Delaware Government Files Brief in Lawsuit on Exclusion of Independents from Being Appointed to Most Judicial Positions

Posted on by January 17, 2022
5

On January 10, the government of Delaware filed this reply brief in Adams v Carney, 1:20cv-1680. This is the case that challenges the Delaware law that requires most judicial appointees to be members of one of the two largest parties. Therefore, independents can never serve as judges, except for two minor types of court.

The government says the applicant, James R. Adams, doesn’t have standing because he doesn’t have a “realistic” chance of being appointed even if the law didn’t exist. The government doesn’t say why he doesn’t have a realistic chance of being appointed, except to say that he has been retired from the practice of law for six years. Probably the real reason he doesn’t have a realistic chance of being appointed, is that the present Governor doesn’t like him, because of his lawsuit. But that shouldn’t be a consideration. Someday Delaware will have a new Governor.

Fourteenth Amendment Challenge to Congressman Madison Cawthorn Delayed Due to Redistricting Delay

Posted on by January 17, 2022
4

On January 16, the North Carolina State Board of Elections challenge to the candidacy of Congressmember Madison Cawthorn was delayed. The challenge is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, which says “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress…who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

The delay is caused by the fact that the challenge procedures require participation of judges from the particular district, and no one knows yet what the district boundaries will be. The State Supreme Court will hear the redistricting case on February 2.

Some Mississippi Voters Ask Federal Court to Restore Initiative

Posted on by January 16, 2022
3

On November 8, 2021, some Mississippi voters asked a U.S. District Court to restore the initiative process. Earlier in 2021, the State Supreme Court had ruled that the initiative, which is in the State Constitution, is fatally flawed because it says signatures are required from all five U.S. House districts, but for twenty years the state has only had four districts. So the State Supreme Court said the initiative doesn’t exist any longer.

The voters are asking the federal court that drew the boundaries for the four districts in both 2001 and 2011 to rule that the state still has five districts in its election code, and therefore the initiative is still functional. The boundaries of the five districts were never repealed by the legislature, so even though they have no effect on congressional elections, theoretically they can still be used for the purpose of qualifying an initiative.

The case is Smith v Hosemann, s.d., 3:01cv-855. The state responded two weeks after the request for the intervention was filed. The state says the intervenors lack standing. Nothing has happened in the case since late November 2021. Presumably the court is waiting to see if the legislature restores the initiative. However, so far there is no bill pending to do that. Here is the motion for intervention.