As reported here, the law school of Lincoln Memorial University has filed an antitrust lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee against the American Bar Association for its denial of provisional accreditation to the new LMU law school in Knoxville.
The judge assigned to the case is Thomas Varlan. In 2003, an ABA committee rated Judge Varlan "qualified" to be a federal judge by a split decision, with a minority of those voting finding him to be "not qualified," as shown here.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
More on the Virginia Republican primary ballot
Here is a link to the memorandum filed on behalf of the Rick Perry campaign in support of its motion for a temporary injunction against the application of the requirements of Va. Code 24.2-545 that would keep Perry off the primary ballot in Virginia.
Rick Hasen had this preliminary take on the litigation, the gist of which is that it was filed too late.
Discussion of the desirability or feasibility of changing the Virginia statutes to let other candidates on the ballot or to be "write-in" candidates through legislation in the upcoming session of the General Assembly can be read here in the Christian Science Monitor, here in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, this commentary from the Richmond paper, this article says both Patrick McSweeney and Paul Goldman are on board to get the laws changed, and this commentary by Goldman (on Fox!) states his views.
On the political ramifications, this article says it will cost Gingrich votes in other states, this opinion says the disorganized do not deserve to win, and this article from Utah has Mitt Romney's take, which is that the disorganization of the Gingrich campaign makes it look like Lucy and Ethel trying to wrap chocolates on an assembly line in this famous episode.
Rick Hasen had this preliminary take on the litigation, the gist of which is that it was filed too late.
Discussion of the desirability or feasibility of changing the Virginia statutes to let other candidates on the ballot or to be "write-in" candidates through legislation in the upcoming session of the General Assembly can be read here in the Christian Science Monitor, here in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, this commentary from the Richmond paper, this article says both Patrick McSweeney and Paul Goldman are on board to get the laws changed, and this commentary by Goldman (on Fox!) states his views.
On the political ramifications, this article says it will cost Gingrich votes in other states, this opinion says the disorganized do not deserve to win, and this article from Utah has Mitt Romney's take, which is that the disorganization of the Gingrich campaign makes it look like Lucy and Ethel trying to wrap chocolates on an assembly line in this famous episode.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
On the Rick Perry lawsuit
I read with interest the Complaint filed by my friend Hugh Fain on behalf of the Rick Perry campaign, seeking relief from the campaign's failure to meet the statutory requirements contained in Va. Code 24.2-545 to get on the ballot for the Republican Presidential primary in Virginia.
It raises two claims, the first is that the residency requirement for petition "circulators" is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment, based on Buckley v. American Constitional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The second is that the requirement of signatures from 10,000 qualified voters with at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth is itself unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief against the enforcement of these two requirements.
Interestingly, the lawsuit does not address any issue of "petition verification" by the Republican Party of the sufficiency of the signatures, most likely because the Complaint acknowledges that the Perry campaign presented only 6,000 signatures.
Regarding the alleged residency requirement for petition "circulators," or witnesses, this requirement is not in section 24.2-545, as pointed out here, and the Complaint says only that it appears on the petition form required for use by the State Board of Elections. Section 24.2-521 contains the residency requirement for petition witnesses for some offices, but does not reference presidential campaigns. This ambiguity creates a state law issue that would seem to be preliminary to the constitutional issue - does the residency requirement even apply to candidates seeking to run in a presidential primary?
The residency requirement for petition witnesses contained in section 24.2-506 to get on the ballot for general elections other than as a party nominee has been upheld in a series of lawsuits mostly brought by Libertarian candidates, but its current status is somewhat in doubt following the Fourth Circuit's decision in Lux v. Judd. In Lux, the Court observed that while the residency requirement was upheld by the Court in Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Davis, 766 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1985), the holding in Davis may have been overruled by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Buckley and Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988). The Lux court remanded the case to Judge Hudson, to determine whether the statutory requirement could be valid under some rationale other than the one briefly stated by the Court in Davis - to ensure that the candidate had a minimum level of local support. Other rationales that would support a residency requirement are expressed in the dicta from the Buckley case, which suggests that a state might require the witnesses to the signing of petitions to be Virginia residents so that they could be subpoenaed if need be, as non-residents could not.
It raises two claims, the first is that the residency requirement for petition "circulators" is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment, based on Buckley v. American Constitional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The second is that the requirement of signatures from 10,000 qualified voters with at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth is itself unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief against the enforcement of these two requirements.
Interestingly, the lawsuit does not address any issue of "petition verification" by the Republican Party of the sufficiency of the signatures, most likely because the Complaint acknowledges that the Perry campaign presented only 6,000 signatures.
Regarding the alleged residency requirement for petition "circulators," or witnesses, this requirement is not in section 24.2-545, as pointed out here, and the Complaint says only that it appears on the petition form required for use by the State Board of Elections. Section 24.2-521 contains the residency requirement for petition witnesses for some offices, but does not reference presidential campaigns. This ambiguity creates a state law issue that would seem to be preliminary to the constitutional issue - does the residency requirement even apply to candidates seeking to run in a presidential primary?
The residency requirement for petition witnesses contained in section 24.2-506 to get on the ballot for general elections other than as a party nominee has been upheld in a series of lawsuits mostly brought by Libertarian candidates, but its current status is somewhat in doubt following the Fourth Circuit's decision in Lux v. Judd. In Lux, the Court observed that while the residency requirement was upheld by the Court in Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Davis, 766 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1985), the holding in Davis may have been overruled by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Buckley and Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988). The Lux court remanded the case to Judge Hudson, to determine whether the statutory requirement could be valid under some rationale other than the one briefly stated by the Court in Davis - to ensure that the candidate had a minimum level of local support. Other rationales that would support a residency requirement are expressed in the dicta from the Buckley case, which suggests that a state might require the witnesses to the signing of petitions to be Virginia residents so that they could be subpoenaed if need be, as non-residents could not.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The year in review, according to lawyer-bloggers
This password-protected article by Deborah Elkins in VLW includes quotes from me, appellate guru Steve Emmert from Virginia Beach, appellate guru Jay O'Keefe from Gentry Locke in Roanoke, John Tarley in Williamsburg, Jim Kinsel from Northern Virginia, construction lawyer Chris Hill, Richmond litigator Dabney Carr, Crimlaw's Ken Lammers from Wise County, Josh Silverman, Qui Tam blogger Zachary Kitts, and local government law expert Andrew McRoberts.
Friday, December 02, 2011
On the perils of appellate practice
In the past few days, three opinions have cracked down on abusive tactics in appellate litigation:
In Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Posner compared counsel to an ostrich for failure to address recent precedent - with funny pictures.
In Kim v. Westmoore Partners, a California appeals court fined counsel $10,000, for doing things like asking for more time to write a brief and then cribbing almost entirely from another brief the same lawyer had filed in an earlier case.
Today, the Fourth Circuit in Matter of Liotti gave a public reprimand to a lawyer for inaccuracies in his characterization of the record and the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)