Having lost their legislative privilege argument at the Supreme Court, Salamanca and Keller take their case to the Kentucky Law Journal

This from the Kentucky Law Review blog:

Paul E. Salamanca, James and Mary Lassiter Professor of Law in the University of Kentucky College of Law, and James Keller, former associate justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court, have an article in the most recent edition of the Kentucky Law Journal, released today. The article, titled "The Legislative Privilege to Judge the Qualifications, Elections, and Returns of Members," examines the case of Stephenson v. Woodward.

Stephenson v. Woodward stems from a residency dispute in the 2004 Kentucky general election. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that Dana Seum Stephenson could not serve in the state Senate because she was not a resident of Kentucky for enough time prior to her seeking the seat. Furthermore, Virginia Woodward was not eligible either because she did not receive the majority of the popular vote.

Salamanca and Keller use this case as the foundation for the findings in their article."Although we take Stephenson as our point of departure, we believe our review of legislative and judicial precedent pertaining to the privilege, which makes up the bulk of the article, will stand on its own. We are therefore hopeful that this piece will prove useful to future researchers of the privilege," said Salamanca.
~
In Woodward v Stephenson Salamanca represented Senate President David Williams. Justice Keller wrote a dissenting opinion for the court.

Does the Kentucky Senate Encourage Judicial Activism, Waste the Court's Time, and Waste Taxpayer Money, thru Senate Inaction ?

Apparently Senate President David Williams needs the courts to do some legislating after all.

When the Kentucky Senate laid the Senior Judge Bill on the table, effectively killing it, they failed to clarify one crucial little question. When does the program end; 2007 or 2009?

The Kentucky Law Review reports that when asked whether the General Assembly needs to clear up that confusion, Senate President David Williams (R - Burkesville) replied "That's what courts are for."

Michael Stevens, writing for the blog says, "Senator Williams' passing the buck (literally and metaphorically) to the courts and the legal system to spend money and months to resolve a question initially created by the legislature and now exacerbated by senatorial inaction makes one wonder what is behind the GOP's cries of judicial activism. It is unfair to the senior judges serving, those considering serving, and those appearing in those courts. Looks like the courts will have to step in where the senators (and obviously not angels) fear to tread."