.

The passage of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 requires a majority of Alabama voters and a majority of the voters in the relevant counties.

The Fair Ballot Commissions breakdown, in plain language, of all six amendments is available here, and the full analysis from PARCA is available here.

The Fair Ballot Commission is an independent state entity that receives technical assistance from several agencies, but primarily the secretary of states office.

Sample ballots for each of Alabamas 67 counties can be found here.

Yellowhammer received guidance from Jason Isbell, a lawyer in Montgomery and a member of the Fair Ballot Commission, in putting this guide together.

Henry Thornton is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can contact him by email: henry@yellowhammernews.comor on Twitter@HenryThornton95

Read the original:

A guide to the statewide constitutional amendments on the ballot in November 2020 - Yellowhammer News

RUTHS HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an…

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

On October 26, 2020, the Company entered into a Fifth Amendment to CreditAgreement (the "Fifth Amendment") which amends its existing Credit Agreement,dated as of February 2, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment thereto, datedas of September 18, 2019, the Second Amendment thereto, dated as of March 27,2020, the Third Amendment thereto, dated as of May 7, 2020 (the "ThirdAmendment"), and the Fourth Amendment thereto, dated as of May 18, 2020, withcertain direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company as guarantors, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent, and the lenders andother agents party thereto.

The Fifth Amendment extended the term of the agreement by one year to February2, 2023, reduced the revolving credit facility to $120.0 million, adjusted themonthly liquidity covenant, added a provision to allow for non-maintenancecapital expenditures based on quarterly EBITDA performance and added provisionsto the Credit Agreement to address the contemplated phase out of LIBOR. Aftergiving effect to the Fifth Amendment, the credit facility will continue toprovide for a $5.0 million subfacility of letters of credit and a $5.0 millionsubfacility for swingline loans. The Fifth Amendment did not change theConsolidated Leverage Ratio and Fixed Coverage Charge Ratio requirements. TheConsolidated Leverage Ratio and Fixed Coverage Charge Ratio requirements fromthe Third Amendment remain in effect through February 2, 2023.

The Fifth Amendment requires the Company and its subsidiaries to meet minimumaggregate cash holding requirements through March 2021 in an amount equal to thefollowing amount for each month set forth below:

The Fifth Amendment also removes the requirement that the Company use 50% of theaggregate net cash proceeds from equity issuances after May 7, 2020 in excess of$30.0 million to repay loans outstanding until the Company could demonstratecompliance with certain financial covenants.

The Fifth Amendment now allows for non-maintenance capital expenditures when theLeverage Ratio is 2.50 to 1.0 or greater with 75% of consolidated EBITDA earnedduring a fiscal quarter in excess of $7.5 million ("Excess EBITDA"). The Companyand its subsidiaries may make non-maintenance capital expenditures with ExcessEBITDA at any time after such Excess EBITDA is earned until the Leverage Ratiohas been reduced to less than 2.50 to 1.0. Prior to the Fifth Amendment, theCredit Agreement had prohibited all non-maintenance capital expenditures whenthe Leverage Ratio was 2.50 to 1.0 or greater. As was also the case before theFifth Amendment, the credit agreement provides that the Company and itssubsidiaries may make capital expenditures in any fiscal year in an amount equalto 75% of consolidated EBITDA for the immediately preceding fiscal year when theLeverage Ratio is equal to or greater than 1.50 to 1.0 but less than 2.50 to1.0. When the Leverage Ratio is less than 1.50 to 1.0, the Company and itssubsidiaries may make capital expenditures in an unlimited amount.

In connection with the closing of the Fifth Amendment, the Company repaid $20.2million in loans so that a total of $115.0 million (excluding $4.8 million inletters of credit) is currently outstanding under the credit facility. Thecurrent interest rate for borrowings under the revolving credit facility is3.75%.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff- Balance Sheet Arrangement of a

Registrant

The discussion of the Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement set forth underItem 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated herein by referencein this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Go here to read the rest:

RUTHS HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

Assembly Committee Clears Verrelli & Benson Bill Protecting Employees from Employer Tracking Device Violations – InsiderNJ

Assembly Committee Clears Verrelli & Benson Bill Protecting Employees from Employer Tracking Device Violations

(TRENTON) To protect workers privacy, Assembly Democrats Anthony Verrelli (D-Mercer, Hunterdon) and Daniel Benson (D-Mercer, Middlesex) sponsor legislation, advanced Friday by the Assembly Labor Committee, to ensure that employers provide written notice before using a tracking device in an employees vehicle.

The bill (A-3950) would provide regulation declaring companies using a tracking device in an employees personal vehicle, or the use of tracking devices in a company-provided vehicle without a written notice to an employee, as a crime of the fourth degree. A crime of the fourth degree includes potential imprisonment up to 18 months, a fine up to $10,000, or a combination of the two punishments.

