Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires From The Supreme Court

In what turned out to be one of the most important days in American history, Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Bench after more than thirty years of service. The 1987 appointee of President Ronald Reagan hand delivered President Donald Trump a resignation letter that stated: 

My dear Mr. President,   

This letter is a respectful and formal notification of my decision, effective July 31 of this year, to end my regular active status as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, while continuing to serve in a senior status, as provided in 28 U.S.C 371 (b). 

For a member of the legal profession it is the highest of honors to serve on this Court. Please permit me by this letter to express my profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret, and defend the Constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises. 

Respectfully and sincerely,  

Anthony Kennedy

The RNLA immediately issued the following press release:

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) honors Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement from the Supreme Court today. In his over 30 years on the Court, he has written some of the most seminal opinions in modern jurisprudence, and he will be remembered as one of the most important Supreme Court justices in American history. 

Justice Kennedy’s retirement leaves an important vacancy on the Supreme Court, and President Donald Trump will now have the opportunity to nominate a new Supreme Court justice from his superb list of potential Supreme Court nominees who respect the text of the Constitution and the role of the Court. While Senate Democrats have obstructed and delayed President Trump’s judicial nominees whenever possible, we trust that President Trump’s nominee will be vetted and confirmed due to the strong leadership of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. 

RNLA President Elliot Berke stated: “Since he was appointed by President Reagan in his second term, Justice Kennedy has been an important voice on the Court. We wish him nothing but the best in retirement. President Trump has mentioned many excellent candidates to replace Justice Kennedy, and we urge the Senate to not play politics but consider his nominee in as expedient a manner as possible.” 

RNLA Chair John Ryder agreed: “Justice Kennedy has been a champion of First Amendment rights from political speech to the free exercise of religion. His voice and views have made a great contribution to our understanding of the Constitution."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised Justice Kennedy, particularly for his work in defending the First Amendment:

I want to express gratitude for the extraordinary service that Justice Kennedy has offered our nation. We owe him a debt of thanks for his ardent defense of the First Amendment right to political speech. #SCOTUS

— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) June 27, 2018

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley said this of Justice Kennedy's tenure:

I thank Justice Kennedy for his decades of service to the law, to our republic + to the American ppl Our country owes him a debt of gratitude

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) June 27, 2018

The RNLA has a panel of legal experts available to discuss the retirement and the process for replacing Justice Kennedy. 

The RNLA will update this blog post as additional news comes out.

Last updated: June 27, 2018 at 5:00pm.

RNLA Honors Founding Chair Bob Horn

The RNLA recently announced two initiatives to honor its Founding Chair Bob Horn: re-naming the Chairman's Award in his honor to the Robert J. Horn Chairman's Award and establishing the Bob Horn Fund for Law Students to encourage law student participation in the RNLA:

The Robert J. Horn Chairman’s Award is presented by the RNLA Chair annually at the National Election Law Seminar and recognizes individuals for extraordinary dedication to the RNLA. It is given to individuals whose contributions have significantly furthered the RNLA mission – advancing professionalism, open, fair and honest elections, career opportunity, and Republican ideals – and made a noteworthy and positive impact for the Republican Party and the United States of America. . . . 

The Bob Horn Fund for Law Students was established through a generous donation from political.law, a leading political law firm founded by longtime friend and Life Member of the RNLA, Dan Backer. It will provide financial assistance to law students who wish to attend the RNLA’s annual National Policy Conference and National Election Law Seminar and assist in the establishment of law student chapters in key states throughout the country.  

Bob Horn has had a long and distinguished legal career and service to the Republican Party, and his vision for an organization of Republican lawyers led to the establishment of the RNLA over 30 years ago.  Current and former RNLA chairs praised him:

Current RNLA Chair John Ryder said of Mr. Horn: “RNLA wouldn’t exist without Bob Horn. He provided the inspiration, guidance and leadership to get us started and keep us going. He is the very model of a gentlemen and a lawyer.” 

Immediate past RNLA Chair and first female RNLA Chair Kimberly Reed noted: “Bob Horn is to be applauded for his vision in founding the RNLA, which now is a remarkable organization of 6,000 lawyers across the United States. As Ronald Reagan said: ‘The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.’ Because of Bob’s leadership, RNLA lawyers have come together as a force to advance professionalism, open, fair, and honest elections, career opportunity, and Republican ideals.” 

Past RNLA Chair Richard Wiley agreed: “Renaming the Chairman’s Award in Bob Horn’s name is very appropriate. He really is the father of RNLA and has contributed so much of his time, energy and considerable talents over many years to our Association. He very much deserves this honor.”

Thank you to Bob Horn for his many years of service to the Republican Party and this country and his leadership of the RNLA. 

Commissioner Lee Goodman Defended 1st Amendment and Rule of Law at FEC

Republican Federal Election Commission Commissioner Lee Goodman announced today that he will resign from the FEC on February 16 to join the political law practice at Wiley Rein.  In his four years of service at the FEC, Commissioner Goodman has been a stalwart defender of the First Amendment, due process, and the rule of law, often speaking out strongly against the efforts of his Democratic colleagues to regulate political speech on the Internet and change the rules governing political activity after the fact and without following proper regulatory procedures.

