On April 26, a U.S. District Court in New York refused to order the state to hold a special election to fill the vacancy U.S. House seat, 25th district. See the two-page order here in Seubert v Cuomo, w.d., 6:18cv-6303.
The court said nothing about the constitutional issue, but based its order on a technicality.
I don’t know that I would consider that a technicality.
Judge apparently had a bug in his bonnet. Look at the footnote where he implicitly criticizes the plaintiffs for calling their four theories “counts” instead of “claims.” It is pretty common in civil practice to use either term; hardly worth a mention. Because he clearly has the authority to issue an injunction compelling the same relief, one would have thought (and most judges would have) he would treat the motion for mandamus as one for injunction and proceeded accordingly. After all, the Rules of Civil Procedure are not supposed to be technically construed and are designed to due efficient justice. Rule 1 states they “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” The judge hardly did that; what he did went well beyond even employing a mere technicality. He violated Rule 1.
1-2-4 When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
{copied from Brit House of Commons vacancy stuff) — NO times mentioned = worthless.
One more JUNK case — should have sanctions on so-called plaintiff lawyer(s) involved.
—-
Con Amdt – Candidate/Incumbent replacement lists = 100 pct filled 24/7