One of her first stops after being released from prison was the Jefferson County Voter Registrar's Office. But she was told she was a convicted felon and couldn't vote.

"I couldn't believe it," Pruitt said. "They continued to give me numbers to call. It was very much demeaning."

Now she has gone to court to try to get her right to vote restored.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Montgomery Circuit Court on behalf of Pruitt and two other ex-felons seeking restoration of their voting rights. The lawsuit claims Alabama law is unclear on the subject, citing a bill passed by the Legislature in 2003 that says felons can vote unless convicted on "crimes of moral turpitude," but never defines those crimes.

The Legislature adopted a list of 15 crimes, including murder, treason and some sex crimes, that would exempt a person from having their voting rights restored. But the lawsuit says it's up to the state's voter registrars and the attorney general to decide in other cases if a person's rights can be restored.

"The Marriage Protection Act" otherwise known as Proposition 8 goes to the California voters in November 2008. But what exactly is this proposition? It would amend the California Constitution to include the phrase "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional thus allowing gay and lesbians to marry as early as June 17, 2008. Many did and many more are to follow, reveling in the fact that the gay and lesbian individuals are now equals in the state for marriage. But that was short lived for as soon as that ruling was past those who oppose, filed for a measure to be placed on the ballot to amend the constitution.

It is believed that those who wish to have the constitution amended convoluted the truth when they obtain the requested signatures to have the proposition placed on the November ballot, thus ensuring that it would stay. The California Supreme Court denied a motion to have the proposition stricken from the ballot as they would not hear same, thus California gets to vote on same.

Churches of various denominations as well as non-denomination support the change to the California constitution stating that they are doing same to "protect one of our nation's most sacred institutions." This is the second attempt to change the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage and supporters are confident that it will pass based on a random polling. For all the rhetoric that is being said, individuals hide behind their religious texts to support their cause who no real basis for having the constitution amended. Those who oppose spend massive amounts of money in trying to force their will on others. This is not right; there are far more important issues to address such as the war in Iraq, the economy and those who really do need help.

The unanimous decision means that, barring further legal action, voters will consider a constitutional amendment in November that would again limit marriage in California to a union between a man and a woman. The court did not give a reason for deciding not to accept the case.

"This was a frivolous lawsuit. It was a desperate attempt to try to keep the voter initiative off the ballot in November," said Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund representing the measure's sponsors.

If it passes, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would overrule the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state as of June 16.

Equality California and other gay rights groups issued a statement Wednesday saying they were confident that the initiative, similar to gay marriage bans enacted in 26 other states, will fail.

"We're disappointed, but this ruling does not affect the campaign against Prop. 8 in any way," the groups said. "We have been focused on continuing the election and moving forward."

Equality California filed a petition last month arguing that the signature petitions used to put the proposal on the ballot, printed up before the court struck down the state's marriage laws, were misleading because they stated that the initiative would have no legal or financial effect.

The gay rights group also claimed that Proposition 8 would so drastically alter the promise of equality written into the California Constitution that it was improper to put it before voters as an amendment.

Dick Heller showed up early Thursday at the police department, but he's still upset with the city even after winning his case.

He says its strict new rules for handguns still violate the spirit of the court's ruling defending the constitutional right to bear arms.

They allow handguns to be kept in the home if they're used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days. Police say the permitting process could take weeks or months. 6

The council's unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city's 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm" in the home.

"This is not perfect legislation," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, who worked with the mayor's office on the bill. "The first step is what we have before us today so that we maintain important provisions in our gun registration law while we continue look at how we can further refine our gun registration law."

Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, said at least some of the new regulations will likely be challenged. The bill that passed Tuesday maintains the city's unusual ban of machine guns, defined as weapons that shoot at least 12 rounds without reloading, which applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

The emergency legislation will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

Though residents can begin applying for handgun permits this week, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

The massive corruption scandal led to the investigation of 82 incidents involving 50 officers and reversal of more than 100 convictions tainted by police misconduct.

A jury in 2006 determined that the three men were each entitled to $5 million because they were wrongly arrested and charged with filing false police reports.

The three were implicated by former officer Rafael Perez, the central figure of the scandal in which officers were alleged to have beaten, robbed, framed and shot innocent people in the city's tough Rampart neighborhood. Dozens of officers were investigated, leading to some resignations and internal discipline, but only a small number of prosecutions.

Perez told investigators that the three men — Paul Harper, Edward Ortiz and Brian Liddy — had lied about finding a gun on a gang suspect during a 1996 arrest.

Harper and Ortiz are still with the department, but Liddy has left, according Officer Karen Smith, a LAPD spokeswoman.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its decision Monday noted that on three different occasions Perez gave investigators significantly divergent accounts of what allegedly happened during the arrest, including the inaccurate detail that a music sound system had to be dismantled at the arrest scene.

A state court jury did convict the three men in 2000 of conspiracy to obstruct justice in the framing of two reputed gang members. A Superior Court judge threw out the convictions a month later, citing faulty jury instructions.

Prosecutors decided not to pursue the case, and a judge dismissed the charges in 2004.