A federal appeals court overturned Washington state's ban on voting by convicted felons Tuesday in a ruling that could extend ballots to prisoners in other states where studies showed racial bias in the criminal justice system.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the Washington law violates the federal Voting Rights Act because evidence showed discrimination against minorities at every level of the state's legal system: arrest, bail, prosecution and sentencing.

If the ruling survives, it will be binding in the circuit's other eight states, including California, which denies voting rights to 283,000 convicted felons in prison or on parole, according to a report from the nonprofit Sentencing Project.

About 114,000 are African Americans, who are disenfranchised at seven times the rate of the general population, the report said.

Among those in Washington state who commit crimes, "minorities are more likely than whites to be searched, arrested, detained and ultimately prosecuted," Judge A. Wallace Tashima said in the appeals court's majority opinion.

For example, he said, studies showed that African Americans in Washington were more than nine times as likely to be in prison as whites and 70 percent more likely to be searched, even though a study of one police department found that officers were more likely to find contraband when searching whites.

Findings were similar for Latinos and Native Americans, none of which could be explained by differences in crime rates, Tashima said.

The Voting Rights Act "demands that such racial discrimination not spread to the ballot box," he said.

Dissenting Judge Margaret McKeown said the court should have told a trial judge to reconsider the Washington law based on an amendment last year that made it easier for paroled felons to vote.

Take your thumbs off the keypad and put your hands on the wheel -- it's now illegal to text-message while driving.

A state law that takes effect Friday also bans checking e-mail, updating Facebook and Web surfing while driving, though using your phone's GPS is still OK.

"We want everyone to keep their attention on the roadway," said Capt. Scott Compton, an Illinois State Police spokesman. "Texting and cell phone use is a distraction that not only takes your eyes off the road, but often takes more than one hand to do."

The texting ban is one of nearly 300 new laws taking effect with the new year, ranging from ethics reforms in the wake of ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich's ouster to how credit card companies can market on college campuses.

But the new rule likely to affect people's daily lives the most is the law prohibiting drivers from sending or reading electronic messages on hand-held devices. Drivers can text only to report an emergency or if they put the vehicle in park or neutral while stopped in traffic or on the shoulder.

"It's a very good thing," said Myra Wyatt, 42, of Lincoln Park. "Just yesterday I was texting in rush-hour traffic, and this new law will definitely make me think twice."

The new law will have to be enforced, but it's a primary offense. That means police will be able to pull over drivers for it, similar to the power they have if motorists fail to wear a seat belt.

While most motorists interviewed by the Tribune on Thursday applauded the law, many were skeptical that it could be enforced.

A judge approved the payment Thursday in federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan. It follows initial payouts of over $15 million in July.

Lawyers at the Baker & Hostetler firm say they're following a paper trail that spans the globe while laboring to process over 16,000 claims seeking to recover billions in losses.

Trustee Irving Picard reported last month that he so far recovered about $1.2 billion and sued hedge funds and other large investors for another $14.8 billion.

The 71-year-old Madoff was sentenced earlier this year to 150 years in prison for orchestrating an epic Ponzi scheme that wiped out life savings and entire charities.

Florida's judges and lawyers should no longer "friend" each other on Facebook, the popular social networking site, according to a ruling from the state's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

At least one South Florida judge warned her pals with a Facebook status update that they could be "unfriended," and the ruling has prompted others to do the same. The committee ruled Nov. 17 that online "friendships" could create the impression that lawyers are in a special position to influence their judge friends.

The committee did conclude that a judge can post comments on another judge's site and that during judicial elections, a judge's campaign can have "fans" that include lawyers. And the ruling doesn't single out Facebook.

"Although Facebook has been used as an example in this opinion, the holding of the opinion would apply to any social networking site which requires the member of the site to approve the listing of a 'friend' or contact on the member's site," the opinion said.

A convicted murderer who pleaded guilty to selling the gun used to kill ex-NFL quarterback Steve McNair has been sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison.

Thirty-three-year-old Adrian Gilliam, of nearby La Vergne, was sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court in Nashville to 30 months.

Gilliam acknowledged during a court hearing in September that he sold a loaded 9 mm semiautomatic pistol to McNair's mistress for $100.

Nashville police said the woman, 20-year-old Sahel Kazemi, used the weapon to kill McNair and herself on July 4.

Gilliam was arrested about two weeks later and initially pleaded not guilty.

Vermont's highest court is being asked to decide what a dog's love is worth.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing a case that started in July 2003, when Denis and Sarah Scheele, who were visiting relatives, let their mixed-breed dog wander into Lewis Dustin's yard and he fatally shot it.

Now the Scheeles, of Annapolis, Md., are asking the court to carve out a new legal doctrine that a dog's owners can sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship, just like parents can when they lose children.

"It's so important for people to really recognize the relationship between the families and their companion animals," said Sarah Scheele, 58, who attended Thursday's court hearing.

The Scheeles' attorney argued that a family dog is worth more than a piece of property, saying dogs "love you back."

Under the current law, losing a dog is "treated the same way as the loss of an end table," David Putter said after the hearing.

"That's not what the relationship between humans and dogs is anymore. They're a member of the family and when they're lost you can't just go out to the local store and buy a new one. That doesn't fix it."

Dustin's lawyer, David Blythe, questioned how the court could draw a distinction between a dog and other personal property.

"Can you effectively create a special rule just for dogs? Why not cats? Why not horses?" Blythe said.

The court isn't expected to make a ruling before spring.

Florida's judges and lawyers should no longer "friend" each other on Facebook, the popular social networking site, according to a ruling from the state's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

At least one South Florida judge warned her pals with a Facebook status update that they could be "unfriended," and the ruling has prompted others to do the same. The committee ruled Nov. 17 that online "friendships" could create the impression that lawyers are in a special position to influence their judge friends.

The committee did conclude that a judge can post comments on another judge's site and that during judicial elections, a judge's campaign can have "fans" that include lawyers. And the ruling doesn't single out Facebook.