discussed Cited as authority (rule) Verhines v. Weber Indeed, if a law “imposes only ‘reasonable, nondiscriminatory 18 restrictions’ upon” voters’ rights, “‘the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify’ the restrictions.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 , 112 S.Ct. 19 2059 (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788 , 103 S.Ct. 1564 ). 20 Election Integrity Project California, Inc. v. Weber, 113 F.4th 1072 , 1082–84 (9th Cir. 2024); see 21 Soltysik v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 438, 444 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying the Anderson/Burdick framework 22 to challenge to California Elections Code brought by candidate for publ…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carducci v. The People of The State of New York A claim that a conviction was against the weight of the evidence is a state-law argument that is not cognizable in a federal § 2254 habeas action, while a claim that the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence will only succeed in such an action where the evidence was insufficient to permit any rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: [T]he argument that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence states a claim under state law, which is not cognizable on habeas corpus, see, e.g., Correa v. Duncan, 172 F.Supp.2d 378, 381 (E.D.N.Y.2001), Douglas v. Portuondo, 232 F…