Why Should Delaware Care?
After a Wilmington City Councilman switched his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat, the City Council debated whether that disenfranchised non-Democratic voters in the city. They took the question to court, where a judge ruled that there was no prohibition against the move.
The Wilmington City Council isn’t done trying to oust Councilman James Spadola, the Republican-turned-Democrat who kept his seat last month after a Chancery Court judge sided with him in a dispute over his party switch.
This month, Council President Ernest “Trippi” Congo appealed the Chancery Court ruling on behalf of the full City Council. His attorney, Jane Brady, has until Nov. 30 to file an opening brief with the Delaware Supreme Court.
In the initial appeal filing, Brady said the council’s decision to continue the case followed internal discussions that demonstrated council members remained “firmly convinced” of that the city charter bars a minority-party member from switching to the majority party.
Spadola made that switch last year, noting at the time that he disagreed with several policies associated with President Donald Trump. His decision meant that all 13 Wilmington City Council seats were held by Democrats.
Rather than welcome him to the party, many of Spadola’s city council colleagues claimed he had exploited a loophole in the law that requires one member of the City Council to be elected from a minority party.
In May, Council President Ernest “Trippi” Congo sponsored a resolution to declare Spadola’s seat vacant, arguing he “made the choice to disenfranchise the approximately 15% of non-majority voters” in the city.
The council approved the resolution and in response Spadola filed a lawsuit to block it, arguing the council had no legal power to remove him.
Following the announcement of the appeal this month, Spadola expressed surprise by what he described as a “lack of transparency” surrounding the process. He argued that the “council essentially decided to appeal in a back room,” rather than voting or discussing the issue publicly.
He also claimed that some of his fellow council members were unaware that an appeal was planned.
“I don’t know if this is President Congo doing it unilaterally. Of course, it’s their right to appeal, but I don’t know who made the decision. And now, taxpayers are on the hook for additional money,” Spadola said.
The city has spent more than $207,000 on the case as of Oct. 23, according to City Council staff. Of that, a little over $130,000 went to Spadola’s attorneys and about $75,000 to Congo’s attorneys.
The past ruling
In September, the Chancery Court judge, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, ruled that Spadola’s colleagues “misused” their authority when they voted in May to oust him over his party switch.
At the center of the yearlong dispute was the provision in the city charter that bars the majority party, currently Democrats, from nominating more than three candidates for the city’s four at-large council seats. The rule effectively reserves one of those seats for someone outside that party.
The charter doesn’t address what happens when that person changes parties after taking office.
In her Sept. 17 ruling, McCormick, said that the city charter did not “expressly impose” any restrictions on post-election party switching, and that her “decision will not imply one.”
Asked if he believes the Supreme Court will uphold McCormick’s decision, Spadola said he has “confidence the rule of law will prevail.”
In the appeal, Brady also asked the Supreme Court to fast-track the case, arguing that Spadola continues to vote on legislative matters despite being disqualified from doing so.
The Supreme Court denied Brady’s request to expedite the court proceedings on Oct. 14.
The case is expected to stretch into the new year. The court gave Brady until Nov. 30 to file an opening brief. Spadola’s attorneys will then have 30 days to respond.
Congo did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
