Five Ex-Governors of Delaware Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case on Whether State Judges Must be Republicans or Democrats

Posted on by October 7, 2019
2

Five former Governors of Delaware have filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to hear Carney v Adams, 19-309. This is the case over the Delaware law that says no one is eligible to be appointed a state judge (for most of the state courts) unless they are a member of a party that has at least 5% of the registered voters. The ex-Governors support the law, which the Third Circuit invalidated a few months ago. Two of the ex-Governors are Republicans, and three are Democrats.

Obviously the Delaware law makes it impossible for any registered independent to become a state judge.

U.S. District Court in New York Upholds District Attorney’s Subpoena for President Trump’s Tax Returns

Posted on by October 7, 2019
15

On October 7, U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero upheld a subpoena by the Manhattan District Attorney for President Donald Trump’s tax returns for the last several years. Trump v Vance, s.d., 1:19cv-8694. The subpoena has no connection with the New York state law allowing the state government to release the Trump tax returns. Instead it involves a criminal investigation against the President. Here is the 75-page opinion.

Judge Marrero is a Clinton appointee who was born in Puerto Rico.

The President immediately asked for a stay from the Second Circuit, which granted it. In the Second Circuit the case is 19-3204.

In California, the Secretary of State has still not appealed the U.S. District Court opinion in the tax returns-ballot case. It may be that the California Secretary of State believes the tax returns may emerge through the activity of the New York and District of Columbia pending cases.

Seventeen Law Professors File Amicus in Favor of Delaware Law Requiring All State Judges to be Democrats or Republicans

Posted on by October 7, 2019
6

A case is currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Delaware law that says all state court judges (on most of the state courts) must be members of a party that has voter registration of at least 5%. Therefore, an independent can never become a state court judge. The Third Circuit had invalidated the policy, and Delaware is trying to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal. Carney v Adams, 19-309.

On October 2, seventeen law professors filed this amicus in favor of the Delaware law. Their names are in the Appendix. The state will file its own brief later on October 7.

Delaware does not elect any judges; they are all appointed.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Election Law Cases from Connecticut or Washington

Posted on by October 7, 2019
1

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a Connecticut case, Feehan v Marcone, 18-1470. The state courts had refused to order a new legislative election following the November 2018 regular election in one particular district. The margin between the Republican and the Democrat was extremely close, and then it became known that a number of voters larger than the margin had accidentally been given ballots that omitted that race. The state courts said there was no evidence that if those voters had been allowed to vote, the outcome would have been different. Of course it would have been impossible for there to be any such evidence. It is the Republican nominee who had brought this lawsuit.

Also on October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a Washington state case, Save Tacoma Water v Port of Tacoma, 18-1518. The issue was whether a nonjudicial government official has the power to invalidate an initiative petition (even though it has enough valid signatures) if he or she thinks the initiative, if passed, would be unconstitutional or illegal.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Alabama Ballot Access Case

Posted on by October 7, 2019
1

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Hall v Merrill, 18-1362. This is the case that challenged Alabama’s petition requirement for independent candidates in special U.S. House elections.

The Supreme Court thus carries on its habit of denying all ballot access cases filed by minor parties or independent candidates. The Court hasn’t taken such a case since 1991. Although it took Burdick v Takushi in early 1992, that was a case filed by a Democratic voter who lived in a Hawaii legislative district with no Democrat on the ballot, and the plaintiff-voter wanted to write-in a Democrat.