A USVI Supreme Court ruling had prevented Mr Kevin A. Rodriquez from being sworn in along with his colleagues on January 9, 2017. Photo: Internet Source

Plaintiffs Janelle Sauraw and Brigette Berry sought to have the matter remanded to the VI Superior Court, where there were previous pronouncements resulting in an order from the VI Supreme Court preventing Mr Rodriquez from being sworn in along with his colleagues, according to the release.

Mr Rodriquez was joined by the Board of Elections in arguing that the matter is governed by the Revised Organic Act, which is a federal law, and therefore the court of proper jurisdiction is the US District Court and not the VI Superior Court. Judge Curtis V. Gomez agreed with Mr Rodriquez and the Board of Elections, and denied Ms Sarauw’s request to remand the matter to the Superior Court.

Mr Rodriquez had previously filed suit against Myron D. Jackson in his capacity as president of the 32nd Legislature. The senator-elect also filed suit against the 32nd Legislature demanding that the body seat him, arguing that the Revised Organic Act, Section 6(g), gives the Legislature sole jurisdiction of matters governing the seating of its members.

Judge Gomez consolidated the matters and asked the parties to submit additional briefing on several issues by Saturday at 3:00 p.m.

Take action on matter

Meanwhile on Thursday, Senator Tregenza Roach called on Mr Jackson to take action on the matter involving Rodriquez, a position Mr Roach said was held by the Senate’s legal counsel. “I am convinced by my own review of the matter and by the Legal Counsel’s detailed review that the matter is appropriately within the province of the 32nd Legislature now that the body has been convened,” Mr Roach wrote in a letter addressed to Mr Jackson, according to a release Mr Roach’s office issued today. “I am further convinced that this matter will become even more entangled by the several legal actions being maintained before the local courts, which may lead to conflicting and contradictory outcomes and which may continue indefinitely the untenable reality of unequal representation between the voting districts which constitute the body.”

Mr Roach further stated that legal counsel has opined that the Legislature has adjudicated such matters previously and that nothing in the law or in the rules of the Legislature precludes the body from addressing the issues surrounding a challenge to the qualifications of a senator-elect or whether any defects preclude a senator-elect from being seated by the body.

“It is important that the Legislature act now to preserve its integrity and autonomy as a separate and equal branch of government,” Mr Roach said. “I am disheartened when I consider that the ultimate reality of this continuing in the local courts is that at some point the Judicial body will be forced to order the Legislature to take some action in this regard.”

He argued that such an outcome would lead to a challenge as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine which is intended to support the autonomy of each branch of government with regard to certain matters.

“The Legislature’s role as the sole judge of the elections and qualifications of its members as provided in the Revised Organic Act is clearly at issue here,” he said.

Mr Roach also registered his dismay that while the legal counsel’s opinions are generally made available to the members of the body, this one was not produced until he made a formal request to the counsel, the executive director, and the Senate President. “

“Then, when the Opinion was produced, it was dated January 24, 2017, when a clear reading confirms easily that it was prepared by the Legal Counsel prior to the official swearing in of the body on January 9, 2017.”