Business, Government Legal News from throughout WVJudges Deny Motion to Stay in Redistricting Case

Federal judges have refused four state officials' emergency motion for a stay of a court decision ruling the new boundaries for congressional districts as being unconstitutional, according to a Jan. 10 order.

The order also placed the ball in the state's court regarding deadlines.

The Jan. 10 order struck the original Jan. 17 deadline given in the memorandum opinion and gave the state the responsibility to come up with new deadlines for the upcoming May 8 election.  

Attorneys filed the motion for a stay Jan. 6, which would clarify rules the state would work under while waiting for an appeal to the nation's highest court.

The filing period for candidates hoping to run for Congress in this year's election began Jan. 9 and will end Jan. 28.

"The filing of an appeal by the defendants likely makes it more difficult (or even impossible) for Secretary Tennant, county officials, and potential candidates for Congress to comply with the current deadlines, but that is a choice reserved for the state, which certainly has the ability to modify those deadlines in aid of its litigation strategy," the Jan. 10 order stated.

According to a Jan. 10 statement from Tennant's office, the appeal caused confusion over how the law applies to the election. The Secretary of State's news release also noted that although Tennant informed the court that she would be bound by court findings, she could not "bind" other state officials. 

"When those defendants chose to exercise their right to appeal the decision, the delay caused by the appeal generated confusion over what law applies to this already running election," the news release stated. 

Tennant also mentioned several looming deadlines before the election.

"Even though the panel implied that an election is merely an event which takes place on one day and that the Secretary has nearly four months to prepare, many mandated deadlines exist prior to May 8."

For example, the release mentioned absentee ballots that are required to be mailed overseas by March 23.

"The Secretary joined the stay request in order to obtain clarification as to what laws control this election during the appeal by the other defendants," the news release stated. 

However, Thornton Cooper, a South Charleston lawyer and intervener in the congressional redistricting suit, said he hopes state officials will reconsider the decision to appeal.

"I think it's an embarrassment to West Virginia to get the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals to allow West Virginia to move backward," Cooper said. "I'm extremely embarrassed that they would think about appealing to the Supreme Court, and I hope they change their minds."

Cooper said there are a total of four plans closer to numerical equality than the current plan, which has a population variance of 0.79 percent. Cooper said he hoped the Legislature will adopt one of the plans and continue with elections as planned.

Judges also mentioned the variance issue in the Jan. 10 order, noting state officials must persuade U.S. Supreme Court justices that the enacted variance "remains substantively tolerable in a national environment where variances much closer to true zero are the norm."

"Beyond that substantial hurdle, however, the defendants will have to convince the court that the Legislature, which made no findings attempting to justify the variance, was entitled to neglect its procedural responsibility in the face of clear court precedent obliging it to demonstrate that a particular objective required the specific deviations in its plan, rather than simply relying on general assertions," the order stated.  

Stephen Skinner, representing the Jefferson County Commission, also said he is pleased with the order.

"It shifts even more of the burden back to the state to come up with a plan," he said. "It puts a lot of pressure on everybody to work it out as quickly as possible… Time is ticking."