Just wanted to say hello to everybody, and to thank Feddie both for re-starting this excellent site and for again inviting me to be a regular participant.
Substantively, for now I do not have time for a full analysis of this case, but I will say I concur entirely with the Thernstroms and the states of Florida, South Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota and Virginia, in support of Gov. Riley of Alabama, and against the utterly wrongheaded position of the increasingly misguided Justice Department. I was there in Mobile when this case started, and the position of the federal appeals court and the Justice Department is so mistaken as to be sickening. The issue is this: If a state law calls for the governor to fill mid-term vacancies in lower offices via appointment, and another (new) state law (approved by the Justice Department) supercedes it, but the NEW state law is found unconstitutional, then does the governor AGAIN need Justice Department pre-clearance to start filling vacancies by appointment, as was the status quo ante? Of course not. If a law is found unconstitutional, the status quo ante of course automatically applies, without needing Justice to weigh in again in advance. To think otherwise is just flat-out idiotic, not to mention a violation of federalism and fairness.
But Justice stepped in to overturn Riley’s appointment of a black Republican to a vacant seat in a black majority district, reasoning that to have a white Republican governor make the appointment rather than to leave it to a new vote of a black-majority district would somehow be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court should rule in Riley’s favor.