DOCSLIB.ORG

WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE of DELEGATES, Petitioner, V No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner January 8, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in this case violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia properly denied the Motion to Intervene of the Petitioner, the West Virginia House of Delegates. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Respondents are Margaret L. Workman; Mitch Carmichael, President of the West Virginia Senate; Donna J. Boley, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; Ryan Ferns, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the West Virginia Senate. Petitioner is the West Virginia House of Delegates as an indispensable and materially affected party who was wrongfully denied intervenor status. The West Virginia House of Delegates is not a corporation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT ............................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ vi OPINION AND ORDER BELOW ....................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ........................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................ 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4 I. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA VIOLATES THE GUARAN- TEE CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY EVISCER- ATING THE STATE’S REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ..................... 4 II. THE WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES HAS STANDING TO PETI- TION THIS COURT AS ITS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN MATERIALLY AFFECTED AND IT WAS WRONGFULLY DENIED INTERVENOR STATUS .......................... 25 CONCLUSION .................................................... 32 (iii) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued APPENDIX Page APPENDIX A: Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (October 11, 2018) ........................................................ 1a APPENDIX B: Order of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (October 11, 2018) .............................................................. 91a APPENDIX C: Mandate of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (October 11, 2018) ........................................................ 93a APPENDIX D: Return of Motion to Intervene of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (October 29, 2018) .......................... 95a APPENDIX E: U.S. Const. art. I, § 2-3 .......... 97a APPENDIX F: U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4 ........... 100a APPENDIX G: W. Va. Const. art. III, § 10..... 101a APPENDIX H: W. Va. Const. art. IV, § 9 ....... 102a APPENDIX I: W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 1-3 ..... 103a APPENDIX J: W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 8 ..... 104a APPENDIX K: Ariz. Const. art. VIII, pt. 2, § 1 .................................................................. 106a APPENDIX L: 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ..................... 107a APPENDIX M: 28 U.S.C. § 1257 .................... 108a APPENDIX N: W. Va. Code § 53-1-1 (2017) .... 109a APPENDIX O: Respondent Workman’s Peti- tion for a Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (September 20, 2018) .................................... 110a v TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page APPENDIX P: Petitioner’s Motion to Inter- vene, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (October 25, 2018) .......................... 231a APPENDIX Q: Respondent State Senate’s Petition for Rehearing, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (November 5, 2018) .............................................................. 235a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Agosto v. Barcelo, 594 F. Supp. 1390 (D.P.R. 1984) .............. 14 Ahearn v. Bailey, 451 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1969) ........................... 7 Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015) ............................... 1 Attorney Gen. of Mich. ex rel. Kies v. Lowrey, 199 U.S. 233 (1950) ................................... 15 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ........................... 8, 15, 16, 17 City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) .................................. 14 Cowie v. Roberts, 312 S.E.2d 35 (W. Va. 1984) ..................... 29 Ferguson v. Maddox, 263 S.W. 888 (Tex. 1924) .......................... 6 Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U.S. 506 (1897) ................................... 15 In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449 (1891) ................................... 15 Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 (1993) ............................... 26, 27, 32 Kinsella v. Jaekle, 475 A.2d 243 (Conn. 1984) ........................ 4, 6 Mecham v. Gordon, 751 P.2d 957 (Ariz. 1988) ........................passim vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ............................... 15, 18, 20 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ................................... 14, 15 Nixon v. United States, 938 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ................... 11, 32 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) ..................................passim Pac. States Tele. & Tele. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) ................................... 