Posted in Education Politics

The federal judge hearing the Herriman challenge to the division of JSD, Judge Ted Stewart, ruled on Oct 11, 2007, that Herriman is unlikely to succeed in its constitutional challenge to the division of the largest district in the state. He declined to issue the requested injunction.

His ruling was fairly predictable based on the existing case law, but as one might guess, there are those that see his ruling as partisan or activist. Meanwhile, the east-side JSD cities have asked to intervene in the suit.

Here's where it now stands: Herriman, et. al., have been denied the injunction, but are "considering their options" of whether to appeal Stewart's ruling or proceed with the wider lawsuit. The AG is defending the law and has a very strong case built on existing precedent that Stewart has already determined is likely to prevail. The east-side cities have moved to intervene because they have additional defenses resulting from their "taxation without representation" and "legislative due process" complaints that would ensue if they were not allowed partition into a new district.

Herriman's challenge: overcome the presumption of constitutionality and the existing case law, establish that there are actually damages or the significant potential of damages sufficient to warrant relief, and that they can't mitigate this damage. Then they will need to counter the east-side's case that not allowing self determination will violate their due process and other rights. That's a pretty large burden, under the circumstances.