DOCSLIB.ORG

Mandamus, Quo Warranto and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Arkansas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mandamus, Quo Warranto and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Arkansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 20 Issue 4 Honoring the 100th Anniversary of the Article 3 Arkansas Bar Association 1998 Judicial Coup D'état: Mandamus, Quo Warranto and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Arkansas Logan Scott Stafford University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the Courts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Logan Scott Stafford, Judicial Coup D'état: Mandamus, Quo Warranto and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, 20 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 891 (1998). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol20/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUDICIAL COUP D'ETAT: MANDAMUS, QUO WARRANTO AND THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Logan Scott Stafford" On May 7, 1874, four of the five justices of the Supreme Court of Arkansas assembled in the state capitol on West Markham Street to deliver the court's decision in Brooks v. Page. The issue in the case seemed relatively simple. The state auditor had issued a warrant for $1,000, and the state treasurer was reluctant to pay the warrant until the court settled certain legal questions. Shortly after convening, the court handed down a one page, three paragraph opinion declaring that it was appropriate for the treasurer to pay the warrant. The court's decision was, however, anything but routine. The case had been contrived by the court's chief justice, and its purpose was to confirm an attempted coup d'etat by disgruntled members of the chief justice's political party. The grounds outside the state capitol were ringed with breastworks manned by the state militia. The troops were there to protect the capitol-and the court-from the masses of armed men who had poured into Little Rock to support a governor ousted from office by judicial decree. Three days earlier, supporters of the ousted governor had kidnapped two of the supreme court justices and held them at gunpoint to prevent the court from meeting to decide Brooks v. Page. Only hours before the court met, the two judges had escaped their captors thanks to the timely arrival of United States mounted infantry. After the court issued its opinion, a certified copy was immediately telegraphed to the president of the United States. It soon became apparent that the chief justice, popularly called "Poker Jack," had overplayed his hand. After reviewing the court's opinion, the attorney general of the United States advised the president to disregard it. Less than a week after issuing the opinion, the four justices were escorted out of town, protected from enraged citizens by United States soldiers. By the end of the month, one of the justices had resigned, and the other three had been impeached by the Arkansas House of Representatives. The decision in Brooks v. Page culminated a tumultuous five year period during which the supreme court greatly expanded its own original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and writs of quo warranto. This enlargement of the court's original jurisdiction occurred during the tenure of a chief justice who displayed an unprecedented willingness to use the court's powers to advance the interests of a particular political faction. It is possible that the * B.S.B.A., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (1969); J.D., Harvard Law School (1971); Professor of Law, University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law. UALR LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 20 institutions of the state could have survived a supreme court that assumed extraordinary powers, or a chief justice who actively participated in partisan politics, but when these two trends coincided, as they did during the period leading up to the issuance of Brooks v. Page, the resulting chaos toppled the government of which the court was a part and the constitution under which the court was organized. The Arkansas Supreme Court has, since its creation in 1836, exercised the power to issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto. A writ of mandamus is an order issued to -a public officer directing the officer to perform an act required by law or refrain from performing an act enjoined by law.' A writ of quo warrantois the traditional way of testing the right of a person to hold an office, although it can also been used to determine the right to exercise a public franchise. When a court issues a writ of quo warranto,the party to whom it is issued must appear before the court and show by what right (literally, "by what warrant") the party purports to hold a particular office or to exercise a particular public franchise.2 The power to order a public officer to perform an act and the power to determine whether a public officer is entitled to hold office are formidable powers to confer on a court. Throughout most of its history the Arkansas Supreme Court's issuance of writs of mandamus or quo warranto has been limited to cases involving the court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from or exercise supervisory control over the. inferior courts of the state. During the five year period ending with Brooks v. Page, the supreme court exercised original jurisdiction to issue these two extraordinary writs. Between 1869 and 1874 a party could apply directly to the supreme court for a writ of mandamus ordering a public official, whether or not that official was a member of the judicial