“Abused gay Mexican earns asylum in U.S.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has this article reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“New Trial Sought for Lawyer in Terror Case”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Lawyers for Lynne F. Stewart, the New York lawyer who was convicted in February of aiding terrorism, have asked the judge to declare a mistrial because one juror failed to disclose during pretrial jury selection that he was biased against criminal defendants, according to federal court documents unsealed yesterday.”

“City man to rule on president’s court picks”: The Portsmouth Herald contains this article today.

“Redistricting Referendum Resurrected in California”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Redistricting Back on Ballot; State Supreme Court Hands Schwarzenegger a Major Victory.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Redistricting plan back on state ballot; California Supreme Court overturns appellate ruling in big win for governor.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Redistricting on ballot to stay; Let fight over wording resume after election, state high court says.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Redistrict measure put back on ballot; High court rules differences in wording not misleading.”

The Oakland Tribune reports that “Court breathes life into reform; Top state justices return redistricting measure to Nov. 8 ballot, ruling voters weren’t misled by wording.”

And in The Pasadena Star-News, Thomas Elias has an op-ed entitled “Research, proofreading could have avoided ballot disasters.”

At his “Election Law” blog, Law Professor Rick Hasen provides the text of the Supreme Court of California‘s order at this link.

“Philip Morris Vows to Appeal Judgment to U.S. High Court; Unless an appellate ruling is changed, Philip Morris may have to pay a widow more than $75 million”: Yesterday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contained this article.

“Democrats Are Firm In Seeking Roberts’s 1989-1993 Memos; White House Calls Demand a Political Ploy”: This article appears today in The Washington Post, along with a news analysis headlined “Democrats Conflicted on Playing Rough; Lack of Support for Roberts Ad Raises Question of Tactics.”

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Letter Seeking Roberts’ Papers Cites GOP Arguments.”

The New York Times contains an article headlined “Glow of Ad Shows Democrats’ Dilemma.”

And The Kentucky Post reports that “McConnell calls Roberts an ‘all-star.’”

In commentary, The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “A Bad Ad.” And columnist John Tierney has an op-ed entitled “Pro-Choice but Anti-Naral.”

The Denver Post contains an editorial entitled “Stick to the facts on Roberts.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an editorial entitled “An inexcusable attack.”

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette contains an editorial entitled “Expose exposed: Looking for honest Democrats.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Law Professor Jonathan Turley has an op-ed entitled “When justices won’t go.”

Tomorrow in The Washington Post, columnist Gene Weingarten will have an op-ed entitled “Bland Justice.”

In The Palm Beach Post, columnist George McEvoy has an op-ed entitled “Was high court gay rights ruling a setup?”

In The Kansas City Star, Rick Curl has an op-ed entitled “Supreme Court changes heading in the wrong direction.”

And in The Louisville Courier-Journal, Mary Johnson has an op-ed entitled “Judge Roberts: Bad news for the disabled?”