Legal Newsline

Sunday, October 20, 2019

W.Va. SC candidate calls McGraw's motion 'inappropriate'

By Jessica M. Karmasek | Aug 28, 2012



CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - West Virginia Supreme Court candidate Allen Loughry is calling Attorney General Darrell McGraw's recent motion to intervene in a state Supreme Court case over West Virginia's Public Campaign Financing Pilot Program "inappropriate."

And he's not the only one.

McGraw's GOP opponent, Patrick Morrisey, released a statement Tuesday calling the attorney general's filing unethical.

Managing Deputy Attorney General Barbara Allen, writing for McGraw, noted in the motion, filed with the Court late Friday, that the petitioner in the state case -- Loughry -- and the respondents -- Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, Gary A. Collias, William N. Renzelli and Robert Rupp -- all argue that the matching funds provision is constitutional.

However, the other two named respondents, State Auditor Glen Gainer and State Treasurer John Perdue, take no position.

"Thus, the case is in an unusual procedural position: the only individual or entity taking a position adversarial to the petitioner's position is not a party to the litigation," Allen wrote in the three-page filing.

"In the event this Court rules in favor of the petitioner, there will be no party with standing to seek review in the United States Supreme Court; and in the event this Court rules against the petitioner, there will be no adversarial party in certiorari proceedings (should the petitioner elect to file such proceedings)."

Allen said the attorney general's only interest in the litigation -- and his only purpose for filing the motion -- is to ensure that the arguments in the case "may be tested at every level through adversarial proceedings, the foundation of our system of justice."

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

He contends McGraw's intervention is "inappropriate" because the only parties with purportedly adverse interests are "three private citizens who have chosen not to assert those interests" -- either in the state proceeding or in the federal court lawsuit involving the pilot program.

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

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at

Want to get notified whenever we write about Virginia Supreme Court ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Virginia Supreme Court , we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Virginia Supreme Court

More News