In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 4th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s lacked standing in their challenge to Virginia’s Incumbent Protection Act. The plaintiffs include the 24th Senate District Republican Committee, and former 24th Senate District candidate Dan Moxley.
The ruling relates specifically to whether the Republican Party of Virginia’s Plan of Organization defers to the Incumbent Protection Act’s empowerment of incumbent General Assembly members to pick their own method of renomination. The two judges in the majority, Judge Diaz and Judge Gregory, cited language in the Plan wherein a legislative district committee is given authority to determine a nomination method, but only where allowed by Virginia law they interpreted this to mean that the Republican Party of Virginia willingly ceded its authority to the state (and thus to the individual legislator) on this question.
The dissenting opinion came from Chief Judge William Traxler, who agreed with the Plaintiffs, and with the Republican Party of Virginia in its amicus curiae brief. Traxler wrote:
The majority affirms the dismissal of this case for lack of standing because it believes the contractual term “Virginia Law” includes Virginia statutes that are void for unconstitutionality. Because I believe that the phrase plainly does not encompass Virginia statutes that are invalid, and because the Supreme Court has construed nearly identical language to mean valid state law, I respectfully dissent.
Undergirding Judge Traxler’s dissenting opinion is the plainly obvious fact that the Incumbent Protection Act is unconstitutional in that it strips the Party of its right to free association, and does not give equal protection of the laws to all candidates seeking a particular office. The majority opinion does not examine that question.
Counsel for the plaintiffs have yet to announce whether they intend to seek an en banc appeal of this ruling before the whole of the 4th Circuit. If they do not, the issues appears to be dead, for now.
A copy of the opinion and dissenting opinion is embedded below.
7 comments
And there you go. A local piece of the RPV has no standing to challenge the law as written. Why? Because the Party Plan is a top down document that limits the local from acting independently. A contract. That the locals buy into. Part of that ‘free’ association stuff everyone talks about. Take it or leave it. The RPV didn’t join in the challenge to the law but provided a meaningless written letter of support. Instead of having a lawsuit, maybe the local should have directly challenged the plan and party leadership. Or maybe a re-write of the party plan is in order. Lots of luck with that.
Ding-ding, we have a winner!^^ WHY hasn’t the offending clause, which VALIDATES the Incumbency Protection Act, been removed from the Party Plan??
I was at the last SCC meeting when an amendment to do exactly that was tabled indefinitely. Want to know why?? Because some of the GA elected officials who are also on the SCC were not present at the meeting and it was thought they should have the right to weigh in before the amendment was voted on.
So SCC kicked the can down the road…
WE, as a party, really do kowtow to our elected officials, huh. Grassroots rule is really a pretty facade, merely given lip-service to, in our current RPV leadership. And that’s too bad.
Continued corruption in the Party of Lincoln. An appendage of the State. Big Government, Higher Taxes & Crony Capitalism
One for “The Gipper”!
I’m no lawyer but would this also lead the general legal thought that the Parties act as functionaries of the state and therefore Article I would violate the Equal protection clause and violate the Voting rights act in that it arbitrarily keeps people from voting in party functions? Mind you if they voted in registration by party then that would be fine but at the end of the day that’s what needs to be done.
I am no lawyer but this does not seem to have anything to do with party affiliation. This is strictly based on how the “Party” may choose it’s method of nomination not the legislator. That is a very good thing!
Oh, the irony. I thought these folks were against the IP Act, yet when Brat has a cow to make sure there is no primary…has anyone even mentioned it?