Commissioner Goodman described some of the achievements of the FEC during his tenure in his resignation letter to President Trump:

We issued several advisory opinions recognizing the use of new technologies to galvanize political participation . . . .  Meanwhile, we restrained unlawful efforts to regulate, and in some cases censor, American citizens’ political opinions on YouTube and Twitter, as well as the freedom of press outlets like Fox News and WCVB-TV of Boston to make editorial decisions concerning their political coverage. . . .  

Most importantly, I have faithfully discharged my responsibility to balance the agency's regulatory objectives with the First Amendment rights it regulates.  Since the agency’s inception, the Federal Election Commission’s unique mandate to respect the core constitutional rights of citizens acting, speaking and associating for democratic purposes has provoked criticism from those who disagree with the balance drawn.  Some would even prefer the Commission ignore the First Amendment altogether.  But protecting First Amendment rights is an inherent part of the Commission’s mission. Thus, I have endeavored throughout my service to preserve the Constitutional right of American citizens to speak, hear, and think freely about their democracy. It has been my duty and privilege to defend this fundamental human freedom.

Commissioner Goodman's steadfast efforts to protect Americans' rights of free speech and due process have been recognized by the election law community.  RNLA leaders and members were quick to praise him when his resignation was announced:

RNLA President Elliot Berke: "Lee's tenure on the FEC was marked by grace, dignity, and professionalism. He is a good man and a good friend and I wish him nothing but the best as he returns to the private sector." 

RNLA Chair John Ryder: "Lee Goodman is a fine lawyer.  The FEC and the country were fortunate to have his service over the past several years.  His strong defense of the First Amendment rights of all Americans will be missed on the commission." 

RNLA Vice President for Election Education David Warrington: "As an FEC Commissioner and former Chairman of the agency, Lee was a champion for the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to participate in the political process.  He defended those rights at a critical time when they were under assault by those inside and outside the government that sought to restrict the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press.  I am sure he will continue fighting for those same principles as he returns to the private practice of law." 

RNLA Member (and Mr. Goodman's future Wiley Rein colleague) Eric Wang: "Lee was a great champion for protecting political speech on the Internet from excessive regulation by the FEC, and for keeping the agency from interfering with the news media.  Lee also fought hard to ease the regulatory burden on the beleaguered national and state party committees.  I look forward to working with Lee as he presses on with these battles on behalf of clients."

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen: "All Americans are indebted to Lee Goodman for his work to preserve First Amendment rights and his efforts to prevent the FEC Democrats from politicizing the FEC to achieve their liberal policy goals.  Lee is passionate about the Constitution, the rule of law, and free speech, and he will represent his new clients at Wiley Rein well.

For some examples of the many ways in which Commissioner Goodman has defended the First Amendment and the rule of law at the FEC, read our past blog posts on him here.  Thank you, Commissioner Goodman, for your faithful service to our country!

RNLA Elects New Officers and Board of Governors Members

Today, the RNLA recognized the new officers and members of the Board of Governors elected at its recent annual board meeting:

RNLA President Elliot Berke stated: “I welcome our new and returning board members, as well as our new and returning officers to what I expect to be an historic year for the RNLA. It’s an honor to serve as your President during this important time in our history.” 

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen agreed: “I am honored to work for and with these distinguished Republican attorneys. I am especially pleased that, after having our first female chair last year in Kimberly Reed, there are now four women officers leading the RNLA. We look forward to a strong year.” 

Five new officers were elected for 2018. John Ryder of Memphis, Tennessee, was elected Chair. . . . Joanne W. Young of Washington, DC, was elected Co-Chair. . . . Harmeet K. Dhillon of San Francisco, California, was elected Vice President for Communications. . . . Thomas Wheeler of Indianapolis, Indiana was elected Vice President for Programming. . . . Audrey Perry Martin of Sacramento, California was elected Vice President for Membership. . . .   

Three new members of the Board of Governors were elected for 2018, joining the 43 incumbent members of the Board of Governors. 

Marc Ellinger of Jefferson City, Missouri, . . . Linda A. Kerns of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, . . . [and] Chris Marston of Alexandria, Virginia . . . .

For more information about the new officers and members of the Board of Governors, please read the full press release here.  The RNLA looks forward to an excellent year under these new leaders and the existing leadership they joined.

RNC Consent Decree Ends After 35 Years

After 35 years, the consent decree that prohibited the Republican National Committee (RNC) from engaging in ballot security activities was terminated by a federal judge.  RNLA Chair John Ryder, former General Counsel to the RNC, stated:

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ended the consent decree that had banned the Republican National Committee from engaging in activities to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest since 1982.  Despite years and much money spent searching for evidence of Republican voter suppression, the Democratic National Committee could not present evidence to the court sufficient for the consent decree to remain in effect.  We applaud the fact that the RNC may now, on the same, lawful, non-discriminatory basis as other political organizations, ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote and that the votes of ineligible voters are not counted.

In November, the judge noted that the DNC had not presented any evidence of voter suppression, let alone any by the RNC:

“As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” [Judge John Michael] Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

The judge had kept the consent decree in force after a December 1 sunset date to give the DNC an additional opportunity to present evidence of voter suppression or violation of the decree's provisions by the RNC.  It failed to do so:

In order to extend the decree, the DNC needed to show that the RNC violated the terms of pact. . . . However, Vazquez, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that despite the various claims, the Democrats had not shown any violation "by a preponderance of the evidence." . . . 

"We are gratified that the judge recognized our full compliance with the consent decree and rejected the DNC’s baseless claims," said RNC communications director Ryan Mahoney. 

"Today’s ruling will allow the RNC to work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program." 

