W.Va. SC candidate responds to motion in financing case

Jessica M. Karmasek Aug. 27, 2012, 1:28pm



CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - West Virginia Supreme Court candidate Allen Loughry argues in a federal court filing that Charleston attorney Michael Callaghan's recent motion to expedite is "replete with inaccurate and unsupported" facts and the result of his own "dawdling."

Late Friday, Loughry filed an eight-page response to Callaghan's motion to expedite briefing, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Thursday.

Callaghan's motion was in response to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals' order earlier this month denying his motion to intervene in the state case over West Virginia's Public Campaign Financing Pilot Program.

Loughry, a Republican, is the only candidate in this year's Court race to opt into the program, which state lawmakers passed in an attempt to reduce the influence of special interest money.

Loughry -- who Judge Joseph R. Goodwin allowed to intervene -- points out in his response that despite having filed his complaint in the federal case more than a month ago, Callaghan is just now seeking to expedite its consideration.

"Given his delay in seeking expedited consideration -- and, indeed, in requesting any injunctive relief -- plaintiff's motion should be denied," the Supreme Court law clerk wrote.

"The mandamus proceeding currently pending before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia does not provide any reason to expedite briefing on plaintiff's motion here.

"As the Supreme Court of Appeals recognized when it denied plaintiff's request to intervene in that action, even if the Supreme Court of Appeals were to grant the precise relief sought in the mandamus petition, plaintiff could suffer no constitutional injury."

To read the rest of this story, visit the West Virginia Record.

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at jessica@legalnewsline.com.

More News