Power v. Chavez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding former Illinois residents who did not receive absentee ballots did not have standing to sue the federal government because the State of Illinois, not the federal government, decided who to send absentee ballots to
• cit‐ ing Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673, 132 S.Ct. 2073, 2080, 182 L.Ed.2d 998 (2012)
• cit‐ ing Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673, 132 S.Ct. 2073, 2080, 182 L.Ed.2d 998 (2012)
• “[W]e think it is significant that were we to require Illinois to grant overseas voting rights to all its former citizens living in the territories, it would facilitate a larger class of ‘super citizens’ of the territories.”
• “The unmistakable conclusion is that, absent a constitutional amendment, only residents of the 50 (continued . . .) considerations” including “policy judgments that account not only for the needs of the United States as a whole but also for (among other things
• describing Simon, 426 U.S. at 41–42

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).