While the consent decree has been in effect, other Republican organizations, such as the RNLA, NRCC, NRSC, Republican state parties, and other groups, have worked to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest.  As Mr. Ryder noted, we look forward to a new era where the RNC can, if it so chooses, be a part of this effort to protect the right to vote of every eligible voter.  

Part 1: Top Blog Posts of 2017 - Gorsuch and Fake Election Law News

Today and next Friday, the RNLA will highlight the top blog posts of the Republican Lawyer Blog for 2017.  This is part 1: Top RepLawyer Posts for 2017, numbers 10-6.  Today’s post will focus on Justice Neil Gorsuch and election law.  No reasonable lawyers’ group can look back on 2017 and not celebrate the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch.  On elections, it is unfortunate that Democrats continue to use the race card and fight against those trying to make elections more open, fair, and honest for all.  

10.  April 10: "Congratulations to Justice Gorsuch"  Excerpt:  
RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder agreed: “Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Scalia. I am delighted that President Trump has delivered on his promise to the American people to nominate someone who fits the mold of Justice Scalia. I am equally pleased that the Senate saw fit to honor the will of the people by confirming Judge Gorsuch."

9.  January 13: "EAC Commissioner Questions Extension of DHS' Power to Elections"  Excerpt:  
Election Assistance Commissioner Christy McCormick stated: “This action politicizes elections. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers gave the authority of conducting elections to the States. There is a reason that when Congress set up the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), they made it a bipartisan, independent agency and gave it no regulatory authority.” 

8.  March 27: "ICYMI, Study Showing Voter ID Suppressed Minority Turnout Was ‘Fake News’"  Excerpt:
“Many federal courts have been asked to do the same: Find a causal link between voter ID and intentional decreases in minority turnout,” [Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation] said. “All eventually failed. Despite this, too many in the media are willing to report an initial study as gospel before peer reviewers can weigh in. It should have struck many news editors weeks ago that it took until 2017 to provide proof to a belief that could have been confirmed a decade ago, if true.”

7.  January 5: "Sessions' ‘Racist’ Vote Fraud Prosecution Was to Protect Black Voters' Voting Rights"  Excerpt:
“As Craig Donsanto says, this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is, according to Donsanto, “a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind.”

6.  April 18: "Justice Gorsuch Asks at First Oral Argument, Why Not Follow ‘Plain Text of the Statute'?"   Excerpt:  
Gorsuch focused his first line of questioning on the wording of the statute, asking the employee’s attorney, Christopher Landau, several questions about where in the law it says district courts have jurisdiction to hear civil service claims.   “Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?” asked Gorsuch.

Look for part 2 next Friday.  Happy Holidays!

Larry Levy Honored as 2017 Republican Lawyer of the Year

Next Wednesday evening at the City Club of Washington, DC, the RNLA will host a reception honoring Larry Levy, who was selected by the RNLA Board of Governors as the 2017 Republican Lawyer of the Year.  RNLA's leadership praised Mr. Levy as very deserving of this honor:

RNLA President Elliot Berke praised the selection: “Larry is a true lawyer’s lawyer, and a consummate professional. I had the honor of nominating him to the RNLA board many years ago, and I couldn’t be happier to see him receive our Lawyer of the Year award. I thank him for all he’s done for the cause and his friendship.”

RNLA Chair Kimberly Reed highlighted Mr. Levy's core strengths: “In the decade I have known and worked with Larry Levy, I can attest to the values that Mayor Rudy Giuliani sees in him. Most importantly, he is dedicated to the United States Constitution and rule of law. On a personal note, Larry's steadfast dedication to the children who lost a parent or sibling on September 11th speaks volumes about his character. On behalf of the RNLA Board of Governors, I thank Larry for his service to RNLA and our mission.”

RNLA Co-Chair and former RNC General Counsel John Ryder added: “Larry has been a strong leader for the integrity of the ballot, for RNLA and for the country. He is truly deserving of Republican Lawyer of the Year.”

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen agreed: “Larry is one of the most influential lawyers I know; his influence is very broad. His efforts, both personally and professionally, in the 2016 election were essential to ensuring that it was an open, fair, and honest election that led to historic victories for Republicans at every level of the ticket. Yet he is very humble and would not ‘toot his own horn.’ Working with Larry for years has been one of my great pleasures, and I can think of no lawyer more deserving of being Republican Lawyer of the Year this year.” 

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will attend the reception, and several very special guests, whose names we are not able to release, have also confirmed.  There is still time to purchase a ticket ahead of next Wednesday's celebration. 

John Ryder on Whitford: Plaintiffs Ask Courts to Make Political Judgments

RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder wrote a post-oral argument summary of the issues in Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin political gerrymandering case, in the Daily Caller today.  He outlined how the Plaintiffs challenging the district boundaries in Wisconsin would like courts to make political judgments far outside a proper judicial role that would completely change how districts and representation are viewed:

Beyond the technical legal arguments lies a couple of policy issues that the court is being asked to address.  First, the consequence of accepting the Plaintiffs’ arguments would be to convert representation from a district-based representational theory to one of proportional representation on a state-wide basis.  No longer would state legislative members represent specific districts so much as they would be assigned to represent the collective interest of “Democrats” or “Republicans” in proportions determined by a court. 