There are currently no federal privacy laws barring businesses from tracking employees with GPS systems. Under the current legal landscape, companies do not always have to inform their employees of tracking devices, which was evident in a recent survey where more than 22 percent of employees claimed to be unaware they would be tracked when first starting a job.

This bill would further the rights of New Jersey employees under the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by prohibiting tracking devices in an employees personal vehicle and only allowing such devices in a company-provided vehicle after issuing a written notice.

Assemblymen Verrelli and Benson issued the following joint statement after committee approval of the legislation:

In order for the FBI or other law enforcement agencies to track the location of our cars, a judge must first approve a warrant. Currently, if an employer wants to track an employees vehicle, there is no clear regulation prohibiting them from doing so.

As long as companies do not have to disclose the use of tracking devices in employee vehicles, or provide a written notice for the use of such devices in company-provided vehicles, employees privacy will remain at risk. Our goal is to protect the citizens of New Jersey and the privacies included in the Fourth Amendment. This bill will help accomplish that.

(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)

Read this article:

Assembly Committee Clears Verrelli & Benson Bill Protecting Employees from Employer Tracking Device Violations - InsiderNJ

The tyranny of the experts – Leader & Times

GUEST COLUMN, Jason Garshfield, townhall.com

In recent weeks, Joe Biden has made his willingness to listen to the scientists a central pillar of his campaign and a major point of contrast between himself and Donald Trump. He has even said that he would shut down the nations economy again to stop the coronavirus if scientists recommended it.

Unsurprisingly, Biden has since been endorsed by Scientific American and Nature, as well as 81 Nobel laureates, who praised him for his willingness to listen to experts.

All told, this represents a startling readiness on Bidens part to cede much of his decision-making power to a small, unelected intellectual caste.

We live in a nation where citizens are given, at least nominally, a voice in public policy matters that directly affect them, and where the powers of government are restrained by the rule of law. All of this stands in stark contrast to the notion of rule-by-expert.

Indeed, if Biden sees himself as a mere conduit for the policy recommendations of experts, perhaps we should do away with the middleman. Instead of our three current branches of government, let us be ruled openly by an all-powerful council of experts, who shall issue their proclamations from on high with no check or balance on their authority. Perhaps the Iranian model will provide a useful blueprint, with the scientists standing in for the ayatollahs. Theocracy and technocracy are not so far off from each other.

If the experts truly aspire to call the political shots, then it ill-becomes them to hide behind a veneer of representative government. Permit us at least the dignity of honest tyranny.

Lest this sound extreme, it is worth taking a look at exactly what some of the experts are recommending. In a recent article, the oft-vaunted Dr. Fauci made calls for radical changes to the infrastructures of human existence, with the goal of living in greater harmony with nature. These are sweeping policy proposals, and the American people surely deserve some chance to debate them before they are implemented.

Although most experts are bright and well-intentioned people, this does not inoculate them from the human proclivity to be mistaken or corrupt as attested to by countless historical examples, from the decades-long promotion of a deeply flawed Food Pyramid in the United States to the tragic legacy of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union.

More to the point, the expert perspective is inherently limited. The lifetime pursuit of specialized competence within a narrowly defined subfield does not prepare experts for the sort of holistic big picture thinking of which a leader must be capable.

Even the very intelligent are susceptible to the phenomenon of inattentional blindness. In one famous psychological experiment, participants who were asked to count the ball passes in a video of two teams playing ball became so focused on the task at hand that they missed the gorilla walking through the scene. Our vision literally changes based on where we focus. This is the hamartia of expertise, and it is why no one should be in any hurry to appoint a scientist as supreme leader.

An expert criminologist, for example, could theoretically recommend abandoning the Fourth Amendment or diverting our entire national budget to policing in order to catch more violent criminals. It is not the job of a leader to listen to the experts here without taking all other considerations into account.

Similarly, an epidemiologist who recommends widespread lockdowns and other extreme measures to slow the ball passes of coronavirus transmission may miss the gorillas of economic devastation, suicide, drug overdoses, and deaths from cancer and other medical issues gone untreated not to mention violations of our civil liberties, which should never, ever be dismissed lightly. Life is far more than a great game of whack-a-mole against infectious disease.

As Henry Hazlitt wrote, economists must look not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy, and trace its consequences not merely for one group but for all groups.

A good policymaker, in other words, must see both the ball passes and the gorilla. This is what Joe Biden will be called on to do if elected president, and a deferral of his duty to the experts will ill suit him. Experts ought to be given a fair but skeptical hearing, but final policy decisions should be based on an array of competing imperatives, within the bounds of government set for us by the Constitution.

