The Chastang mess (Riley appointed a county commissioner instead of allowing a special election, long legal battle, eventual triumph of lawsuit based on violation of Voting Rights Act) is going to the Supreme Court. Not the Alabama Supreme Court—it’s already been there. The US one.
Y’all, this is not about Mobile County, or even Alabama. This is about the Voting Rights Act. I just wonder how long this particular plan of legal campaign has been mapped out . Maybe this explains Riley’s otherwise inexplicable decision to pursue a similar, and presumably similarly doomed, appointment in Jefferson County. And maybe it explains the Press-Register’s curious silence on the recent Mobile County election—the one where Merceria Ludgood defeated Mr. Chastang by a margin too generous to be called a landslide. She’s in now, like Flynn as the expression goes, and there doesn’t seem to be any question of Chastang somehow retaining the seat.
No, this is all about “state’s rights.”
King said he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the federal judges’ order was in essence telling the state to disobey its own Supreme Court.
“You have a federal Justice Department and federal judges saying to the state of Alabama that they are determining that a statute the Alabama Supreme Court said was unconstitutional has to be followed simply because of a decision they made,” he said. “It’s an insult to states’ rights, and it is a dangerous precedent.”
The attorney who filed the Voting Rights Act-based lawsuit against Riley in the first place is “confident” that the Supremes will back up the lower court’s ruling. Gardner said he believes the justices agreed to hear the case only because they want to make sure there is a clear precedent set.
Hmmm. Precedent. There’s that word again. “And that precedent will be in our favor,” [Gardner] said.