Tony Slone, 43, entered the plea in Superior Court in Victorville, said Susan Mickey, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County district attorney's office.

Slone was charged with sexually abusing his now 13- and 16-year old stepdaughters over the last four years. His wife was charged with child abuse for allegedly letting her elder daughter continue to have contact with Slone after he fathered her 13-month-old child.

Tony Slone was arrested June 4 in Chester, N.Y., where he had traveled for work, and was extradited to California on Sunday. He is a registered sex offender and previously served an eight year-prison sentence for lewd acts with a child.

Prosecutors say they learned of the abuse when a high school student reported reading sexual text messages on her friend's cell phone from her friend's stepfather.

Mickey said an attorney from the conflict panel was appointed for Slone. No one at the panel's offices was immediately available to comment. Slone's next court date is June 30.

Anita Slone, 47, reached a plea deal with prosecutors last week. She pleaded guilty in exchange for no more than 180 days in county jail and five years probation, said Kathleen DiDonato, a deputy district attorney.

DiDonato said the probation would help protect the daughters until they are adults. Anita Slone is scheduled to be sentenced in July.

The 8-1 ruling by the US Supreme Court Monday on the Voting Rights Act has been greeted with a mixture of relief and praise from many civil rights groups and liberal commentators. “It’s fair to say this case was brought to tear the heart out of the Voting Rights Act, and today that effort failed,” said Debo Adegbile, lead attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

But a closer examination of the decision and the political context in which it was made reveals that the court has opened the door to gutting the most fundamental US civil rights law, whose passage in 1965 marked a watershed in the struggle against institutionalized racial discrimination.

In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a local utility district in Austin, Texas sued the federal government over the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that certain state and local government units apply to the US Department of Justice for “preclearance” before they make any changes in their election rules, including changes in voter registration procedures and electoral district boundaries.

The 1965 law specified nine states and parts of several others, including most of the former Confederacy: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and most of Virginia. Alaska, Arizona and portions of Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Dakota and New York City are also affected, most of the latter because of discrimination against Hispanic and Native American voters. Including all their counties, cities, school districts, utility districts and other governmental entities, a total of some 17,000 jurisdictions are subject to preclearance.

The court refused on Monday to hear an appeal from Capital One Bank and Geoffrey, Inc., a subsidiary of Toys R Us that licenses the company's giraffe logo and other trademarks.

Massachusetts tax officials say both companies make money in-state, and therefore should pay state taxes. The companies say that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits state officials from taxing out-of-state companies that do not have a physical presence in that state.

States normally are not allowed to tax out-of-state corporations who do not have a physical presence in those states. Massachusetts's top court ruled, however, that it could tax out-of-state corporations if they have a "substantial nexus" in a state.

CapitalOne banks are based out of Virginia, but offers credit cards that are used by people in Massachusetts and uses collection agencies in that state to go after delinquent accounts. Geoffrey, Inc., licenses the use of Toys R Us trademarks for its stores in Massachusetts.

The cases are Geoffrey, Inc., v. Commissioner of Revenue, 08-1207 and CapitalOne Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue, 08-1169.

Under the rules rejected by U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty, companies that own fuel-saving cabs would have been allowed to charge drivers slightly higher rental rates; companies with gas-hungry vehicles would see their rates decrease over a two-year period.

In October, Crotty rejected for the same reason other rules the city had devised to try to force the fleet of yellow cabs to go green by 2012. Those rules would have required new cabs to be fuel efficient.

The judge praised the city's intent but said efforts to encourage the purchase of hybrid vehicles must be careful not to interfere with Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over laws related to mileage or emission standards.

"The court's purpose is not to interfere with government officials taking actions in the public interest," he wrote. "Increasing the number of hybrid taxicabs is an appropriate and important governmental priority."

The judge noted there were no legal challenges to decisions by the city to issue new taxi medallions only to hybrid vehicles or to allow hybrid cabs to stay in service longer.

Michael A. Cardozo, head of the city's law department, said the city was disappointed.

"We do not believe that Congress intended to prohibit local governments from implementing incentive programs ... that encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly taxis. We are exploring our legal options," he said in a statement.

The court, with only one justice in dissent, avoided the major constitutional questions raised in the case over the federal government's most powerful tool to prevent discriminatory voting changes since the mid-1960s.

The law requires all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination in voting to get approval in advance of making changes in the way elections are conducted.

The court said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, can opt out of the advance approval requirement, reversing a lower federal court that found it could not.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the larger issue of whether dramatic civil rights gains means the advance approval requirement is no longer necessary "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today."

The court's avoidance of the larger issue explains the consensus among justices in the case rendered Monday, where they otherwise likely would have split along conservative-liberal lines.

Justice Clarence Thomas, alone among this colleagues, said he would have resolved the case and held that the provision, known as Section 5, is unconstitutional.

"The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains," Thomas said.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday in favor of a teenage boy from Oregon whose parents sought to force their local public school district to pay the $5,200 a month it cost to send their son to a private school.

Federal law calls for school districts to reimburse students or their families for education costs when public schools do not have services that address or fulfill the students' needs. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the nation's special education students are entitled to a "free and appropriate public education."

Schools have argued that parents of special education students should have given public special education programs a chance before seeking reimbursement for private school tuition. But advocacy groups and parents of some special education students contend that forcing them to try public schools first could force children, especially poor ones, to spend time in an undesirable situation before getting the help they need.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the family of a teenage Oregon boy diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder sued the school district, saying the school did not properly address the student's learning problems. The family is seeking reimbursement for the student's tuition, which cost $5,200-a-month. The family paid a total of $65,000 in private tuition.

In its appeal, the Forest Grove School District said students should be forced to at least give public special education programs a try before seeking reimbursement for private tuition.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion that the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a school district to pay for private special ed services if the public school doesn't have appropriate services.

"We conclude that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for the cost of special education services when a school district fails to provide a FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school," Stevens said.