See the rest here:

The tyranny of the experts - Leader & Times

Mike R. Galli is recognized by Continental Who’s Who – PRNewswire

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Oct. 26, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Mike R. Galli is being recognized by Continental Who's Who as a Top Attorney for his outstanding contributions in the field of Law in acknowledgment for his commitment as Prosecutor Deputy District Attorney with the Office of the District San Jose California.

Having accrued 38 years of vast knowledge and professional experience in the field of criminal law, Attorney Galli has also garnered a well-deserving reputation for his contributions. To prepare for his career, he obtained his Doctor of Juris Prudence degree from Santa Clara University and is passionate about continuing education. He is devoted to educating attorneys and police officers on the practice of criminal law, especially search and seizure issues.

Since 1984, Mr. Galli has excelled as a deputy district attorney for the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney, where he currently reviews police reports from eight different police agencies, files felony and misdemeanor criminal charges, reviews non-narcotic misdemeanor citations to determine eligibility for a pre-filing diversion program, and answers legal questions regarding search and seizure issues from police officers and other deputy district attorneys throughout the State of California. Additionally, he serves as a unit member of the Criminal Complaint Unit at the District Attorney's Office and for the last 15 years as an instructor at the Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST) Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigation.

Over the years, Mr. Galli has also worked within numerous units as a unit member and supervisor. He has been assigned to the misdemeanor DUI unit, juvenile unit, felony narcotics, asset forfeiture, economic crimes, preliminary examinations and motions, writs and appeals units. He has been the assistant supervisor of the narcotics unit twice, was the first supervisor of the narcotics asset forfeiture unit, and supervised the welfare fraud and restitution services units before his current assignment.

Throughout his extensive career, Mr. Galli is proud to have remained at the forefront of his field. He is the creator and sole author of the California District Attorney's (CDAA) Search Warrant Law and Practice Manual, now in its fifth edition, and has written it since 2009. He has also authored many articles and works on search and seizure law. These have included an article on the California Electronic Communication Privacy Act published by Police Technical in 2016, a 2014 book entitled Warrantless Searches, also published by Police Technical, a 2012 article for CDAA'S Firewall (High-Technology Crimes Newsletter) entitled People v. Diaz: Right Result, but Wrong Rationale, a 2009 article entitled Cell Phone Searches for CDAA'S Firewall, Chapter II, Search and Seizure, in CDAA'S High Technology Crimes Manual published in 2008, an article entitled Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment, for CDAA'S Firewall 2008, Search Warrant sections of the Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge's Duty Manual in 1994 and updated in 2007, Chapter IV, Search Warrants, in the first & second editions of CDAA's Hate Crime Monograph (1999 and 2006 editions), and an article on Drafting Narcotics Search Warrants, for CDAA'S Prosecutor's Brief in 1988. Mr. Galli has also served as the editor for the book High-Technology Crime, by Kenneth S. Rosenblatt (KSK Publications, 1995).

In recognition of his professional excellence, Mr. Galli was presented with a Commendation Letter from the San Jose Police Department (SJPD) Burglary Prevention Unit and a Commendation Letter from the SJPD Narcotics Unit in 1989, the Santa Clara County Employee of the Month Award in 1990, an SJPD Excellence Award in 1992 and the CDAA Author of the Year Award in 2009. More recently, he accepted the California Narcotics Officers Association (CNOA) Region One Prosecutor of the Year Award in 2016.

Contact: Katherine Green, 516-825-5634, [emailprotected]

SOURCE Continental Who's Who

http://www.continentalwhoswho.com

Read this article:

Mike R. Galli is recognized by Continental Who's Who - PRNewswire

Mail Voting Litigation in 2020, Part II: Submission of Mail-In Ballots – Lawfare

This post is the second of a five-part series on litigation about mail voting during the 2020 general election. This series is part of Lawfare's collaboration with the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project.

As the coronavirus pandemic has wrought unprecedented change on the U.S. election system in general and on mail voting in particular, voters and advocates have challenged nearly every aspect of the vote-by-mail process. This post surveys litigation brought since March 2020, challenging vote-by-mail ballot submission rules and procedures that voting rights advocates argue burden the right to vote.

Specifically, this post discusses four types of legal battles playing out across the country aimed at removing barriers for voters who cast their ballots by mail. The lawsuits challenge Election Day ballot receipt deadlines for mail-in ballots, the requirement that ballots be returned in a secrecy sleeve, the cost of postage required to mail ballots, and the lack of accommodations for voters with disabilities who seek to send ballots by mail. The claims are largely constitutional, but plaintiffs have also employed statutory arguments. Plaintiffs have had little success on ballot postage and voter assistance claims, as well as in Pennsylvanias highly publicized secrecy sleeve litigation, but have seen mixed results in Election Day receipt deadline and accessibility challenges.