The concern expressed repeatedly by Chief Justice John Roberts is the substitution of the judgment of the courts for the judgment of elected representatives of the people.  Under the Plaintiffs’ theory, any voter, anywhere in any state, could complain that his or her vote was diminished by not being granted the right to be counted proportionally with other like-minded voters in the state to elect a proportional number within the legislature.  No longer is the challenge limited to district-specific claims of vote dilution. 

As Mr. Ryder points out, Chief Justice Roberts questioned the serious danger for the proper role of the courts posed by the Plaintiffs' theories during oral argument:

[I]f the claim is allowed to proceed, there will naturally be a lot of those claims around the country. . . . We will have to decide in every case whether the Democrats win or the Republicans win. . . . And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this Court in the eyes of the country. . . . [T]he whole point is you're taking these issues away from democracy and you're throwing them into the courts pursuant to . . . sociological gobbledygook.

 The Chief Justice was not alone in his criticism:

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that such a theory would result in the litigation of “every district and every case and every election.” . . . Once the process begins, it will then be up to the courts to determine the appropriate standard or formula by which to judge the partisan gerrymander; then, the court must determine what the right balance in that legislature should be.  It turns judges into arbiters of some Platonic ideal of fair representation.  That in turn requires the judges determine what balance is fair today, what the predilections of the voters will be tomorrow, and how to draw districts which reflect the fair balance as applied to those predilections. . . .

We hope that the Supreme Court will not take the bait and drastically expand the role of the courts into making political judgments and predictions that even professional political scientists would struggle to make.  As Mr. Ryder concluded:

In the end, the Plaintiffs are asking the courts to undertake the impossible task of predicting political behavior in an increasingly volatile electorate and at the same time to determine what is the “right” political balance and then to design a system which will achieve that precise balance.

A Line the High Court Shouldn’t Cross - Gill v. Whitford

Today, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion by RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder on the topic of Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin state redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Ryder understands this issue better than most as a former general counsel of the Republican National Committee.

In the commentary, Mr. Ryder nicely summarizes Whitford as this:

The plaintiffs will present a series of equations giving the illusion of precision and, they hope, masking their underlying political motivation. If the justices accept the plaintiffs’ argument, or any of its variations, it would put the courts deep into what Justice Felix Frankfurter called the “political thicket” of drawing political maps. More important, it would undermine a bedrock principle of American politics—that we elect representatives based on electoral districts, not proportionally as in many European countries. 

The idea that judges have any say in the mapping of political districts is relatively novel. Until Baker v. Carr in 1962, the Supreme Court had routinely held that redistricting was a “political question,” beyond judicial review. Baker presented the court with an egregious case of abuse [which compelled the Court to take action] . . . Baker held that the courts could order a redistricting to correct this imbalance. . . . Fast forward 55 years, and we have plaintiffs who argue that because redistricting hasn’t yielded the results they want, they are entitled to judicial intervention. Their theory comes down to this: A political party’s representation in a state legislature should be close to its statewide vote total in legislative elections.

Whitford could potentially upend how districts are drawn and the standards by which districts are measured:

The consequences of this proposition would be immense. First, it would require the court to settle on the correct formula. . . . It raises the possibility of endless litigation over the correct standard, with judges struggling to make sense of testimony from dueling mathematicians. In the end, it would require courts to determine the “appropriate” political balance in the state. . . . Second, such a standard would likely require bizarrely configured gerrymanders in order to achieve the judicially determined political balance. Americans have been sorting themselves into political enclaves for decades, as Bill Bishop documented in his 2008 book, “The Big Sort.” . . . From 1976 to 2004, the proportion of Americans living in counties that were carried by landslide margins (20% or more) in presidential elections increased from 26% to 48%. . . . The only way to avoid that is to draw elongated districts that splinter communities and are gerrymandered to achieve a judicially determined political result.

Mr. Ryder concludes by arguing the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to prevent a further descent down a slippery slope, the ultimate end of which could fundamentally change the means by which our representatives are elected.

It changes the basis of representation from district-based to proportional. Instead of representing a community that is mostly compact and cohesive, the lawmaker would be selected according to a statewide partisan balance determined by the court. . . . In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to put an end to this nonsense by finding that the lower court ignored precedent and misapplied the law. It should do so in order to preserve our democracy.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning for Gill v. Whitford, a case likely to be one of many landmark cases for the 2017 Term. You can view the released court transcript from today's argument here. An audio recording of the proceedings is expected by the end of this week and should be posted here.

The Latest Liberal Attempt to Obliterate the First Amendment

RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder has a new article in the Daily Caller that points out the truth and consequences of the left’s description of Citizens United.  Citizens United, when you get down to it, is about whether you can make a movie critical of a Presidential candidate.  (Does anyone really think that the left would make as big a deal over Citizen United if it was a movie critical of Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?) 

More importantly, the article goes into how the left uses their mischaracterization of Citizen United to attack free speech and regulate politics on the local level.

In 2016, Multnomah County, Oregon, passed, and voters approved, a measure which created contribution limits, expenditure limits, registration requirements, and disclosure requirements for spending related to county races.  The expenditure limits provide that individuals and entities may only spend money if the money was collected subject to the contribution limits.. . .

The primary problem with this misguided effort restricting constitutional rights of political speech is that it ignores not only Citizens United but also 40 years of settled campaign finance case law.

The Oregon case is interesting because it is also clearly unconstitutional under Oregon law.  As Ryder notes:

Putting aside federal constitutional law, Oregon Supreme Court decisions prohibit both expenditure and contribution limitations under the Constitution of Oregon because “political contributions constitute expression.”  Because of these decisions, Oregon is one of the few states that does not impose contribution limits on either individuals or entities.

