In Re Request of the Governor for an Opinion of the Justices

997 A.2d 668, 2010 Del. LEXIS 333, 2010 WL 2728170
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedJuly 9, 2010
Docket320, 2010
StatusPublished

This text of 997 A.2d 668 (In Re Request of the Governor for an Opinion of the Justices) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Request of the Governor for an Opinion of the Justices, 997 A.2d 668, 2010 Del. LEXIS 333, 2010 WL 2728170 (Del. 2010).

Opinion

To The Honorable Jack Markell, Governor of the State of Delaware:

We respond to your May 28, 2010 letter requesting our opinions whether you may serve on the National Assessment Governing Board without effectively resigning the office of Governor of the State of Delaware, under Article III, Section 11 of the Delaware Constitution of 1897, which proscribes your accepting an “office under the United States.” 1 The Federal Secretary of Education has appointed you to the Governing Board, which advises the Federal Commissioner of Education Statistics on procedures to collect and disseminate national academic performance data. Because the President did not nominate you for a position requiring the United States Senate’s advice and consent, and the Governing Board’s function is to provide advice independently from the Education Secretary, we answer in the affirmative.

ORIGIN OF THE QUESTION

The Education Secretary appointed you to the Governing Board and, driven by your desire to accept the appointment, you requested our opinions on whether the De *670 laware Constitution mandates that you would effectively resign your position as Governor by serving on the Governing Board. 2 Following receipt of your letter, we requested opening and answering briefs from the State Solicitor’s office, which has advocated for an affirmative response; and from William Wade of the Richards, Layton & Finger law firm, which has advocated for a negative response. 3 We appreciate Mr. Wade, as well as his colleagues Gregory Williams, Todd Coomes, and Elizabeth He, for their timely and helpful service pro bono publico.

The Governing Board advises the Statistics Commissioner on the guidelines for carrying out the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 4 The Governing Board must select subject areas, determine achievement levels and objectives, design the National Assessment methodology and review process of the National Assessment, and develop standards for regional comparisons and guidelines for disseminating results. 5 The Governing Board also reviews complaints with the Statistics Commissioner, and forwards meritorious complaints to the Education Secretary for reporting to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 6

The Education Secretary must appoint a diverse, statutorily defined group of practitioners and interested persons to the Governing Board. 7 Governing Board members serve staggered terms of no more than four years, 8 and act independently from the Education Secretary. 9 Governing Board members must take an oath of office, and may receive a $100 daily stipend and travel expense reimbursement. 10

*671 The National Assessment, essentially the nation’s educational report card, seeks to collect and disseminate unbiased, educational data to support policymakers, educators, and the media. 11 Students, local agencies, and states participate voluntarily, except in biennial fourth and eighth grade reading and mathematics assessment for which the Education Secretary shall enter into an agreement with each state that receives Title I funds. 12

AUTHORITY AND REVIEW

We have discretion — that we have chosen to exercise — to jointly or separately advise the Governor or either House of the General Assembly on constitutional or statutory interpretations required to discharge their duties. 13 Because the Justices’ opinions arise under statutory authority, without any case or controversy, they do not bind future litigation. 14 In formulating our opinion, we review your letter, counsel’s briefs, and our own research without limitation.

OPINION

You have submitted your request for the Justices’ opinions because the Delaware Constitution, Article III, Section 11, prevents the Governor from also holding “an office of the United States.” 15 That service would operate to effectively resign your governorship. 16 We must consider whether, by advising on procedures to assemble and disseminate the National Assessment, the Governing Board constitutes “an office of the United States.” We focus primarily on whether, in holding both positions, you might face a conflict in exercising Delaware and the United States sovereign authorities. 17

In earlier opinions, we identified several factors to determine whether service in state positions would unconstitutionally overlap with another state position. 18 Similarly, we have relied on Federal law to determine whether a Federal position constitutes a Federal “office.” In our 199k Opinion, we held that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Board of Directors does not constitute a Federal office. The authorizing statute expressly states that Amtrak is not “an agency, instrumentality, authority, entity, or establishment of the United States Government.” 19 Rather, as the United States Supreme Court held, Amtrak is a “nongovernmental corporation.” 20

*672 In Biggs v. Corley, we identified five factors indicating that a public employment/service is a public “office:” 1) the exercise of some portion of the State’s (or other government entity’s) sovereign power; 21 2) tenure in office; 3) Fees and emoluments; 4) oaths in office; and 5) the powers and duties of position. 22 The list is non-exclusive, and is a guideline for judicial analysis. 23 Both sides agree that factors two through five are present, and that the determination of whether the position requires the exercise of sovereign power is determinative in this case.

Nevertheless, we continue our past practice of analyzing the status of Federal positions under Federal law. This practice appropriately defers to the United States, when determining which positions can and will exercise Federal sovereign power. Congress and the United States Supreme Court are best positioned to empower and delimit Federal sovereignty and employment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Morrison v. Olson
487 U.S. 654 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Edmond v. United States
520 U.S. 651 (Supreme Court, 1997)
In Re Request of the Governor for an Advisory Opinion
722 A.2d 307 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1998)
Opinion of the Justices
245 A.2d 172 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1968)
State Ex Rel. Herbert v. Ferguson
52 N.E.2d 980 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1944)
Opinion of the Justices
413 A.2d 1245 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1980)
Opinion of the Justices
647 A.2d 1104 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1994)
Opinion of the Justices
672 A.2d 4 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1995)
State ex rel. Biggs v. Corley
172 A. 415 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
997 A.2d 668, 2010 Del. LEXIS 333, 2010 WL 2728170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-request-of-the-governor-for-an-opinion-of-the-justices-del-2010.