Ballot Receipt Deadlines

A central category of vote-by-mail litigation concerns ballot receipt deadlines. Some states, such as Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maine and Texas, mandate that mail ballots be received by election officials no later than Election Day in order to be counted. Other states require that mail ballots be postmarked no later than Election Day and received by election officials within some specified number of days after, typically two to seven days. In practice, Election Day ballot receipt deadlines result in tens of thousands of rejected ballots. In the 2020 primaries, more than 50,000 ballots were rejected for arriving late, including more than 20,000 in Florida alone. According to data from the 2018 and 2016 Election Administration and Voting Survey, late receipt is the number one cause of rejected mail ballots.

Plaintiffs have brought four main types of federal law challenges to Election Day mail ballot deadlines, three under the U.S. Constitution and one under the Voting Rights Act. The constitutional claims are that Election Day deadlines constitute an undue burden on the right to vote under the Anderson-Burdick test, violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying procedural due process and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs initially saw some success on the constitutional claims, with district courts granting plaintiffs requests for preliminary injunctions in Georgia and Wisconsin. However, appellate courts subsequently stayed these injunctions. As shown in the discussion of DNC v. Wisconsin State Legislature below, the Supreme Court has so far largely supported these appellate court stays.

The New Georgia Project case, filed in May, illustrates the undue burden and procedural due process arguments in operation. For their undue burden claims, plaintiffs relied on what is known as the Anderson-Burdick test. Developed out of two separate U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the test calls for balancing the burden imposed on the electorate by a voting regulation against the states interests in relying on that regulation. Plaintiffs argued that Georgias requirement that all mail-in ballots be received on or before Election Day posed a severe burden on the right to vote by requiring voters to learn the deadline, receive their ballots with enough time to complete and return them, and guess how many days it would take their ballots to reach election officials through the mail service. Plaintiffs further argued that even those voters who meet the deadline suffer a burden on their right to vote because they are deprived of the ability to consider their choice of candidate until Election Day due to the requirement that their ballot be in the mail soon enough to reach election officials by the Election Day ballot receipt deadline.

In addition, plaintiffs argued that Georgias Election Day ballot receipt deadline violates the Due Process Clause under the Mathews test. The Mathews test calls for balancing an individuals interest in not being deprived of a right without certain procedural protections against the governments interest. Plaintiffs argued that Georgias failure to count ballots received after Election Day and its requirement that mail voters cast their votes early deprived the voters of their protected interests to vote and have that vote count and to cast a meaningful and informed vote, since they would have incomplete information when they had to mail it. Plaintiffs also argued that additional or substitute procedural safeguards were available by counting mail-in votes postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days of the election, which would be allowed under Georgia law.

In other cases, plaintiffs have argued that Election Day ballot receipt deadlines violate a third constitutional provision: the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs in Lewis, for example, argued that Texass Election Day receipt deadline resulted in disparate treatment of voters because different counties enforce the deadline with differing degrees of strictness.

Some federal district courts have been receptive to plaintiffs constitutional claims, but federal appellate courts have subsequently stayed district courts injunctions. For instance, the court in New Georgia Project granted the relevant part of a preliminary injunction on Aug. 31, effectively extending Georgias receipt deadline. But in early October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stayed the injunction. The appeals panel found that the district court erred on two analytical fronts: first, in finding that Georgias Election Day deadline severely burdened the right to vote; and second, in improperly weighing the States interests against this burden. The Eleventh Circuit also criticized the district court for accepting the plaintiffs novel procedural due process argument, noting that, even if we could choose to innovate a new approach (which we cannot), we would see no reason to do so.

Similarly, in DNC v. Bostelmann, in response to a challenge to Wisconsins Election Day ballot receipt deadline during the states primary elections, a federal district court ordered the state to accept all ballots postmarked within six days of the election. However, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed this order, reasoning that it was issued too close to the election and was, therefore, likely to cause confusion among voters. Five months later, in late September, the district court granted a preliminary injunction in four consolidated lawsuits, including DNC v. Bostelmann. The injunction extended the deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots until Nov. 9, provided the ballots were postmarked by Election Day, Nov. 3. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the district courts injunction in early October, agreeing with the Wisconsin legislatures contentions that a federal court should not change rules so close to an election and that political, not judicial, officials should decide when a pandemic justifies changes to otherwise valid rules.