From campus to political speech restrictions, the left's continued efforts to limit the First Amendment are troubling and need to be fought.  Political speech is not something new discovered in Citizens United but rather a bedrock of our founding in the Constitution.  

Cooper v. Harris - SCOTUS Redistricting Decision Put Interests of Democrats Before Rule Of Law

In this week’s RNLA Column in the Daily Caller: John Ryder, RNLA Co-Chair, offered his insight into this week’s Supreme Court case—Cooper v. Harris, a North Carolina redistricting case.

Fifty-five years ago, Justice Frankfurter, in Baker v. Carr, urged the Court not to enter into the “political thicket” of redistricting litigation.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v. Harris takes the court beyond the thicket and into the woods. And these woods are particularly deep and dark and confusing, even for experts…While ideological disagreements are commonplace on the Court, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court’s complete disregard for precedent regarding redistricting caused Justice Samuel Alito to write in dissent: “A precedent of this Court should not be treated like a disposable household item—say, a paper plate or napkin—to be used once and then tossed in the trash. But that is what the Court does today in its decision regarding North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District: The Court junks a rule adopted in a prior, remarkably similar challenge to this very same congressional district.”. . . 

Put more charitably, the Harris opinion on one level is an attempt to balance the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment and the intent of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to allow minorities to elect candidates of their choice.  But Cooper v. Harris ultimately decides that even if a legislature has redistricted based on partisan lines (as is common) and established majority-minority districts in conformity with the Voting Rights Act, a court can ignore all the evidence of that permissible strategy if it feels like it and decide that the redistricting plan was impermissibly based on race.

This is a difficult balance to strike and opens the door to endless litigation.  More practically this lack of bright lines takes power to create legislative districts away from the people’s locally elected officials and gives it to judges appointed by national outsiders such as President Trump and Obama.  As Justice Alito said, “But if a courtmistakes a political gerrymander for a racial gerrymander, it illegitimately invades a traditional domain of state authority, usurping the role of a State’s elected representatives. This does violence to both the proper role of the Judiciary and the powers reserved to the States under the Constitution.” . . . While all of this is great for lawyers — they’ve just been handed what amounts to a “Full Employment Act” and can count on a lot of work in the coming years — it’s very bad for democracy and the rule of law.

There is a strong political motive behind this decision. Faced with Republican dominance at the legislative level (Republicans control at least 32 state legislatures), Democrats believe they will have a chance to fare better in court than at the hands of Republican legislators, some of who may be motivated by the egregious Democratic gerrymanders of the 80’s and 90’s. Democrats hope that an Obama-appointment heavy judiciary will give them more favorable districts.  The political reality is that endless litigation is upon us. . . .  

It should also be pointed out that this 5-3 decision did not yet include Justice Gorsuch since he was not a member of the Court at the time the arguments were heard. To read John Ryder’s full article, please visit the Daily Caller here. Future weekly Daily Caller op-eds penned by RNLA Leaders will be highlighted right here--be sure to visit for a great summary and why it is important to our members and followers.

Congratulations to Justice Gorsuch!

Earlier today, Judge Neil Gorsuch was sworn in and became Justice Gorsuch, taking Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.  RNLA leaders expressed their congratulations to Justice Gorsuch:

RNLA Chair Kimberly Reed said: “Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated his immense intellectual abilities, clear legal writing skills, and fidelity to the Constitution throughout his ten-year career on the bench; and he will continue to serve the American people and uphold the rule of law as a United States Supreme Court Justice. His remarkable ability to build consensus with his colleagues in reaching decisions on difficult legal questions will be an asset as the highest court grapples with challenging legal cases.”

RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder agreed: “Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Scalia. I am delighted that President Trump has delivered on his promise to the American people to nominate someone who fits the mold of Justice Scalia. I am equally pleased that the Senate saw fit to honor the will of the people by confirming Judge Gorsuch.”

RNLA President Elliot Berke stated: “Throughout his long career, Judge Gorsuch has reached decisions by taking the words of the Constitution, statutes, regulations, or precedents seriously and then fairly applying the governing law to the facts of the case before him. This judicial method best protects the rights of every American, and Justice Gorsuch will serve in the tradition of Justice Scalia, protecting the rights of the people by deferring to the will of people expressed through their elected representatives. America will be a better place because of his service on the Supreme Court.” 

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen recognized the leadership of Senate Republicans throughout the confirmation process: “Thanks to the leadership of Leader McConnell, Senator Grassley, and the other Republican senators, the Democrats’ efforts to obstruct President Trump’s well-qualified nominee, and use him as a foil to attack President Trump and undermine the results of last November’s election, failed.” 

RNLA would also like to thank all our members and leaders who worked tirelessly in support of Justice Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

After pausing today to celebrate the confirmation and swearing in ceremonies of Justice Gorsuch, The Rep Lawyer will be returning to its regular programming of mostly election-related content for the remainder of this week.  In that spirit, check out our updated vote fraud news page here.

Ripped from the Headlines: RNLA Leaders Express Support for Neil Gorsuch

RNLA leaders have been actively promoting the swift confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch from an array of compelling perspectives.

(1) Elliot Berke, RNLA President, wrote “The Democrats Will Try To Filibuster Gorsuch - But Anything They 'Gain' Will Be Short-Lived” for the Independent Journal Review. Mr. Berke's article looks at why the Democrats have adopted an obstructionist path during the Gorsuch nomination and is doubtful of any likely gains.

