From the Brennan Center:
| On December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Delaware’s partisan balance requirements for its judiciary, holding the lawyer who brought the challenge lacked standing. |
| The case, Carney v. Adams, involved a challenge to provisions of Delaware’s constitution requiring that no more than a “bare majority” of judges on certain courts belong to the same political party, and for the state’s highest courts, that all judges not in the majority be a member of the other “major party.” The Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down both requirements last year, finding that the “major party” requirement violated the First Amendment. |
| Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer said the Court did not consider the constitutionality of Delaware’s partisan balance requirements because the lawyer who brought the challenge was not “able and ready” to apply for the judgeships he claimed he was excluded from. Justice Sotomayor, however, filed a concurrence suggesting the “major party” requirement may be unconstitutional, noting it “arguably impose[s] a greater burden on First Amendment associational rights.” |
blog.amjudges.org 