On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 vote, rejected Democrats and voting rights groups request to strike down the Seventh Circuits stay. The court did not issue a majority opinion, but in multiple concurrences, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh criticized the federal courts intervention in state election procedures. Roberts leveled criticism not only at the federal district court that ordered an extension of Wisconsins receipt deadline but also at district courts more broadly. In describing the courts deadline extension as improper, Roberts noted that [i]n this case, as in several this Court has recently addressed, a District Court intervened in the thick of election season to enjoin enforcement of a States laws. Gorsuch similarly found the district courts order inappropriate on the basis of both separation of powers and voter confusion concerns. Under the Constitution, according to Gorsuch, judges cannot improvise with their own election rules in place of those the peoples representatives have adopted. He stressed the measures already taken by the Wisconsin legislature to respond to the pandemic and argued that the district court was simply complaining that the state hasnt done enough. Here, Gorsuch voiced concern that there were no clear rules for a judge to use in determining exactly when a ballot receipt deadline would be acceptable. Additionally, Gorsuch raised the possibility that [l]ast-minute changes to election procedures run the risk of confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes.

Concurring, Kavanaugh articulated three reasons why the district courts injunction was unwarranted. First, the injunction violated the Purcell principle by altering state election laws close to an election. Kavanaugh explained that the Purcell principle serves to ensure that the rules of the road are clear leading up to the election, reducing voter and election official confusion, promoting efficiency, and giving citizens confidence in the election result. He noted further that it would turn Purcell on its head to interpret the principle as stated that a federal appellate court should not overturn a district court order close to the election. Instead, he saw the federal circuit courts intervention here as correcting the district courts violation of Purcell. Second, Kavanaugh stated that the district courts injunction misapprehended the limited role of the federal courts in COVID-19 cases, because it is the role of the state legislature to address the health and safety of the people. While asserting that federal courts lack the expertise needed to make changes to election laws due to the pandemic, he listed cases in which the Supreme Court has recently stayed federal court injunctions that second-guessed state legislative judgments about whether to keep or make changes to election rules during the pandemic.

Third and finally, Kavanaugh wrote that the District Court did not sufficiently appreciate the significance of election deadlines. Under the Anderson-Burdick test, he said, a states reasonable deadlines for election processes do not raise constitutional issues because a State cannot conduct an election without deadlines. In particular, he claimed that states with Election Day receipt deadlines want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flop the result of an election. He further stated that quick election results help to preserve the stability of elections. Kavanaugh endorsed in a footnote Chief Justice William Rehnquists view in Bush v. Gore that state courts are limited in their ability to rewrite state election laws for federal elections because Article II states that rules in presidential elections are to be established by state legislatures.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, took issue with what she deemed Kavanaughs and the Seventh Circuits misunderstanding of Purcells message. Purcell instructs courts to consider all relevant factors, not just the calendar. While an autumn injunction could confuse voters, there is not a moratorium on the Constitution as the cold weather approaches. The federal district court was correct in issuing its order, Kagan argued, since an extension of the ballot receipt deadline would not confuse voters about how to cast their ballots or discourage Wisconsinites from exercising their right to vote. Kagan also emphasized what she viewed as the detrimental effects of the courts decision on Wisconsin voters enfranchisement. Tens of thousands of Wisconsinites, through no fault of their own, may receive their mail ballots too late to return them by Election Day, Kagan wrote. Without the district courts order, they must opt between brav[ing] the polls, with all the risk that entails, and los[ing] their right to vote.

In addition to claims arising under federal constitutional law, plaintiffs have challenged ballot receipt deadlines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. For example, plaintiffs in Middleton v. Andino asserted that South Carolinas ballot receipt deadline abridge[s] and in some cases entirely den[ies] the rights of African American voters, due in part to socioeconomic differences between racial groups in South Carolina that exacerbate the coronaviruss effects. The district court denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction extending the receipt deadline. Plaintiffs in Yazzie v. Hobbs were also unsuccessful in bringing a challenge under the Voting Rights Act. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that plaintiffssix members of the Navajo Nation who reside on the reservation in Apache County, Arizonalacked standing because they failed to plead a concrete and particularized injury. The Ninth Circuit also found that a favorable decision would not redress plaintiffs alleged injury because it would be infeasible for election officials to identify and separate mailed ballots cast by on-reservation Navajo Nation members from those cast by other voters.

In two somewhat unusual cases from the 2020 primaries, county boards of elections in Pennsylvania petitioned state courts to allow them to extend their own receipt deadlines. In one instance, the sheer volume of mail-in ballots that had to be sent to voters resulted in some voters receiving their ballots too late to return them by the deadline. In the other case, a design flaw for a website to request a mail-in ballot in another Pennsylvania county resulted in apartment numbers being left off of voters addresses, preventing mail-in ballots from reaching them in time to be returned by the receipt deadline. A state court granted the first petition, while another state court denied the latter.