To their credit, however, Democrats have tried—though ineffectively—to make their opposition about substantive issues they have with Gorsuch. The confirmation hearing was a fascinating look at how many times the same questions could be asked in different ways to try to get Gorsuch to give away all his political preferences, pre-judge cases that may come before him, and prove a conservative bias. . . It’s hard not to be impressed by Judge Gorsuch. Democrats who questioned him didn’t even seem that frustrated or angered by his pleasing personality and impressive ability for recall about cases he worked on and statutes he interpreted. It’s just that Democrats, as far back as January before President Trump even announced his pick, had decided they would filibuster anyone the new president held up for consideration.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) insists the filibuster to come is not payback or vengeance but merely an aversion to a judge that he does not consider “mainstream.” It’s important to make the push back about Gorsuch and his radical conservatism (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and not about a petty payback. Schumer and the Democrats may have some help in the form of progressive groups pledging to pull support for any Democrat who doesn’t fall in line and oppose Gorsuch. . .  Whatever the case, the gains for the Democrats will be pyrrhic and short-lived. The lesson of 2016 that Democrats seem to be ignoring is that voters have stopped buying the obstructionist Democratic talking points and are tired of mindless obstruction and partisan bickering in Washington.

(2) John Ryder, RNLA Co-Chair, penned “Democrats’ blinkered look at Gorsuch” for The Washington Times. Mr. Ryder’s focus was a commentary on Gorsuch’s hearing, Day 2, specifically an exchange between Judge Gorsuch and Senator Feinstein that showed that Democrats were strictly focused on talking points rather than the whole picture that makes up the nominee.

Judge Gorsuch thanked Mrs. Feinstein for the opportunity to correct the presentation of his judicial record, noting that he had participated in more than 2,700 opinions in over 10 years on the federal bench and Democratic senators had selected just a few to focus on that do “not represent the body of my work”. . . [Judge Gorsuch] reiterated his commitment to the rule of law, and to not judging cases according to the identities of the parties involved but according to the law: “And the bottom line, I think, is that I would like to convey to you, from the bottom of my heart, is that I’m a fair judge. And I think if you ask people in the 10th Circuit, is he a fair judge, you’ll get the answer you got yesterday from both Sen. Bennet and Sen. Gardner … I can’t guarantee you more than that, but I can promise you absolutely nothing less.”

That is the true Judge Gorsuch, the one that Democrats would see if they bothered to review his record. But as Mrs. Feinstein so tellingly revealed earlier today, the Democrats are not willing to do even basic due diligence to understand his record and judicial philosophy. They would rather repeat exhausted talking points from liberal activists, attack one of the foundational protections for liberty in the American system of government — the rule of law, not of judges — and grandstand to gain political points with radical progressives.

(3) Mark Baker, RNLA Montana Chair, submitted “Gorsuch deserves senators' support for Supreme Court seat” for the Helena Independent Record. Mr. Baker’s piece focuses on why Judge Gorsuch understands Westerners and will be a great addition to the Bench.

The simple fact is Judge Gorsuch understands Montanans—he is, after all, a fellow Westerner. If confirmed, he will be the only Westerner currently on the Supreme Court and the first in a generation. As a Westerner, he understands the challenges faced by Montanans and has a long record of protecting our freedoms and rights. His decisions on the bench reflect a deep respect of the law as it relates to many of the issues unique to our part of the country, like the 2nd Amendment, private property rights, water rights, and Indian sovereignty. 

Judge Gorsuch believes in interpreting the Constitution and the law according to its text, structure, and history. This approach protects the rights of individuals and preserves freedom in our system of federalism with the separated powers of government . . . With a sterling and impressive record and a strong base of bipartisan support, Judge Gorsuch clearly understands us Westerners and our Constitution, and he has a firm commitment to protecting our freedoms.” 

Related to this point, Judge Gorsuch has earned the endorsement of major American Indian organizations, specifically National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund. Their statement of support can be read here.

(4) Michael Thielen, RNLA Executive Director, authored “Democrats Should Hold To Their Own Standards” for The Daily Caller. Mr. Thielen’s piece focuses on the several standards the Democrats have applied to various Supreme Court nominees over the years. A summary of his article can be read here.

(5) David Warrington, RNLA Vice President for Election Education, wrote “Do Democrats oppose Gorsuch because they hate free speech? (Yes.)” for The Hill on behalf of a fellow pro-Gorsuch group. His focus was praising Gorsuch's respect for the proper rule as a judge, not a politician, during his confirmation hearing. 

Judge Gorsuch’s answers to the committee’s questions demonstrated a deep understanding of the law and respect for the Constitution and the role of judges. The same cannot be said for many of the senators who questioned him. This fundamental lack of understanding and respect for the Constitution by some of members of the Judiciary Committee was on full display as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) relentlessly pressed Judge Gorsuch on the issues of political speech and campaign finance disclosure. . . .

Judge Gorsuch did not base his answers on his personal values. Instead, he stuck to the Constitution and precedent. Exactly what a judge should do when performing his duties as a judge . . . It was clear from the confirmation hearings and his record, that Gorsuch will decide cases as the facts and the law dictate rather than basing decisions on his, or anyone else’s, personal values. That is precisely the role of a judge and Gorsuch understands this. Unfortunately, Whitehouse and many of his colleagues don’t. That is why the Senate should confirm Judge Gorsuch as next associate justice of the Supreme Court.

