Supreme Weekly: Playing politics

---

This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia’s current neutrality policies.

---

October 27, 2011

by: Katy Farrell

This week the state Supreme Courts have collectively embraced their roles as the arbitrators of disputes. From another redistricting battle to a disputed primary to the recall of a state representative, the Supreme Courts are playing politics.

Michigan

On Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the recall referendum of State Representative Paul Scott will proceed in this year's general election. This decision reverses the injunction issued by Judge Clinton Canady. The court got involved at the behest of Governor Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette.

Scott will face a recall election because of his work on the House Education Committee. According to the Recall Paul Scott Facebook page, he "has been a massive opponent of teachers and fails to recognize public sector workers as a part of the working class." To learn more about the process of the recall election, read: Paul Scott recall on Ballotpedia.

The high court refused to consider moving the recall election to February 28, 2012, which is reserved as a Republican primary date next year.

Arizona

The Arizona Supreme Court has accepted a case which challenges a 2009 law regarding local elections. Tucson is the only city in the state that elects its mayor and council members through partisan elections. In 2009, Representative Jonathan Paton wrote a law that prohibited cities from conducting partisan elections and ended the method of holding ward elections for citywide races.

The city sued and lost in the trial court. The Court of Appeals overturned the earlier ruling this year, stating that the Arizona State Legislature does not have authority over issues of local concern. Now the court of last resort will allow attorneys to argue the case, although the date has not been set.

West Virginia

Meanwhile, West Virginia is getting involved in the business of redistricting. This week marked the second lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia over the issue. This petition was filed by Mason and Putnam counties, alleging that the new plan drawn by the West Virginia House of Delegates violates the principle of equal representation. The suit was filed by these two counties because their populations are large enough to justify having three representatives and one representative, respectively.

Because the first lawsuit filed argues a similar point, most expect the challenges to be combined into one lawsuit. Before then, the high court has asked the Secretary of State to respond to the petitions by November 4.

To learn more about West Virginia's new district plan, read: Redistricting in West Virginia.

South Carolina

In South Carolina, four counties are suing the state Republican Party. Beaufort, Chester, Greenville and Spartanburg counties say their taxes should not fund the earlier presidential primary scheduled for January 21. They argue that the state does not have enough money to cover costs for the contest. The Republican Party contends that that primary was authorized by the South Carolina State Legislature. Also, the party says that the Supreme Court does not even have jurisdiction on the issue, since it involves spending.

Clearly, in taking the case, the court disagrees with the last point. Regardless, it is an issue that needs to be resolved post haste. In order to meet the deadlines for the January primary, candidates must be locked in by November 1. The first ballots will get mailed overseas on December 7.

Colorado

This afternoon, Governor John Hickenlooper announced the appointment of Brian Boatright to the Colorado Supreme Court. He replaces Alex Martinez, who will step down on Monday to serve as Denver's Safety Manager. Boatright has been a district court judge for the First Judicial District since 1999.

See also

• Supreme Weekly: Appointments and the politics of rulings
• Judgepedia's Supreme Weekly: The States