« Ind. Decisions - Judge allows takeover of state center to proceed | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit upholds prohibition against pigeons coming home to Chicago to roost »

Friday, December 23, 2005

Law - More on Election law standoff in Kentucky: KY Supreme Court rules

Updating yesterday's ILB entry, which included a link to the Kentucky Supreme Court's 100-page opinion, today's Louisville Courier Journal has a lengthy and comprehensive report by Joseph Gerth, headlined "Neither one wins, high court rules: No special election called; federal appeal possible." Some quotes from the portion of the story on the ruling itself:

The Supreme Court ruling avoided thorny constitutional issues that some worried might jeopardize the General Assembly's independence.

In the end, the court limited its opinion to two questions:

Was the Jefferson Circuit Court ruling valid that determined Stephenson did not meet the constitutional residency requirement?

If so, should the court order the Senate to seat Woodward?

Writing for the 5-2 majority, Justice Martin Johnstone ruled that the lower court had proper jurisdiction when it decided Stephenson wasn't qualified. When Stephenson didn't appeal, it became the law of the case, the court ruled.

But the Supreme Court refused to seat Woodward, saying that votes cast for unqualified candidates aren't void.

Instead, it ruled that "the effect of the disqualification of a candidate subsequent to the election is that no election has occurred."

But the 22-page majority ruling also carried sharply dissenting opinions from Justices Will T. Scott and John Roach.

Roach said the election controversy didn't belong in the courts because the "Kentucky Constitution grants to the Senate the exclusive power to judge the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."

And Scott accused the Supreme Court of invading the constitutional power of the legislature, calling the majority opinion "unconstitutional."

That brought a sharp rebuke from Johnstone in his majority opinion.

"While Justice Roach might find it 'mind-boggling' and 'outrageous' that we have decided the issue herein present, it would be even more outrageous for this court to abandon its constitutional duty to 'say what the law is,' " he wrote.

In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Joseph Lambert made a plea to legislators who disagree with the ruling not to take it out on the courts.

"Responsible officials will reject any notion of defiance or retaliation against the judiciary, for such action would be an attack upon the constitution itself," he wrote.

Note: The Louisville Courier Journal seems to have a copy of the Court's opinion that loads a lot faster than the one on the Kentucky Court site.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 23, 2005 08:36 AM
Posted to General Law Related