Loughry responds to motion to intervene in election finance case - WOWK 13 Charleston, Huntington WV News, Weather, Sports

A Charleston lawyer will not intervene as a party in a writ of mandamus case asking the state's highest court to decide whether to release additional public funds, according to an Aug. 15 order. 

Allen Loughry, a Republican running for a seat on the state Supreme Court, is the only candidate hoping to participate in the state's public finance pilot project.

He filed a writ of mandamus last month following a decision by Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, the State Election Commission and the state's auditor's and treasurer's offices to not provide required matching funds for the program.

His petition for writ of mandamus questioned whether the pilot program requires the commission to disburse funds once a non-participating candidate reaches the trigger amount.

The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Sept. 4.

Michael Callaghan, a lawyer and former chairman of the West Virginia Democratic Party filed a motion to intervene in the mandamus case. He also filed a separate lawsuit July 18 against the West Virginia secretary of state and State Election Commission members.

In Callaghan's motion to intervene in the writ of mandamus case, Callaghan's attorney Anthony Majestro cited a case where U.S. Supreme Court justices struck Arizona's legislative and executive matching funds provision.

Arguing the matching funds provision violates First Amendment protections, the motion to intervene says the court rejected in the Arizona case the idea that the provision served "a compelling interest in combating corruption and the appearance of corruption."

 "The court found that with respect to candidate expenditures, reliance on personal funds reduces the threat of corruption because the use of personal funds reduces the candidate's dependence on outside contributions and thereby counteracts the coercive pressures and attendant risks of abuse of money in politics.

The motion also argued the nation's highest court has "consistently rejected" that there is a difference between speech protections in executive and judicial elections. 

In his Aug. 14 response, Loughry says Callaghan does not have sufficient interest to intervene because he is not a state Supreme Court candidate and cannot make expenditures as such.

Loughry said candidates affected by the writ of mandamus have not asserted injury to constitutional rights.

The response additionally stated that even if Callaghan made his contributions, the trigger would not be activated.   

The Aug. 15 order stated Callaghan may file a response to the petition as an amicus curiae but he cannot take place in oral arguments. Amicus curiae responses must be filed by Aug. 24, the order states.