Top Courts Don't Need Democrat, Republican Balance
Attorney James Adams wanted to become a judge, so he sued.
He sued because the Delaware constitution required either Democrat or Republican judges, and he belonged to neither party. Lawmakers thought the law would be a good way to keep political balance on the bench.
Wrong, said the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. Governor of Delaware. People have freedom of association -- and not just Democrats and Republicans.
Political Balance
Adams calls himself an independent, like Sen. Bernie Sanders. But that disqualified him from a judgeship under the state constitution.
The law provides that, when there is an even number of judges on a court, no more than half of the judges belong to a single political party. In odd-numbered courts, no more than a bare majority may belong to one party.
The Third Circuit said it appreciated the idea -- to ensure against politically motivated decisions. But the law itself was politically biased.
"Paradoxically, by elevating one's political affiliation to a condition precedent to eligibility for appointment to the bench by the governor, Delaware has institutionalized the role of political affiliation rather than negated it," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for the unanimous panel.
Freedom of Association
The appeals court said the political requirement violated the First Amendment and the freedom of association. They affirmed a trial court ruling that said as much.
However, they said it did not apply to family or common plea courts that were not subject to the political requirement.
As for Adams, he's still not a judge -- yet. The state has time to appeal.
Related Resources:
- Company's Call to Police for Union Activity Was Legal, Court Rules (FindLaw's U.S. Third Circuit Blog)
- NJ Gun Control Appeal: Large Capacity Magazine Ban Affirmed (FindLaw's U.S. Third Circuit Blog)
- United States Third Circuit Cases (FindLaw's Cases & Codes)