We will keep you posted on additional publications by RNLA Leaders as they happen. To stay up to date, consider following our Twitter Feed and Facebook Page.

Feinstein Admitted That Democrats Aren't Considering Gorsuch's Record

RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder highlighted a "remarkable exchange" between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Judge Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday:

In conformity with the ethical requirements for judges, he refused to bind himself to how he would rule on future cases, prompting Mrs. Feinstein to lament: “How do we have confidence in you that you won’t be just for the big corporations? That you will be for the little men? … I’m just looking for something that would indicate that you would give a worker a fair shot, maybe it is in your background somewhere that I don’t know about, but I’d like to have you respond to it any way you can.” . . .  

Judge Gorsuch thanked Mrs. Feinstein for the opportunity to correct the presentation of his judicial record, noting that he had participated in more than 2,700 opinions in over 10 years on the federal bench and Democratic senators had selected just a few to focus on that do “not represent the body of my work.” He has, as he pointed out, ruled for both big corporate and “little guy” parties, depending on the law applicable in that case. . . . Then he listed 13 cases in which he ruled for . . . “little guys.” 

Mrs. Feinstein’s response was astounding: “That’s helpful. We’ll find them and read them.” Think about what that means. 

In the seven weeks since President Trump announced Judge Gorsuch as his nominee to Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, Mrs. Feinstein and her staff have not bothered to thoroughly research or review the judge’s extensive record. . . . Instead of engaging in a meaningful review of the nominee and his qualifications, the senator and her staff have been content to rely on the talking points given to them by radically progressive groups whose only goal is to oppose Mr. Trump, Republicans and conservative principles in any and every way possible.

This was typical of the Democrats' approach throughout the hearing, in which they either focused on the outcomes (and rarely the legal reasoning) of a small handful of cases cherrypicked from his extensive judicial record or attempted to have him unethically bind himself on future cases or express political views.  Instead of engaging in a genuine inquiry into Judge Gorsuch's legal philosophy and interpretative methods, they chose (with a handful of notable exceptions) to simply repeat progressive talking points that voters showed they were tired of last fall.

Click here to follow RNLA's commentary and highlights on Twitter. Please consider signing the RNLA's letter to the Senate in support of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation here.

Stein's Recounts Are Not About the Election Results

The current recounts of the presidential election requested or planned by Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party are not about ensuring the integrity of the election outcomes:

RNLA President Larry Levy said: “The cynical and false narrative being pushed by Jill Stein and the Green Party that they are trying to ensure all votes were properly counted is nothing more than an effort to undermine our democracy and proud history of peaceful administration change through contested elections. Ms. Stein doesn’t concern herself with any contests won by Secretary Clinton, including the razor thin margin she enjoyed in New Hampshire, rather she is attempting to disrupt the Electoral College vote for Donald J. Trump in an un-American and vulgar attempt to delegitimize the next President chosen by the American people. And Secretary Clinton’s support for this effort is a disgrace that exposes the hypocrisy she practices.  

“We cannot and will not stand silent in the face of this malicious effort to undermine our democracy. Join the Republican National Lawyers Association and all people of good will in fighting this insidious attack and show the world that democratic elections still count in America.”  

RNLA Board of Governors Member John Ryder further explained: “A recount does not shift more than a few hundred votes unless there are allegations of irregularities or vote fraud. There are no such allegations in this case.”

Dr. Stein has said in multiple interviews that she is not attempting to change the outcome of the election through her recount requests.  But she, with the support of Hillary Clinton, is putting states and election officials through an expensive process in a fool's errand to accomplish a victory through the press that liberals could not accomplish at the polls. 

RNLA Honors John Ryder as the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year

Tomorrow, the RNLA will present John Ryder with the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year Award at a reception in Washington, DC:

John Ryder has been named the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year by the Board of Governors of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).  Mr. Ryder was selected as the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year in recognition of his outstanding professional accomplishments and years of service to the Republican Party and its ideals. He will be honored at a reception tonight at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C. 

RNLA Chair Randy Evans stated: “John’s leadership was key in guiding the Party through a successful Republican convention and RNC meetings leading up to the convention. John’s fairness and integrity were key to a successful process. This is just the latest contribution to the Party of a great Republican lawyer.” 

RNLA President Larry Levy stated: “The RNLA is privileged to count John Ryder among its ranks and indebted to him for his leadership, in particular with regard to redistricting, where he has long been one of the foremost leaders. Most importantly, John is, and always has been, a man of honor, as well as an outstanding lawyer. He is most deserving of the 2016 Award.” 

There is still time to RSVP to attend the reception in honor of Mr. Ryder.  Thank you, Mr. Ryder, for all you have done and all you will do in the service of the Republican Party and our country.

The RNLA Board of Governors Announces John Ryder as the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year

The Board of Governors of the Republican National Lawyers Association is pleased to announce the selection of John Ryder as the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year. This award recognizes lawyers for outstanding professional accomplishments and years of dedicated service to the Republican Party and its ideals.

Mr. Ryder will be presented the award at a special reception in his honor on September 27 at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C.  More details on the reception may be found here.  Photos from our 2015 Republican Lawyer of the Year Reception honoring Bobby Burchfield and featuring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and RNC Chair Reince Priebus can be found here.