department, to take or refrain from taking a particular action. During the same period it was possible to test any public official's right to hold office by invoking the supreme court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto. The court's expansion of its original jurisdiction during that period illustrates the delicacy with which the checks and balances of the constitution are calibrated. In 1870 the court used its original mandamus jurisdiction to decree the seating of certain members of the General Assembly. Several months later the court ordered the lieutenant governor to appear before it and show cause why he should not be removed from office. In 1873 the attorney general attempted to remove the governor from office by invoking the court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto. Brooks v. Page involved 1. See ARK. CODEANN. § 16-115-101 (Michie 1987). 2. See ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-118-105 (Michie 1987). 1998] COUP D'ETAT the exercise of the court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state officer. It was also the last official act of the four justices who signed the opinion. I. THE SUPREME COURT'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER PRE-1868 CONSTITUTIONS A. Original Jurisdiction under the Constitution of 1836 Arkansas was admitted to the union in 1836 with a constitution that was somewhat vague regarding the supreme court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto: The Supreme Court, except in cases otherwise directed by this constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction only, which shall be coextensive with the State, under such restrictions and regulations as may from time to time be prescribed by law. It shall have general superintending control over all inferior and other courts of law and equity. It shall have power to issue writs of error and supersedeas, certiorari and habeas corpus, mandamus and quo warrantoand other remedial writs, and to hear and 3 determine the same. Whether this language vested the supreme court with original jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warrantoarose in an 1839 case styled State v. Ashley et al.4 The attorney for the state filed a motion in the supreme court asking that certain individuals be required to appear and show cause why a writ of quo warranto should not issue against them for usurping the office of directors of the state Real Estate Bank. The individual directors countered that the supreme court lacked original jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto. The court denied the state's motion after first determining that it lacked jurisdiction because the proceeding was criminal rather than civil in nature. In dictum, however, the court interpreted the constitution as conferring on it original jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto provided the proceeding was civil rather than criminal in character.5 Twelve years later, however, the court reversed its position and ruled that it lacked original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus or quo warranto. In 3. ARK. CONST. OF 1836, art. VI, § 2. 4. 1 Ark. 279 (1839). Two years earlier the court had ruled in Taylor v. Governor, I Ark. 21 (1837), that it had the "power" to issue a mandamus to the governor, but the issue of the court's original jurisdiction was not argued in that case. A subsequent case, Hawkins v. Governor, I Ark. 570, 584 (1839), concluded that the court lacked "jurisdiction" to issue a mandamus to the head of a coordinate department of government. 5. See 1 Ark. at 310-11. UALR LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 20 Ex parte Allis6 a building contractor asked the supreme court to issue a mandamus requiring the secretary of state, the state auditor, and the state treasurer to certify the amount of compensation due the contractor for construction performed at the state penitentiary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Extra)ORDINARY MEN
    (Extra)ORDINARY MEN: African-American Lawyers and Civil Rights in Arkansas Before 1950 Judith Kilpatrick* “The remarkable thing is not that black men attempted to regain their stolen civic rights, but that they tried over and over again, using a wide va- riety of techniques.”1 I. INTRODUCTION Arkansas has a tradition, beginning in 1865, of African- American attorneys who were active in civil rights. During the eighty years following the Emancipation Proclamation, at least sixty-nine African-American men were admitted to practice law in the state.2 They were all men of their times, frequently hold- * Associate Professor, University of Arkansas School of Law; J.S.D. 1999, LL.M. 1992, Columbia University, J.D. 1975, B.A. 1972, University of California-Berkeley. The author would like to thank the following: the historians whose work is cited here; em- ployees of The Arkansas History Commission, The Butler Center of the Little Rock Public Library, the Pine Bluff Public Library and the Helena Public Library for patience and help in locating additional resources; Patricia Cline Cohen, Professor of American History at the University of California, Santa Barbara, for reviewing the draft and providing comments; and Jon Porter (UA 1999) and Mickie Tucker (UA 2001) for their excellent research assis- tance. Much appreciation for summer research grants from the University of Arkansas School of Law in 1998 and 1999. Special thanks to Elizabeth Motherwell, of the Universi- ty of Arkansas Press, for starting me in this research direction. No claim is made as to the completeness of this record. Gaps exist and the author would appreciated receiving any information that might help to fill them.