For the general election, plaintiffs in Pennsylvania have secured a vote-by-mail ballot deadline extension. In Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the states receipt deadline and adopt[ed] the Secretarys informed recommendation of a three-day extension of the absentee and mail-in ballot received-by deadline to allow for the tabulation of ballots mailed by voters via the USPS and postmarked by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day to reduce voter disenfranchisement. In late September, Republican state legislators, as well as the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, filed applications for a stay of the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts order at the U.S. Supreme Court. But in mid-October, the Supreme Court denied Republicans request, permitting Pennsylvania officials to count ballots received up to three days after the election. It takes five votes to issue a stay, but the court was tied on whether to grant Republicans request. Neither side of the court explained its position.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican state legislators had argued that the receipt deadline extension granted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violates federal law that requires holding all elections for Congress and the Presidency on a single day throughout the Union and violates the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution by seizing the authority to set the times, places, and manner of federal elections from the state legislature. The legislators argued that the Elections Clause grants direct authority to Pennsylvanias General Assembly to regulate federal elections in Pennsylvania and that only Congress, not the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, can alter the General Assemblys election regulations. While the legislators request for review acknowledged the coronavirus context of the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts decision, it noted that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvanias own special master found that COVID-19 is not likely to disrupt the November General Election ballot receipt deadline.

In early October, Secretary Kathy Boockvar and Pennsylvania Democrats filed briefs in response to legislators and Republicans requests for review. Boockvar argued that the legislators stay request raised concerns of federalism. This Court should not second-guess the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts straightforward construction of the Commonwealths constitution, Boockvar stated in her brief. The secretary urged that state courts be left free and unfettered by [this Court] in interpreting their state constitutions. In addition to federalism implications, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to grant legislators stay request could have resulted in the rejection of thousands of ballots. Such an outcome could have had an outsize impact on the results of the 2020 presidential election, since at least 3 million votes are expected to be cast by mail alone in Pennsylvania this year and because President Trump won Pennsylvania by a narrow margin of 44,000 votes in 2016. However, as previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts decision to stand.

Plaintiffs have also brought state law claims mirroring federal undue burden claims, and the results have been mixed. For instance, plaintiffs in Alliance for Retired Americans challenged Maines ballot receipt deadline as an undue burden under both the U.S. Constitution and the Maine Constitution. The court, in denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, found this argument unavailing, stating that even in 2020, [the ballot deadline] imposes only a modest burden on the right to vote.

Michigan state courts have been all over the place on this issue. Plaintiffs in League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson unsuccessfully petitioned the Michigan Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus ordering the secretary of state to accept ballots postmarked by the election date, with claims under the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court denied plaintiffs leave to appeal. In Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Benson, plaintiffs initially saw a better outcome, as a Michigan state court granted plaintiffs preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Michigans Election Day ballot receipt deadline. The court held that, as applied to plaintiffs under the facts and evidence presented in this case, the ballot receipt deadline violates plaintiffs constitutional rights under Article II, Section 4, of the Michigan Constitution. It ruled that an absent voter ballot that is postmarked by no later than November 2, 2020, and received within 14 days after the election, is eligible to be counted. However, in mid-October, a state appellate court reversed that ruling, holding that under League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson, it is constitutional to require that ballots be received by the close of polls on Election Day to be counted.

Finally, a notable case arising out of New Yorks June 23 primary, Gallagher v. N.Y. State Board of Elections, illustrates the interplay between ballot deadlines and postal service operations. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the New York State Legislature modified existing law to require that absentee ballots postmarked on or before Election Day be counted. Ballots were to be counted if they arrived before the close of polls on June 23 or were postmarked by June 23 and arrived by June 30. For some reason, thousands of absentee ballots for the June 23 Primary were not postmarked, even though they were mailed in. Evidence reviewed by the court indicated that a large number of ballots, especially in New York City, were invalidated because they lacked a postmark. Plaintiffs brought suit in the Southern District of New York, claiming violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as corresponding rights under the New York Constitution.

Applying Anderson-Burdick, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found the burden on plaintiffs right to vote to be exceptionally severe because a large number of ballots will be invalidated ... based on circumstances entirely out of voters control. Having found a severe burden, the court applied strict scrutiny, finding that the states interest in ensuring ballots were cast before polls closed on Election Day was valid but that the postmark requirement was grossly overinclusive, covering ballots that cannot possibly have been put in the mail later than June 23.

In assessing plaintiffs Equal Protection Clause claim, the court also examined whether the postmark requirement created a voting process where the state by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value[s] one persons vote over that of another. The court found that votes were valued differently in two ways. First, the U.S. Postal Service handled the postmark issue for ballots differently across the state. Second, because ballots travel through the mail at different speeds, ballots mailed at the same time on the same day might, by chance, be treated differentlyone might be counted and the other might not.