John Ryder has served the Republican Party in a variety of ways. He has been Chairman of the Shelby County Republican Party and served on the Tennessee State Executive Committee from 1986 to 1996 and from 2002 to 2014.

In 1996, he was elected to the Republican National Committee from Tennessee. He brought with him over two decades of experience litigating redistricting cases in Tennessee, the cradle of one person, one vote. On the RNC, he was appointed to the Redistricting Task Force in 1997 by Chairman Jim Nicholson. Ten years later, he was asked to Chair the Redistricting Committee of the RNC by Chairman Michael Steele.

Perhaps more importantly, John has been a leader in the area of the Rules of the Republican Party. He served on the RNC Standing Committee on Rules from 1996-2004 and from 2008-2016. He has served on the Convention Rules Committee in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016. He served as a member of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee in 2008-2010, a committee which helped develop and refine the presidential nominating system.

In 2013, Chairman Reince Priebus appointed John as General Counsel of the RNC, a position he still holds. The RNC General Counsel is a volunteer position. Given the challenges of the past year, this means that John has donated countless hours to the Republican Party.

Additionally, he has been a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1984, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 and as an alternate in 1992. He was a Presidential Elector in 1988 and 2004.

He is a member of the Board of Governors of the RNLA.

John is a member of the adjunct faculty of Vanderbilt University School of Law, where he teaches Election Law.

John is a member of Harris Shelton Hanover Walsh in Memphis, Tennessee, where his everyday practice is concentrated in the areas of commercial litigation and bankruptcy. Mr. Ryder has represented secured lenders, unsecured creditors committees, trustees and debtors in the bankruptcy process. He has served as trustee and receiver. He has participated in a number of major bankruptcies, including The Julian Companies, Microwave Products, Wexner & Jacobsen, FCS, Braniff and others. He is a frequent lecturer on bankruptcy and commercial law topics.

Mr. Ryder served as Shelby County Assistant County Attorney from 1978 to 1990 and from 1994 to 2014. He edited the Laws of Shelby County Annotated, the first compilation of Private Acts affecting Shelby County. He served as Delinquent Tax Attorney for Shelby County from 1990 to 1994, and he served as member of the Shelby County Home Rule Charter Commission and presently represent the Shelby County Election Commission.

The RNC Rules Meeting - Media Hypes 54-2 as Bitterly Divided

If you skim articles like the one below in Politico, you would think that the RNC rules committee, and the entire Republican Party, was tearing itself apart.  Typical quote is (emphasis added):

The vote bitterly divided the party, pitting a small group eager to advance the proposal against RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and his allies, who warned that implementing the change would further inflame Donald Trump, who has accused the committee of overseeing a “rigged” process that’s stacked against him.

As a guest attendee and member of the audience, I saw no bitter division either at the Rules Committee or the meeting as a whole.  The Party was in good spirits and saw Governor Kasich, Senator Cruz, and Dr. Carson for Donald Trump with equal respect and interest.  I heard officials for all campaigns and RNC Members from across the country on board with supporting the nominee, whoever that may be. 

As far as what the actual substance of the Rules Committee hearing, it was a debate of whether the convention should run under the rules of the United States House of Representatives or “Roberts Rules.”  In other words, this was not for or against a candidate, nor was it debating any sort of substantive change in the Party’s principles. 

It was a debate discussed respectfully with everyone truly getting along.  Of course, the media loves a fight, so it is only in the last sentence of the Politico article that summed up what the meeting was really like:

“There’s been a little bit written in the press about the work of this committee,” [Committee Chair] Ash said. “Let’s be clear about one thing: This committee has done a good job standing together.”

As far as the substance, the Democrat Convention and every Republican Convention in the Party’s History except 1884 have been run under House rules.  As RNLA Chair Randy Evans and Board Member John Ryder stated:

“We’re basically in the seventh inning of a ballgame, and I don’t think it’s right to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game,” argued Randy Evans, an RNC member from Georgia. “Any change we make would be viewed with a very large degree of cynicism.”

John Ryder, a member from Tennessee who is the RNC’s counsel, warned that it would “subject this committee to enormous political criticism.”

The committee agreed by a voice vote that I was told unofficially was 54-2.  No real controversy.  However, it did provide a lot of media establishment types a chance to hype a fight.  Problem was, there really wasn’t one.  

The RNLA's Florida RNC Meeting Reception Is Rapidly Approaching. RSVP Today!

The RNLA Florida RNC Meeting Reception for RNLA Sponsors, RNLA Members and RNC Meeting Attendees will take place on April 20, 2016, on the patio (weather permitting) of the Rivals Waterfront Sports Bar located inside of the Diplomat Resort & Spa.

Special leaders and invited guests will be in attendance including RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, RNC General Counsel John Ryder, RNC Debate Committee Member and Georgia Committeeman Randy Evans, and Kasich for President's General Counsel Mark Braden.

Pictured: (Left to Right) RNC General Counsel John Ryder,
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus & RNLA Chair Randy Evans

To attend this reception you must be an RNLA Member or Sponsor this event.  Sponsors will receive additional perks.  Contact Brittany Walker at walker@republicanlawyer.net or Michael Thielen at thielen@republicanlawyer.net for details on membership or sponsorship.

Thank you to Manny Iglesias for graciously sponsoring this event.

To RSVP for this event, click here.  

Earlier in the day on April 20, the RNLA is also hosting a State Party Executive Director EDO Training and an Election Law CLE and Ethics Training Seminar.