14 Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) ............................... 14 Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) ................................... 7 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ................................... 16 Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 668 (1937) ................................... 6 Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944) ....................................... 28 State v. Clark, 752 S.E.2d 907 (W. Va. 2013) ................... 21 State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. of Putnam v. Beane, 680 S.E.2d 46 (W. Va. 2009) ..................... 29 State ex rel. One-Gateway v. Johnson, 542 S.E.2d 894 (W. Va. 2000) ................... 29 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) State ex rel. Trapp v. Chambers, 220 P. 890 (Okla. 1923) ............................ 7 State ex rel. Workman v. Carmichael, 819 S.E.2d 251 (W. Va. 2018) ................... 1, 20 Tucker v. State, 35 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. 1941) ......................... 14 Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 511 P.2d 223 (Kan. 1973) .......................... 14 CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 .................................... 1, 21 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 5 ........................... 9 U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 ................................ 1, 21, 22 U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6 ........................... 9 U.S. Const. art. IV .................................. 14, 28, 33 U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4 ................................passim U.S. Const. amend XIX ................................ 20 Ariz. Const. art. III ....................................... 23 Ariz. Const. art. VIII, pt. 2, § 1 .................... 2, 6 W. Va. Const. art. III, § 10 ........................... 1, 28 W. Va. Const. art. IV, § 9 ............................passim W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 1-3 .......................... 2, 29 W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 8 .......................... 2, 21 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued STATUTES Page(s) 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ........................................... 2 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ....................................... 26 28 U.S.C. § 1257 ..........................................passim 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ....................................... 26 W. Va. Code § 53-1-1 (2017) ......................... 2, 29 RULES Sup. Ct. R. 10(b) ........................................... 24 Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) ............................................ 22 Sup. Ct. R. 12.6 ............................................. 26 Sup. Ct. R. 29.4 ............................................. 1 W. Va. R.A.P. 25(a) ....................................... 30, 31 W. Va. R.A.P. 26 ........................................... 31 W. Va. R.A.P. 32 ........................................... 30 OTHER AUTHORITIES The Federalist, No. 9 (Alexander Hamilton) .. 12 The Federalist, No. 21 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003) .... 19 The Federalist, No. 43 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003) ...................... 19, 20 The Federalist, No. 47 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003) ...................... 13 The Federalist, No. 51 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003) ...................... 12, 13 x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) The Federalist, No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton) .................................................. 5, 6 The Federalist, No. 79 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Cooke ed., 1961) ........... 11 The Federalist, No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Cooke ed., 1961) ........... 5, 11
Load more

Recommended publications
  • April 2016 Magazine.Indd
    Farm Bureau News April 2016 Primary Election Endorsements Issue bytes Communications Boot Camp Caterpillar Adds New Teaches Women How to Tell Machines, Tools to Farm Ag’s Story Bureau Member Discount Farm Bureau members can now save up to The American Farm Bureau Federation is $2,500 thanks to the addition of hydraulic excavators now accepting applications for its tenth Women’s and a medium track-type tractor to the Caterpillar Communications Boot Camp class, July 12 –15 in Member Benefi t program. In addition, Farm Bureau Washington, D.C. The three-day intensive training is members will now receive a $250 credit on work tool open to all women who are Farm Bureau members. attachments purchased with a new Caterpillar machine. The program focuses on enhancing communication and leadership skills and includes targeted training “Caterpillar is excited to grow its partnership with in the areas of public speaking, media relations, Farm Bureau by offering discounts on additional messaging and advocacy. products,” says Dustin Johansen, agriculture segment manager for Caterpillar. “Our goal is always to help Fifteen women will be selected to participate in members be more productive and better serve Farm this year’s program. Applications are available online Bureau members’ diverse needs.” or through state Farm Bureaus. The deadline for submissions is May 10. All applicants will be notifi ed “West Virginia Farm Bureau is proud to make of their status by June 1. these exclusive benefi ts available to our members,” says Charles Wilfong, president of West Virginia The American Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Farm Bureau.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • Giving Adequate Attention to Failings of Judicial Impartiality
    Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention to Failings of Judicial Impartiality JEFFREY W. STEMPEL* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION:M EN WITH NO REGRETS AND INADEQUATE CONCERN................... 2 II. CAPERTON V. MASSEY: JUDICIAL ERROR; WASTED RESOURCES; NEW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—AND LIGHT TREATMENT OF THE PERPETRATOR ............................................................................................... 10 A. The Underlying Action............................................................................... 10 B. The 2004 West Virginia Supreme Court Elections..................................... 12 C. Review and Recusal ................................................................................... 13 D. The Supreme Court Intervenes .................................................................. 16 E. Caperton’s Test for Determining When Recusal Is Required by the Due Process Clause ........................................................................ 17 F. Comparing the “Reasonable Question as to Impartiality” Standard for Nonconstitutional Recusal Under Federal and State Law to the “Serious Risk of Bias” Standard for Constitutional Due Process Under Caperton....................................... 19 G. The Dissenters’ Defense of Justice Benjamin—And Defective Judging ...................................................................................... 25 H. Enablers: Reluctance To Criticize Justice Benjamin................................. 28 * © 2010 Jeffrey W. Stempel. Doris S. & Theodore B. Lee Professor
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia Blue Book 2015 - 2016
    WEST VIRGINIA BLUE BOOK 2015 - 2016 Clark S. Barnes, Senate Clerk Charleston, West Virginia II WEST VIRGINIA BLUE BOOK CONTENTS Pages 1-336 Section 1 - Executive State Elective and Appointive Officers; Departmental Registers; Salaries and Terms of Office; Boards and Commissions 337-512 Section 2 - Legislative Rosters of Senate and House of Delegates; Maps, Senatorial and Delegate Districts; Legislative Agencies and Organizations; Historical Information 513-542 Section 3 - Judicial Justices of the State Supreme Court of Appeals; Clerks and Officers; Maps and Registers; Circuit Courts and Family Court Judges; Magistrates 543-628 Section 4 - Constitutional Constitution of the United States; Constitution of West Virginia 629-676 Section 5 - Institutions Correctional Institutions; State Health Facilities; State Schools and Colleges; Denominational and Private Colleges 677-752 Section 6 - Federal President and Cabinet; State Delegation in Congress; Map, Congressional Districts; Governors of States; Federal Courts; Federal Agencies in West Virginia 753-766 Section 7 - Press, Television & Radio, Postal 767-876 Section 8 - Political State Committees; County Chairs; Organizations; Election Returns 877-946 Section 9 - Counties County Register; Historical Information; Statistical Facts and Figures 947-1042 Section 10 - Municpalities Municipal Register; Historical Information; Statistical Facts and Figures 1043-1116 Section 11 - Departmental, Statistical & General Information 1117-1133 Section 12 - Index FOREWORD West Virginia Blue Book 2015 - 2016 The November 2014 election delivered a political surprise. In January the following year, for the first time in over 80 years, the Republicans controlled both Chambers of the State Legislature. New names, new faces dominated the political landscape. William P. Cole, III, a Senator for only two years, bypassed the usual leadership hierarchy and assumed the position of Senate President and Lieutenant Governor.
    [Show full text]
  • Newly Elected Representatives in the 114Th Congress
    Newly Elected Representatives in the 114th Congress Contents Representative Gary Palmer (Alabama-6) ....................................................................................................... 3 Representative Ruben Gallego (Arizona-7) ...................................................................................................... 4 Representative J. French Hill (Arkansas-2) ...................................................................................................... 5 Representative Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-4) .............................................................................................. 6 Representative Mark DeSaulnier (California-11) ............................................................................................. 7 Representative Steve Knight (California-25) .................................................................................................... 8 Representative Peter Aguilar (California-31) ................................................................................................... 9 Representative Ted Lieu (California-33) ........................................................................................................ 10 Representative Norma Torres (California-35) ................................................................................................ 11 Representative Mimi Walters (California-45) ................................................................................................ 12 Representative Ken Buck (Colorado-4) .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upending Minority Rule: the Case for Ranked-Choice Voting in West Virginia