Having found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as well as a strong public interest in granting an injunction, the court determined that the equities tipped in plaintiffs favor. In early August, the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring local elections boards to count otherwise valid absentee ballots which were (1) received by June 24, 2020 without regard to whether such ballots are postmarked by June 23, 2020 and (2) received by June 25, 2020, so long as such ballots are not postmarked later than June 23, 2020.

Ballot Secrecy Sleeve Requirements

Another salient category of vote-by-mail litigation concerns ballot secrecy sleeve rules, which require voters to place completed ballots in paper envelopes before enclosing those envelopes in outer, or return, envelopes. The purpose of secrecy sleeves is to separate the voters identifying information from the ballot itself in order to protect the voters privacy. At least 15 states have laws requiring election officials to provide absentee voters with secrecy sleeves but, in many of those states, use of the secrecy sleeve is optional, and failure to use it is not grounds to reject the ballot.

In a high-profile case in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, plaintiffs argued that failure to use the secrecy sleeve should not result in rejection of the ballot. In fact, most Pennsylvania counties accepted naked ballots, those not placed in secrecy envelopes, during the states June 2020 primary. Plaintiffs argued that the language of Pennsylvanias secrecy sleeve statute did not require rejection of naked ballots. On Sept. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that naked ballots must be rejected in the November general election. After determining that the language of the statutory secrecy sleeve requirement is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable, the court came to the inescapable conclusion that a mail-in ballot that is not enclosed in the statutorily-mandated secrecy envelope must be disqualified.

According to Philadelphias city commissioner, Lisa M. Deeley, more than 100,000 ballots across the state could be rejected for missing secrecy sleeves. The Pennsylvania Supreme Courts decision has sparked a flurry of voter education efforts from nonprofit organizations and political campaigns to highlight the now-required secrecy envelope.

Cost of Postage for Mailing Ballots

Another set of legal challenges targets states failure to cover the costs of mailing completed mail-in ballots. While about a dozen statesincluding Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, which regularly conduct all elections by maildo provide voters with prepaid ballot return envelopes, most states do not.

Plaintiffs have brought suit in several states, including Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Maine, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania, alleging two constitutional violations. First, plaintiffs argue that requiring voters to pay for postage to cast their votes or apply for ballots constitutes a poll tax in violation of the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments. Second, plaintiffs assert that forcing voters to pay for stamps is an impermissible burden under the Anderson-Burdick test. As of mid-October, plaintiffs have had little success in ballot postage litigation. Courts have largely denied plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunctions on both their poll tax and Anderson-Burdick ballot postage claims, generally finding that paying for postage is not a poll tax and that burdens on voters do not outweigh state interests.

The case of Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger provides an illustrative example of the postage-as-poll-tax argument. Georgia law allows voters to vote absentee for any reason after applying for an absentee ballot. Plaintiffs sued Georgias secretary of state because voters must provide postage to apply for absentee ballots via mail and to return completed ballots. Plaintiffs contend the cost of stamps is tantamount to a poll tax, even though there are no statutes or regulations that require government officials to charge voters postage on absentee ballot applications. The federal district court dismissed plaintiffs poll tax claim in early August. Although the court recognized that in-person voting is potentially a difficult option for many voters, particularly during a pandemic, the court held that because in-person voting theoretically remains an option, stamps are not poll taxes under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment prism. In September, plaintiffs appealed the district courts poll tax ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Other plaintiffs challenging postage requirements as poll taxes have seen mixed, but largely negative, results. For instance, in Nielsen v. DeSantis, the court summarily dismissed plaintiffs claim that a Florida statute requiring voters to pay postage for mail ballots constituted a poll tax, simply stating that [r]equiring a voter to pay for postage to mail a registration form or ballot to a Supervisor of Elections is not unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. In Alliance for Retired Americans, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in late September, and similarly concluded that requiring postage on a mail-in ballot is not a poll tax. A federal district court in Oklahoma reached the same conclusion in DCCC v. Ziriax. While plaintiffs have seen minimal success on poll tax claims, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas declined in Lewis v. Hughs to dismiss plaintiffs challenge to a Texas law requiring voters to pay for ballot postage. The court held that it was sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage for plaintiffs to have alleged that postage constituted a fee that must be paid if voters wished to avoid risking harming their health to vote in person. The Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed the district courts opinion in early September and then withdrew its opinion in early October.

Plaintiffs have also brought claims that postage requirements are an impermissible burden under the Anderson-Burdick test. Parties allege a variety of burdens, many of which are exacerbated by the coronavirus. Plaintiffs in Black Voters Matter Fund, for instance, alleged that a failure to provide prepaid postage burdened the right to vote by requiring those least able to afford stamps to pay, those who lack internet access or credit cards to risk their safety by going to the post office during a pandemic, and those who have no means to do so to travel to the post office. Plaintiffs in Lewis, Alliance for Retired Americans and New Georgia Project made similar arguments, asserting that government interests are insufficient to justify these burdens.

