(The Center Square) — The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a Fulton County pass judgement on’s resolution to disregard a lawsuit by way of 5 University System of Georgia professors filed difficult a metamorphosis to campus gun-free zones.
The professors challenged a 2017 modification to state legislation putting off public faculties and universities from the designated “school safety zones” prohibiting guns. Before the 2017 modification, sporting a weapon on campus was once a misdemeanor.
The professors argued state legislation required the Board of Regents, the University System and particular person establishments to permit any individual to lift a weapon on campus and sought after a pass judgement on to rule the 2017 modification was once unconstitutional.
Court overturns legislation requiring state licenses for lactation experts
The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned a legislation requiring lactation experts to download state licenses.
“As a legislator I opposed the law that required lactation consultants be licensed and voted against it,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, mentioned in a remark. “But it passed the legislature and was signed into Georgia law.
“Upon assuming my tasks as Secretary of State, I turned into the named defendant and was once constitutionally obligated to protect it in courtroom,” Raffensperger added. “One of the tasks created by way of taking an oath of workplace is having to protect rules you would possibly not for my part improve.”
Groups file new motions in voting bill fight
Voting rights organizations filed motions for preliminary injunctive relief in their push to overturn Senate Bill 202, the Election Integrity Act, including a claim the law discriminates against Black voters.
The measure, in part, prohibits “line reduction” — reminiscent of distributing water to electorate ready in line — and imposes absentee poll id necessities.
The organizations filed a movement for a initial injunction difficult the requirement to come with a birthdate on absentee ballots. Opponents argue the requirement is immaterial to figuring out eligibility, violates federal legislation and is getting used to disproportionately discard the votes of other people of colour and ladies.
This article First seemed in the center square