    [Show full text]
  • James Gordon Frierson and Emma Gwynne Davis
    James Gordon Frierson and Emma Gwynne Davis At age thirty-one, on November 12, 1868, James Gordon Frierson (1837–1884), a Civil War veteran, married twenty-one-year-old Emma Gwynne Davis (1847–1899) in Cleburne, Arkansas. James Gordon Frierson was born in Maury County, Tennessee, the fourth of eleven children (four boys and seven girls). With his family and a large contingent of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, he moved in 1841 to the town of College Hill, Mississippi, in Lafayette County, near Oxford. As a youngster, James Gordon Frierson received a religious and classical early education1 at a church-sponsored school called North Mississippi College and at a prep school called the College Hill Male Academy. At age seventeen, he entered the University of Mississippi2 at Oxford as a sophomore. He transferred for his senior year to La Grange College3 in Tennessee, where he graduated first in his class in 1858, at age twenty. James Gordon Frierson was a twenty-three-year-old second-year student at the University of Mississippi Law School 4 when he joined the Confederate Army in April 1861. During the war, he fought with two different regiments in the Western Theater, mostly in Kentucky and Tennessee. His first tour of Confederate service5 with the 15th Mississippi Infantry Regiment ended shortly after the Battle of Fishing Creek (also known as the Battle of Mill Springs) in Kentucky on January 19, 1862. After that battle, he wrote a letter to his mother. In February 1862, he was discharged from the army for “General debility caused by repeated attacks of Typhoid Fever.” James Gordon Frierson had a first cousin, Charles Currin Frierson (1838–1897), who was his close friend, classmate, and Confederate brother-in-arms in the early years of the Civil War.6 James Gordon Frierson re-enlisted in April 1862 with the 30th Mississippi Infantry Regiment and began his second period of Confederate service7 during the Siege of Corinth between April 29–May 30, 1862.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Activities of African-American Members of the Arkansas Legislature, 1868-73
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 5-2011 "The Africans Have Taken Arkansas": Political Activities of African-American Members of the Arkansas Legislature, 1868-73 Christopher Warren Branam University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the African American Studies Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Citation Branam, C. W. (2011). "The Africans Have Taken Arkansas": Political Activities of African-American Members of the Arkansas Legislature, 1868-73. Theses and Dissertations Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/90 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “THE AFRICANS HAVE TAKEN ARKANSAS”: POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEMBERS OF THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE, 1868-73 “THE AFRICANS HAVE TAKEN ARKANSAS”: POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEMBERS OF THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE, 1868-73 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History By Christopher Warren Branam California State University, Fresno Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, 1994 May 2011 University of Arkansas ABSTRACT African-American lawmakers in the Arkansas General Assembly during Radical Reconstruction became politically active at a time when the legislature was addressing the most basic issues of public life, such as creating the infrastructure of public education and transportation in the state. They were actively engaged in the work of the legislature. Between 1868 and 1873, they introduced bills that eventually became laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloadrailroad-Era Resources of Southwest
    Railroad-Era Resources of Southwest Arkansas (Lafayette, Little River, Miller, and Sevier Counties) 1870-1945 By the Staff of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Originally published by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program in 1996. This volume is one of a series developed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) for the identification and registration of the state's cultural resources. For more information, write the AHPP at 1100 North Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, call (501) 324-9880, or send an e-mail to [email protected]. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program is the agency of Arkansas Heritage responsible for the identification, evaluation, registration and preservation of the state's cultural resources. Arkansas Heritage is a division of the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism. Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1100 North Street | Little Rock, AR 72201 | p: 501.324.9880 | f: 501.324.9184 [email protected] | ArkansasPreservation.com Railroad-Era Resources of Southwest Arkansas (Lafayette, Little River, Miller and Sevier Counties) 1870-1945 Cotton Belt Railroad Hospital, Texarkana, Miller County Cover photo courtesy of Arkansas History Commission Contents Early Railroad History .......................................................................................................................3 Early Railroad Development in Arkansas ..........................................................................................3 Railroad Development in Southwest
    [Show full text]
  • Novel Disseisin5 Was Instituted As a Possessory Protection of Freehold Property Rights