As with poll tax claims, plaintiffs have generally seen negative results for their Anderson-Burdick claims. In denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in Black Voters Matter Fund, the federal district court in Atlanta noted that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their argument that the burden of the postage requirement outweighs the cost to the state of the requested relief. While plaintiffs appealed the courts poll tax ruling to the Eleventh Circuit, they declined to appeal the courts Anderson-Burdick holding. The federal district court in Oklahoma, ruling in DCCC v. Ziriax and denying plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, stated that paying for postage is a light burden on voters and that the states fiscal interests are sufficient to justify its not allocating funds to prepay for postage for absentee ballots. Similarly, in Alliance for Retired Americans, a superior court in Maine denied a preliminary injunction finding that paying for postage to return an absentee ballot by mail represents, at most, a moderate burden and, more likely, only a slight burden that is outweighed by the States interest.

Finally, in addition to federal constitutional law claims, plaintiffs have brought postage requirement suits grounded in state constitutional law. For example, plaintiffs in Stringer v. North Carolina alleged that a postage requirement for mail ballots violates the Free Elections Clause of the North Carolina Constitution, which states that [a]ll elections ought to be free. As of mid-October, the case has not progressed significantly.

Failure to Provide Accomodations for Voters With Disabilities

Plaintiffs in some states have challenged the lack of accessibility of mail voting procedures, alleging that absentee voters with disabilities face unnecessary obstacles. Generally, these cases are brought by or on behalf of visually or manually impaired individuals who are unable to transmit, mark and/or return mail-in ballots in accordance with state procedures.

Voting by mail typically entails filling out a paper ballot by hand and placing the completed ballot in the mail. While existing mail voting processes may allow nondisabled individuals to vote secretly and independently, voters with visual or manual disabilities are likely to need assistance to read and mark their paper absentee ballots, stripping them of the privacy available to nondisabled voters. Thus, plaintiffs describe their dilemma as having to make the unconscionable choice of either leaving their homes in order to receive in-person assistance with voting at the closest polling placethereby facing the threat of severe illness or death [during the pandemic]or staying home and foregoing the right to vote privately and independently (if third-party assistance is available), or the right to vote entirely (if it is not).

These cases have largely been brought in federal court, asserting violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Both claims center on the failure of states to offer reasonable accommodations to voters with disabilities in the provision of public services and federally funded programs. Plaintiffs assert the existence of a variety of logistically and financially feasible accommodations that would enable disabled voters to request, receive, complete and even return their absentee ballots electronically. For instance, Maryland has designed, implemented and made freely available to other states its ballot marking system that allows a disabled voter to receive and complete an online ballot. For voters who are blind or deaf-blind, electronic ballots permit the use of text-to-speech or braille translation software that obviates the need for assistance. In August, Pennsylvania implemented an online ballot tool, OmniBallot, which allows for the electronic delivery and marking of ballots via a link sent to eligible voters. Pennsylvania expanded accessibility after a state court ruled that its mail-in ballot process violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. After the ruling, the federal district court in a case challenging Pennsylvanias accessibility limitationsDrenth v. Boockvargranted defendants motion for summary judgment, agreeing with defendants argument that because a remote ballot marking system will be in place for the November 2020 general election and all future elections, there is no longer a case or controversy for the court to resolve. The court further granted defendants motion for summary judgment with respect to any claim arising from the return or submission of mailed ballots because Plaintiffs complaint did not raise such a claim.

Some plaintiffs have sought a different accommodation for blind voters: an electronic ballot delivery system that some states have created to comply with Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) obligations. Michigan, for example, voluntarily entered into a consent decree to make its UOCAVA PDF ballots available to blind voters for the states May primary election. Although Michigan does not currently permit the electronic transmission of completed ballots, voters with disabilities benefit from the increased technological accessibility to electronic ballots.

Conclusion

In recent months, voters have brought a wave of challenges to mail-in ballot submission deadlines and restrictions that they believe infringe on the publics right to vote. Plaintiffs have, thus far, seen largely negative results. Even where plaintiffs have won preliminary injunctions at the lower court level, the appellate courtsin both state and federal contextshave typically reversed rulings that would have extended ballot deadlines and relaxed limitations on voter assistance.

It remains to be seen whether additional rulings on vote-by-mail cases will be issued and implemented before November. As the coronavirus pandemic rages on, vote-by-mail will remain a crucial method of electoral participation, and voters are likely to continue to challenge state rules that they view as burdening their right to vote.

Read more from the original source:

Mail Voting Litigation in 2020, Part II: Submission of Mail-In Ballots - Lawfare