Supreme Weekly: Vacancies and cases

---

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

---

June 2, 2011

by: Katy Farrell

This week signified the advance of one long waiting nominee in New Jersey, while two vacancies in Virginia keep senior judges working on the high court. Also, a Nevada ruling sends lawmakers in a tailspin while observers wait for a pivotal case in New York.

New Jersey:

After months of politics, Anne Patterson was approved as a nominee for the New Jersey Supreme Court by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only one member of the committee voted against her nomination. Raymond Lesniak believed that her independence on the court could never be assured considering the fighting over her nomination. The next step in the confirmation process is the approval of the full Senate, which is likely following a compromise agreed upon by Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Governor Chris Christie.

There was a lot of support for Patterson's nomination. She has regularly been awarded for her legal contributions, including being featured as one of the "Best Lawyers in America" and in 2007, Professional Lawyer of the Year. Just last week she became a fellow at the American Bar Foundation.

Also vocal about her confirmation were opponents, who point out that she frequently represented large corporations to the detriment of consumers. Through her career, she has fought for the makers of lead paint, guns and tobacco.

Regardless of the criticisms, Patterson seems likely to become a justice on the court. If the nomination is confirmed by the Senate, she will join this September, when current justice Roberto Rivera-Soto steps down. At that time, Patterson would be the fourth female justice to represent New Jersey, comprising for the first time in the history of the court the only female majority.

Virginia:

In other vacancy news, the justices of the Virginia Supreme Court are still down two permanent members, as they have been since February. The state is one of two in the nation in which the legislature elects judges. The legislature, now back in a special redistricting session, was expected to nominate and confirm judges when they first returned in April. A partisan gridlock seems to have stalled the process, however. The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates and the Democratic-controlled Virginia Senate have not formerly nominated justices for the Supreme Court, nor for the vacancies on the Virginia Court of Appeals and Circuit Court. These four seats could provide a simple compromise for the divided houses, but has not yet.

Potential nominees have been mentioned; Cleo Powell and Elizabeth McClanahan, both appellate judges, are suggested for the Supreme Court. If the legislature fails to elect judges to fill vacancies in the state before the end of the special session, Governor Bob McDonnell would have the responsibility. If that occurs, the legislature then must elect the appointed judges in the next regular session.

Nevada:

The Nevada Supreme Court this week ruled unconstitutional an aspect of the budget submitted by the Nevada State Legislature and Brian Sandoval. The politicians intended to fill a $805 million hole in the budget by taking funds from a number of suspect areas, such as county property taxes, school bond construction debt reserves and most notably, $62 million from the Clark County Clean Water Coalition. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the legislature does not have the authority to appropriate those funds, stating, 'The Nevada Constitution “prohibits, among other things, local and special laws for the ‘assessment and collection of taxes for state purposes." The decision has lawmakers worried about the effect the ruling has on the government's ability to close the budget gap for the next fiscal year.

New York:

A divorce case has made its way up to the State of New York Court of Appeals, in an unusual situation involving two divorcees who are lawyers and the Ponzi scheme created by Bernie Madoff. When their marriage ended in 2006, Steven Simkin and Laura Blank decided to split their assets equally. While Simkin planned to continue investing with Madoff, Blank opted for a cash payout of their mutual assets. At the time, this arrangement suited both parties. After the fraud perpetrated by Madoff was revealed, Simkin wished to revisit the divorce settlement, based on the legal notion of a "mutual mistake." He claimed that the contracts may be canceled if both parties are mistaken about an essential term. His ex-wife does not think that term applies to the situation. Her lawyer contends that the only mistake was regarding the future value of the account, which has nothing to do with Blank.

While this may seem like a matter for a family court to decide, the ability of this case to set precedent is very real. Already, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division produced a sharply divided 3-2 ruling in January, which was after Saralee Evans, of the New York County Supreme Court, dismissed the case. A ruling in favor of Simkin could potentially open the floodgates for residents eager to reconfigure the terms of their divorces, or nullify contracts in general.

See also

• Judgepedia's Supreme Weekly: The States