    Volume 122 Issue 1 Article 12 September 2019 Upending Minority Rule: The Case for Ranked-Choice Voting in West Virginia Matthew R. Massie West Virginia University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew R. Massie, Upending Minority Rule: The Case for Ranked-Choice Voting in West Virginia, 122 W. Va. L. Rev. (2019). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol122/iss1/12 This Student Note is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Massie: Upending Minority Rule: The Case for Ranked-Choice Voting in West UPENDING MINORITY RULE: THE CASE FOR RANKED-CHOICE VOTING IN WEST VIRGINIA I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 323 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 325 A. Voting and Majoritarianism ................................................. 326 B. Voting in West Virginia and Elsewhere ................................ 328 C. Plurality Victors in Congressional Elections ....................... 330 D. Plurality Victors in Judicial Elections .................................. 334 E. Ranked-Choice Voting .......................................................... 336 III.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Admissions Task Force Report
    Oregon State Bar Admissions Task Force Final Report Part 1 - Introduction Introduction In the summer of 2007, then Oregon State Bar President Albert A. Menashe appointed a task force to consider a variety of issues related to the process by which applicants to practice law in Oregon are examined and considered for admission. The task force conducted its study from September 2007 through July 2008. This constitutes the final report of the task force to the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors. Task Force participants The following individuals were appointed to the task force and participated during the course of the task force study: Albert A. Menashe, Chairperson - representative from OSB Board of Governors Andrew M. Altschul – representative from Oregon Board of Bar Examiners Senator Suzanne Bonamici – representative from the Oregon Legislature Chief Justice Paul J. DeMuniz – Oregon Supreme Court Jonathan P. Hill – public member representative from OSB Board of Governors Justice Rives Kistler – Oregon Supreme Court Robert H. Klonoff – Dean, Lewis & Clark Law School Margie Paris – Dean, University of Oregon Law School Robert B. Rocklin – representative from Oregon Board of Bar Examiners Symeon D. Symeonides – Dean, Willamette University College of Law 1 The task force was staffed by Jonathan P. Benson, Executive Director of the Oregon Board of Bar Examiners, and Jeffrey D. Sapiro, Oregon State Bar Regulatory Services Counsel. Charge of the Task Force In a general sense, the task force was charged with evaluating the current method of bar examination and admission practices in Oregon, and exploring alternatives. More specifically, the task force deliberations focused on the following questions and issues: 1 Kathy Graham, Associate Dean at Willamette University College of Law, was Dean Symeonides’ designee for a significant part of the task force’s deliberations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal County Superior Court Building
    f • F I LED NOV 2 5 1997 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA In The Matter Of: ) ) A NEW JURY HANDBOOK ) Administrative Order FOR THE SUPERIOR ) No. 97- 64 COURT IN PINAL COUNTY ) ) --------------------------------) Pursuant to Rule 18.6(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, Alma J. Haught, Clerk of the Superior Court in Pinal County, requests the Court's approval of a new jury handbook. The Court, having reviewed a draft of the handbook, finds that it is sufficient in form and content to fully and properly advise jurors of their conduct and duties, and the operations of the judicial system in which they will be serving. Now, therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution, IT IS ORDERED that the handbook is approved for immediate use by the Superior Court in Pinal County in the form submitted hereto as Attachment A. DATED this 25th day of November ,1997. THOMAS A. ZLA~ Chief Justice COpy ,4TTACHMENT A .f lJ I( \' i 1;\ N I,.I()OK PINAL ('OllNT" COlll{TS STAT II: OF AIUZONA Illi,- I, '''Hlh'''''' h:" I" \'11 :ll'llnl\' cI It, Ih,' '-I'p"'IIII' t ollfl III Ih.' ',1;1'1' ul ;\liltilla 1"" '>lI:!!I' ,,, "H' 1(110,,1 ( I illlillal l'rlltT,lul'/ Hllh lit I,'al. JURY HANDBOOK Prepared by: Alma Jennlnp Hauabt Oerk of tbe Superior Court 1997 Edition INDEX General Information 6S Absence from Employment 6S Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Period of Service 6S Justice of the Peace Judges and Precincts 4 Work Verification 66 Superior Court Judges and Divisions 6 Parking 66 Clerk of the Superior Court! Attire 66 Jury Commissioner 18 Vacation/Change of Address 66 Welcome 21 Payment 67 Introduction 23 Badges 67 Guarantees of the Right to Trial by Jury 25 Jury Trial Scheduling 67 Arizona's Judicial System 27 Smoking Policy 67 Supreme Court 28 Telephones 68 Court of Appeals 29 Security 68 Superior Court 30 Pinal County Complex Diagram 69 Justice of the Peace Courts 32 Judicial Building (Courthouse) Diagram 70 Municipal Courts 34 Important Telephone Numbers 7.
