Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) may face daunting challenges from the majority of Maine’s legislature, and even the state’s attorney general, but her appeal for emergency review by the U.S. Supreme Court drew the support of attorneys general from 15 other states this week. In an amicus brief, the chief law enforcement officials
About two months ago, a modern American judge found that a similar effort to impose an ‘indefinite suspension of voting rights’ was a ‘severe’ and unjustifiable ‘burden on voting rights,’ the group led by West Virginia’s AG John McCuskey pointed out in defense of Rep. Libby’s plea for an injunction against her censure by the Maine State Legislature.
“The district court should have joined the centuries-long chorus and held the same here,” the group led by West Virginia’s AG John McCusky concluded of Rep. Libby’s plea for an injunction against her censure by the Maine State Legislature, “Because it failed to do so, it’s now up to this Court to remedy this ugly situation,” they wrote.
In addition to West Virginia, the attorneys general calling Libby’s request for expedited review by the high court included those from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia.
“The right to equal representation ‘can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.’ Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of the State of Colo., 377 U.S. 713, 736-37 (1964). And that right becomes a farce if legislators can demote one of their duly elected colleagues to little more than an informal observer without fear of any judicial response,” the amicus authors argued.
The attorneys general conceded in their argument that the principle of legislative immunity, on which U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose based her finding against Libby’s original appeal for injunctive and declaratory relief, is an important protection. But, they stressed, there are more important principles of republican government and free expression at play in this case.
“It would be a perverse result indeed if a doctrine meant to protect ‘[f]reedom of speech and action in the legislature’ was instead used to erase Representative Libby’s ability to speak and act in the Legislature,” they reasoned.
In contrast to the remarkable assembly attorneys general from nearly a third of American states rising to aid Libby’s appeal, Maine’s attorney general, Aaron Frey, also wrote the high court this week asking them to deny her request.
“Like other censures of Maine House members, the censure resolution required Rep. Libby to apologize for her conduct — not recant her views. Rep. Libby has steadfastly refused to comply with this modest punishment, which is designed to restore the integrity and reputation of the body,” Frey wrote.
Libby’s appeal for emergency consideration currently sits before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will decide whether to recommend it for full SCOTUS review or not.