    IV–42 THE AGE OF PROPERTY: THE ASSIZES OF HENRY II SEC. 4 75. ?1236. “The fees of those who hold of the lord king in chief within the liberty of St. Edmunds to whom the lord king does not write.... Hugh de Polstead holds two fees and two parts of a fee in Polstead of the honour of Rayleigh [Essex].” The Book of Fees 1:600. (This document is probably connected with what is variously called an ‘aid’ or a ‘scutage’ which was levied on the occasion of the marriage of Isabella, Henry III’s sister, to the Emperor Frederick II in July of 1235. The lord of the honour of Rayleigh was Hubert de Burgh, Henry III’s justiciar, from 1215 until his downfall in 1232. The honour was in an ambiguous status in 1236; from 1237 it was in the king’s hands, as it was from 1163 to 1215. Sanders, English Baronies 139.) 76. 1242 X 1243. Surrey. “Of the honour of William de Windsor. Hugh de Polstead holds a half a knights fee in Compton of the same honour.” Id. 2 (1923) 685. (This is a document connected with the great scutage raised in connection with Henry III’s expedition to Gascony in 1242. The honour of William de Windsor was one-half of the honour of Eton [Bucks]. His father, also William, and his father’s cousin Walter had divided the honour in 1198 after fifteen years in which the inheritance had been disputed. Walter’s portion passed to his sisters Christiana and Gunnor in 1203, the latter of whom was married to ?Hugh I de Hosdeny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Career of Stephen W
    37? N &/J /V z 7 PORTRAIT OF AN AGE: THE POLITICAL CAREER OF STEPHEN W. DORSEY, 1868-1889 DISSERTATION Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Sharon K. Lowry, M.A. Denton, Texas May, 19 80 @ Copyright by Sharon K. Lowry 1980 Lowry, Sharon K., Portrait of an Age: The Political Career of Stephen W. Dorsey, 1868-1889. Doctor of Philosophy (History), May, 1980, 447 pp., 6 tables, 1 map, bibliography, 194 titles. The political career of Stephen Dorsey provides a focus for much of the Gilded Age. Dorsey was involved in many significant events of the period. He was a carpetbagger during Reconstruction and played a major role in the Compromise of 1877. He was a leader of the Stalwart wing of the Republican party, and he managed Garfield's 1880 presidential campaign. The Star Route Frauds was one of the greatest scandals of a scandal-ridden era, and Dorsey was a central figure in these frauds. Dorsey tried to revive his political career in New Mexico after his acquittal in the Star Route Frauds, but his reputation never recovered from the notoriety he received at the hands of the star route prosecutors. Like many of his contemporaries in Gilded Age politics, Dorsey left no personal papers which might have assisted a biographer. Sources for this study included manuscripts in the Library of Congress and the New Mexico State Records Center and Archives in Santa Fe; this study also made use of newspapers, records in the National Archives, congressional investigations of Dorsey printed in the reports and documents of the House and Senate, and the transcripts of the star route trials.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Flower of Southern Manhood: Race And
    THE FLOWER OF SOUTHERN MANHOOD: RACE AND MASCULINITY IN SOUTHERN HIGHER EDUCATION, 1820-1900 By CLAY COOPER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014 1 © 2014 Clay Cooper 2 To my father and in memory of my mother 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Proper acknowledgements for this work would necessitate thanking every teacher and individual who has ever encouraged my intellectual curiosity and devotion to studying history. This dissertation is the product of the generosity of the North Caroliniana Society for awarding me the Archie K. Davis Research Fellowship and the Virginia Historical Society in presenting me with the Andrew W. Mellon Research Fellowship. Frances Pollard, John McClure, and everyone else at the Virginia Historical Society were very kind to me in my stay and helpful with my research. The entire staff of the Wilson Library special collections at the University of North Carolina were sensational. I would like to thank Cheryl Ferguson and Dana Chandler at Tuskegee University. Diane Jacob at the VMI Archives and Seth McCormick-Goodheart, Lisa McCown, and Vaughn Stanley at Washington and Lee Special Collections offered invaluable assistance and made me feel very much at home in Lexington. I offer my thanks as well to the archivists at Hampton University, the University of Virginia, and the Atlanta University Center. I was fortunate my research took me to so many beautiful places and excellent centers of learning. As I said, I would be remiss if I did not go far back in my past to acknowledge intellectual debts of gratitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Crittenden County and the Demise of African American Political Participation Krista Michelle Jones University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2012 "It Was Awful, But It Was Politics": Crittenden County and the Demise of African American Political Participation Krista Michelle Jones University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the African American Studies Commons, American Politics Commons, Other History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Krista Michelle, ""It Was Awful, But It Was Politics": Crittenden County and the Demise of African American Political Participation" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 466. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/466 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ―IT WAS AWFUL, BUT IT WAS POLITICS‖: CRITTENDEN COUNTY AND THE DEMISE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION ―IT WAS AWFUL, BUT IT WAS POLITICS‖: CRITTENDEN COUNTY AND THE DEMISE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History By Krista Michelle Jones University of Arkansas Bachelor of Arts in History, 2005 August 2012 University of Arkansas ABSTRACT Despite the vast scholarship that exists discussing why Democrats sought restrictive suffrage laws, little attention has been given by historians to examine how concern over local government drove disfranchisement measures. This study examines how the authors of disfranchisement laws were influenced by what was happening in Crittenden County where African Americans, because of their numerical majority, wielded enough political power to determine election outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Wnifieb ({Olorabo ({Ommon Jlahl(@Ranb Jjur»: P.O