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginians Urge Sen. Manchin to Support Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States
    West Virginians Urge Sen. Manchin to Support Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States July 26, 2018 Dear Senator Manchin: On behalf of thousands of West Virginians who deeply value our nation’s Constitution, the undersigned organizations and officials write to urge your support for the swift confirmation of President Trump’s outstanding nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is the second time in recent years that Americans have had the historic opportunity to add a defender of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Recent polling shows a large majority of West Virginians support President Trump’s selection and want him confirmed. We are pleased you share their key criteria for supporting Judge Kavanaugh – whether he will follow, “the rule of law and the Constitution.” He has a proven track record of doing so. We are also pleased that you have listened to West Virginians and broken with your partisan leaders in the Senate by agreeing to meet with Judge Kavanaugh. However, we—along with many concerned Mountaineers—consider any effort to obstruct this highly qualified nominee from being confirmed as a threat to deny West Virginians, and every American, an exemplary jurist in the mold of Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom you voted to confirm. Hanging your support on how a judicial nominee would rule on any case which may come before the Court is inappropriate. Such politically-motivated rhetoric not only distorts the Court’s role, but undermines the consideration of fundamental principles. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not make policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Office Holders
    Federal Name Party Office Term Next Election Joe Biden Democrat U.S President 4 Years 2024 Kamala Harris Democrat U.S. Vice President 4 Years 2024 Joe Manchin Democratic U.S. Senate 6 Years 2024 Shelley Moore Capito Republican U.S. Senate 6 Years 2026 David McKinley Republican U.S House, District 1 2 Years 2022 Alexander Mooney Republican U.S. House, District 2 2 Years 2022 Carol Miller Republican U.S. House, District 3 2 Years 2022 State Name Party Office Term Next Election Jim Justice Republican Governor 4 Years 2024 Mac Warner Republican West Virginia Secretary of State 4 Years 2024 John "JB" McCuskey Republican West Virginia State Auditor 4 Years 2024 Riley Moore Republican West Virginia State Treasurer 4 Years 2024 Patrick Morrisey Republican Attorney General of West Virginia 4 Years 2024 Kent Leonhardt Republican West Virginia Commissioner of Agriculture 4 Years 2024 West Virginia State Senate Name Party District Next election Ryan W. Weld Republican 1 2024 William Ihlenfeld Democrat 1 2022 Mike Maroney Republican 2 2024 Charles Clements Republican 2 2022 Donna J. Boley Republican 3 2024 Mike Azinger Republican 3 2022 Amy Grady Republican 4 2024 Eric J. Tarr Republican 4 2022 Robert H. Plymale Democrat 5 2024 Mike Woelfel Democrat 5 2022 Chandler Swope Republican 6 2024 Mark R Maynard Republican 6 2022 Rupie Phillips Republican 7 2024 Ron Stollings Democrat 7 2022 Glenn Jeffries Democrat 8 2024 Richard Lindsay Democrat 8 2022 David Stover Republican 9 2024 Rollan A. Roberts Republican 9 2022 Jack Woodrum Republican 10 2024 Stephen Baldwin Democrat 10 2022 Robert Karnes Republican 11 2024 Bill Hamilton Republican 11 2022 Patrick Martin Republican 12 2024 Mike Romano Democrat 12 2022 Mike Caputo Democrat 13 2024 Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Oct. 6, 2020 Honorable Nathan L. Hecht President, Conference of Chief Justices C/O Association and Conference Services 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147
    Oct. 6, 2020 Honorable Nathan L. Hecht President, Conference of Chief Justices c/o Association and Conference Services 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 Re: Civil Rights Concerns with Administration of Bar Examinations Dear Chief Justice Hecht: The undersigned members and allies of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights Task Force, along with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, write to urge you to develop a bar admissions response to the coronavirus epidemic that ensures the equitable treatment of people of color and people with disabilities. CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations working together to advocate for federal public policy that ensures the self- determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. We write in relation to the administration of various state bar exams in the coming months. As you are aware, in the first week of October, twenty jurisdictions will be administering online exams;1 others will be administering online exams later in October;2 Puerto Rico will be administering an 1 Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania (three- day exam, Oct. 5-7), Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virgin Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNMENT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA Office of the Attorney General
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the Attorney General ATTORNEY GENERAL KARL A. RACINE August 12, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Clerk of the Court District of Columbia Court of Appeals 430 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 879-2700 [email protected] Re: Notice No. M-269-20 Dear Clerk of the Court: As the chief legal officer for the District of Columbia, I write to urge the Court to amend D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 48 to allow some recent law school graduates to practice law under supervision until an in-person bar examination can safely be administered in the District of Columbia. This letter responds to the July 29, 2020 notice seeking public comment on requests that the Court: (a) establish a procedure to admit law-school graduates without requiring them to take and pass a bar exam (“diploma privilege”); and/or (b) broaden the circumstances in which law-school graduates who have not yet been admitted to the D.C. Bar (or perhaps any bar) can temporarily practice law. Authorizing recent law school graduates to practice under supervision for a limited time will ensure they will provide quality legal services while mitigating the financial hardship on these prospective lawyers. I. Requiring recent graduates to take the bar examination in October will create financial hardship that disproportionally will affect minority applicants. For many graduating law students, delay in entry to the legal profession will result in extreme financial hardship. Adding to the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, many have enormous student loan debt, childcare or other familial expenses, or health care needs for which they need adequate health insurance.
    [Show full text]