Ex parte Law Weekly
76 U.Va 16 (2024)
J. ALLARD delivers the opinion of the Court.
This ex parte proceeding was brought before the court by members of the Executive Board following the events of February 26. During the meeting for annual elections, former Editor-in-Chief, Nikolai Morse ’24 explained to the Law Weekly staff that the Board had agreed to adopt election procedures restricting the eligibility of candidates for Editor-in-Chief. Specifically, Morse said that only graduating 3Ls who had previously served as Managing Editor would be eligible for the top position. The Board members, who claim to have never agreed to these terms, recognized Morse’s efforts as an attempted coup d’etat. Immediately, the four other members of the Board—Monica Sandu ’24, Garrett Coleman ’25, Ethan Brown ’25, and Andrew Allard ’25—voted to override the Editor-in-Chief and allow the staff to elect a new Executive Board.
After a secret ballot vote led to a resounding defeat for Morse—who received only two votes written in remarkably similar handwriting—the Executive Board sought to swear in the newly elected Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Allard. Morse refused to recognize the results of the election, claiming that it was held in violation of the Law Weekly Constitution. Morse then called on the student body to resist the “puppet Executive Board” that he claimed was installed by Darden students.
Morse has locked and barricaded himself in the Law Weekly office—and reportedly swallowed all of the keys. The Executive Board has been governing the newspaper in exile. They ask the Court for declaratory relief recognizing Allard as Editor-in-Chief and for a writ of mandamus ordering Morse to reopen the Law Weekly offices. Because Morse has fortified his compound to keep out process servers, the Court has permitted the Executive Board to pursue this action ex parte.
I
The first issue before the Court is whether the Law Weekly’s Constitution permits the Board to adopt the candidate eligibility restrictions that Morse attempted to apply in this year’s elections. We hold that it does.
Article IV of the Constitution provides broad guidelines for the organization’s electoral procedures. Section 1 specifies that elections shall be held during the fifth week of the spring semester and authorizes the Editorial Board to “promulgate and maintain rules regarding the specific procedures for elections.” The Constitution imposes no explicit restrictions on these rules and procedures, though positions are restricted to “students in at least their second semester.”
The Board notoriously employs arcane methods to select its successors. Many successful “campaigns” result from backroom dealmaking, and some Editors-in-Chief have opted to hand-pick their successors. But never before has an Editor-in-Chief functionally handpicked himself as successor—until now.
Despite its historical practice, the Board argued that the word “election” as used in Article IV implies contestation. We disagree. There are many U.S. states in which elections are hardly contested, if they can even be described as free and fair. See e.g., the “Commonwealth” of Massachusetts. Moreover, we find no constitutional provision forbidding the restrictions at issue here. The Constitution empowers the Board to adopt “rules regarding the specific procedures for elections.” The Court declines to impose atextual limits on that power. Indeed, the fact that the Constitution restricts Board positions to “students in . . . their second semester” suggests that the Framers did not oppose seniority-based eligibility requirements.
II
The second issue in this case is whether the Executive Board properly exercised its Article I authority to call for popular elections. We hold that they did.
Article I, Section 2 establishes the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. It is “comprised of an Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Production Editor, and Features Editor.” Section 2 makes the Executive Board “responsible of [sic] the quality and good taste of the publication.” It also empowers the Executive Board to “overrule decisions of the Editor-in-Chief” by a three-fifths majority.
Section 3 establishes the Editorial Board which is “comprised of the members of the Executive Board,” along with other editors as appointed by a majority of the Executive Board. The Editorial Board may also overrule the Editor-in-Chief but by a two-thirds majority.
Two arguments against the popular elections were offered in this case. Firstly, the Executive Board, having responsibility for “the quality and good taste” of the Law Weekly, cannot responsibly allow the position to be popularly elected. That voters ultimately chose Allard as Morse’s successor is offered as evidence showing the folly of this populist approach. Secondly, it is argued that under the unitary executive board theory, the Editor-in-Chief may exercise unbridled authority when Board members are found to be in mutiny. We reject both of these arguments.
The unitary executive board theory finds no support in the Constitution’s text or historical practice. This Court will not allow such laughable doctrines to impede its sacred duty to harass the Editor-in-Chief on their way out.[1] And while we agree that the editors have committed an embarrassing blunder by electing Allard as Editor-in-Chief, we cannot allow their folly to override the Constitution. As discussed in Part I, Article IV grants the Editorial Board power to set election rules. Because more than two-thirds of the Board voted to hold popular elections, we are bound to recognize the results. The Law Weekly staff are no doubt happy to have rid themselves of the tyrannical dictator Morse. As though they wished on a monkey’s paw, they are now stuck with the democratically-elected Mr. Allard. May God have mercy on their souls—because this Court sure as hell won’t.
It is so ordered.
Morse, C.J. Emeritus, Dissenting.
Et tu, Brute?
In the fall of 2021, I entered these august halls and set my sights on the most prestigious and powerful organization in UVA Law: the Virginia Law Weekly. I now find myself, having labored tirelessly for years in service of this great publication, being pilloried by those I thought my loyal servants comrades. Alas, fate is a cruel mistress.
Each week when I shared free pizza, my sharp wit, and brilliant story ideas, I imagined myself amongst friends. I thought that we were engaged in pursuit of a common mission[2] and yet did not realize that these erstwhile editors laid the blame for the fault in their stars at my feet. And whilst any impartial observer could not help but agree that during my tenure a Colossus bestrode the Virginia Law Weekly, who could have predicted I would be brought so low. And now my executioners ask me to go gentle into that good night!
Yet, if it is possible to measure the success of one’s leadership, is that measure not found in the ability of the organization to thrive in your absence? This publication will undoubtedly continue to grow and reach new heights, and since it seems the UVA Law administration (and my wife) refuses to let me enroll for another year, I will have to move on.
Despite my fervent appeals to every legal trick (and a few extralegal ones) that I’ve learned the past few years, I cannot deny the merit of Chief Justice Allard’s arguments. While my honor and dedication to this great publication compels my dissent, I will rest easy knowing that the Law Weekly is in good (if perhaps a bit power-hungry) hands.
I very respectfully dissent.
[1] See UVA Law Student Body v. Tonseth, 74 U.Va 10 (2021) (ordering the Editor-in-Chief to “hard labor and cultural reeducation training, to be carried out in the Darden basement”); see also Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (dragging the outgoing Editor-in-Chief for confusing two admittedly similar editors).
[2] Toppling the Virginia Law Review, of course.