    Wnifieb ({olorabo ({ommon JLahl(@ranb jJur»: p.o. Box 11724 Denver, Colorado 80211 WRIT OF ~UO WARRANTO 5 SERVED VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE To: United States Supreme Court Judges and all Federal District Judges: FILED VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE IN: US Supreme Court & All United States District Courts 10 "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... 1JJ 15 • Official proceeding 18 USC§1512 • Clerk is to file. 18 USC§2076 • Felony to conceal or remove 18 use §2071 v_~ ,,;=.._.. Bar controlled federal and state court judges, by their presumed authority, contrary to their oath and duty fraudulently claim the Constitution for the United States and its cap-stone Bill of Rights 20 abolished by traitorous bar controlled legislators, acts of conspiracy, treason and war against the United States. We the lleople 1!lecree by ~uo Warranto all said unconstitutional legislation null and void and declare all such subversives enemies of the Peoples of the United States of America and order all United States Marshals, Bailiffs, County Sheriffs and Deputies to arrest all such federal and state 25 judges for conspiracy, treason and breach of the peace when witnessing the violation of Peoples' unalienable rights from the bench, in violation of Article III Section 3 for levying war against the people, adhering to the enemy, giving aid and comfort. 2 18 U.S. Code §2385 WHOEVER ORGANIZES OR HELPS OR ATIEMPTS TO ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH, ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION 30 OF ANY SUCH GOVERNMENT3 BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE; OR BECOMES OR IS A MEMBER OF, OR AFFILIATES WITH, ANY SUCH SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS [BAR], KNOWING THE PURPOSES THEREOF- SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH ..
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota in Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Quo
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp STATE OF :MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT Case No. State Senator Warren Limmer, StateSenator Scott J. Newman, State Senator Sean R. Nienow, State Senator Roger C. Chamberlain, Petitioners, vs. Lori Swanson in her official capacity as Attorney General, Mark Dayton in his official capacity as Governor, Jim Schowalter as Commissioner of Department of Management and Budget, and Kathleen R. Gearin as ChiefJudge of the Ramsey County District Court, Respondents. PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO Erick G. Kaardal, Atty. No.229647 William F. Mohrman, Atty. No.168816 Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. 33 South Sixth Street Suite 4100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 341-1074 Dated: June 20,2011 Counsel for Petitioners Warren Limmer State Senator Scott J. Newman State Senator Sean R. Nienow, State Senator Roger C. Chamberlain 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PURPOSE OF PETTION 5 INTRODUCTION 6 JURISDICTION 8 The State Constitution provides the Supreme ISSUES PRESENTED 8 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 9 STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 Minnesota has had two budgetary impasses that have temporally shutdown government and have gone to court for reprieve for emergency funding without resolution of constitutional issues presented again in 2011 11 In 2001 an impasse between the Executive and Legislative branches of government led to petitioning the court 12 Within five years, in 2005 another Executive­ Legislative
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion of the Court, in Which Christensen, C.J., and Waterman, Mcdonald, and Oxley, JJ., Joined
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 19–1598 Submitted October 15, 2020—Filed February 5, 2021 Amended April 13, 2021 STATE OF IOWA ex rel. GARY DICKEY, Appellant, vs. JASON BESLER, Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. A citizen appeals a district court order denying his application to bring a quo warranto action challenging a judge’s title to office. AFFIRMED. Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Christensen, C.J., and Waterman, McDonald, and Oxley, JJ., joined. Appel, J., filed a dissenting opinion. McDermott, J., took no part. Gary Dickey of Dickey, Campbell, & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey Thompson, Solicitor General, and Emily Willits, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 2 MANSFIELD, Justice. When does a citizen have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging someone’s right to hold public office? When is an appointment to public office “made”? Most importantly, should courts get involved in deciding whether an appointment was timely made if the person who would otherwise get to make that appointment agreed to treat it as timely made? This case presents all these questions. In May 2018, two finalists were sent to the Governor for a district judge position. The Governor had thirty days to appoint one of them; if she failed to do so, the chief justice was required to make the appointment. On the thirtieth day, a Thursday, the Governor communicated to her chief of staff—but not to the nominees or the secretary of state—the identity of the nominee she had selected.
    [Show full text]