Judge Rules Party Balance on Del. Courts Unconstitutional
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring political balance on the state's courts is unconstitutional.
December 06, 2017 at 06:06 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring political balance on the state's courts is unconstitutional.
In a 15-page memorandum opinion, U.S. Magistrate Chief Judge Mary Pat Thynge of the District of Delaware granted summary judgment to James R. Adams, a New Castle County lawyer who argued the 120-year-old requirement violated the First Amendment by restricting government employment based on party affiliation.
Attorneys for Gov. John Carney, who is responsible for nominating judges, argued the political balancing requirement for judges met a narrow exception that allows party affiliation to be taken into account when considering applicants for policymaking positions.
Thynge, however, held that the judiciary is not included under the policymaking exception because judges are tasked with interpreting statute, not creating it.
“The constitution of the state of Delaware violates the First Amendment by placing a restriction on governmental employment based on political affiliation in the Delaware judiciary,” Thynge wrote. “The narrow exception of political affiliation does not apply because the role of the judiciary is to interpret statutory intent and not to enact or amend it.”
The Delaware Department of Justice, which represents Carney in the case, declined to comment. A spokesman for the governor said, “We respect the court's decision, and continue to review the decision and its potential implications.”
He did not say whether the administration will appeal.
Adams, a registered independent, said he's been prevented in the past from applying for judgeships because of the constitutional mandate that judicial seats be split between Republicans and Democrats.
Proponents of the provision—codified in Article IV, Section 3 of the state constitution—have said it safeguards a fair, independent and impartial judiciary that attracts talent to serve in its ranks. But Adams and others have argued the mandate improperly boxes out independents and creates the impression the state's judiciary is tinged with political bias.
David L. Finger, who represents Adams, said the ruling will keep the courts independent of politics and give governors a wider pool of judicial applicants to choose from during the nominating process. The ruling, he said, would not have any retroactive application or impact current vacancies.
“This opens the way for people of all political affiliations to be judges,” said Finger, of Wilmington firm Finger & Slanina.
“The last thing you want is judges selected because of some perceived bias based on their political affiliation,” he said.
Carney is represented by Justice Department attorneys Ryan Patrick Connell and Christian D. Wright, of the department's Civil Division.
The case is captioned Adams v. Carney.
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring political balance on the state's courts is unconstitutional.
In a 15-page memorandum opinion, U.S. Magistrate Chief Judge
Attorneys for Gov. John Carney, who is responsible for nominating judges, argued the political balancing requirement for judges met a narrow exception that allows party affiliation to be taken into account when considering applicants for policymaking positions.
Thynge, however, held that the judiciary is not included under the policymaking exception because judges are tasked with interpreting statute, not creating it.
“The constitution of the state of Delaware violates the First Amendment by placing a restriction on governmental employment based on political affiliation in the Delaware judiciary,” Thynge wrote. “The narrow exception of political affiliation does not apply because the role of the judiciary is to interpret statutory intent and not to enact or amend it.”
The Delaware Department of Justice, which represents Carney in the case, declined to comment. A spokesman for the governor said, “We respect the court's decision, and continue to review the decision and its potential implications.”
He did not say whether the administration will appeal.
Adams, a registered independent, said he's been prevented in the past from applying for judgeships because of the constitutional mandate that judicial seats be split between Republicans and Democrats.
Proponents of the provision—codified in Article IV, Section 3 of the state constitution—have said it safeguards a fair, independent and impartial judiciary that attracts talent to serve in its ranks. But Adams and others have argued the mandate improperly boxes out independents and creates the impression the state's judiciary is tinged with political bias.
David L. Finger, who represents Adams, said the ruling will keep the courts independent of politics and give governors a wider pool of judicial applicants to choose from during the nominating process. The ruling, he said, would not have any retroactive application or impact current vacancies.
“This opens the way for people of all political affiliations to be judges,” said Finger, of Wilmington firm Finger & Slanina.
“The last thing you want is judges selected because of some perceived bias based on their political affiliation,” he said.
Carney is represented by Justice Department attorneys Ryan Patrick Connell and Christian D. Wright, of the department's Civil Division.
The case is captioned Adams v. Carney.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'I Don't Want to Die Fearfully': Outsiders Can't Get Help to Die in NJ
4 minute read3rd Circuit Weighs Constitutionality of Fishery Management Council Appointments
Amid Attacks on Press Protections, the Fox-Dominion Case Missed an Opportunity for Media Law
5 minute readNational Shooting Sports Foundation Sues Del. AG, Challenging Constitutionality of 'Public Nuisance' Law
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250