"Despite the Governor's hyperbole, it is the trial court's order, not the Court of Appeals' writ of supersedeas, that is unprecedented," legislative lawyers wrote.
"Although the Governor contends '[t]he COA Order represents a remarkable departure from the established practices of our appellate courts[,]' it does nothing of the sort. Instead, Senate Bill 382 represents a legitimate exercise of the General Assembly's plenary and express authority to (i) reorganize executive agencies and (ii) assign duties to the 'other elective officers' in addition to the Governor who serve as members of the executive branch."
"The trial court rested its order on a radical theory that finds no support in our State's constitutional text, history, or precedent - i.e., that our Constitution requires all executive authority to be vested in the Governor and the Governor 'alone,'" lawmakers' court filing continued.
"But, as this Court has recognized, our State Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, has never consolidated power in one man. Instead, it has always diffused power across a multi-member executive branch."
Boliek also urged the high court to keep the Appeals Court's order in place.
"The Governor tries to label the Court of Appeals' Stay Order as some egregious departure from established court practices, but this label does not stick," Boliek's lawyers wrote.
"It is an absurd contention. The Stay Order is right in line with what a writ of supersedeas exists to do."
"The Stay Order maintains the status quo that has existed since Senate Bill 382 became law in December," the auditor's court filing added.
"For months, the Auditor has operated in the framework the General Assembly established. In the months since Senate Bill 382 became law and the Auditor took office in January, he has made necessary arrangements to fulfill his new statutory obligations on the timeline set by the General Assembly."
"Some of those obligations have now been fulfilled," Boliek's lawyers wrote.
"Disrupting that process during the pending appeals would unsettle established expectations and undermine the orderly execution of the law. The Court of Appeals' Stay Order avoids that outcome."
"The Court of Appeals' Stay Order also avoided throwing the executive branch into a state of uncertainty by virtue of the trial court's order creating a fractured structure," the auditor's court filing continued.
"The trial court enjoined only part of Senate Bill 382 - blocking the provisions shifting appointment power over State and County Board members to the Auditor - while leaving untouched the section transferring the State Board itself to the Auditor's Office."
"If the trial court's order had not been stayed by the Court of Appeals' Stay Order, the State would have operated under a regime the General Assembly never authorized or envisioned," Boliek's lawyers wrote.
"As the member of the Council of State specifically charged with ensuring government efficiency and transparency, the Auditor has a strong interest in seeing the Board of Elections function properly and lawfully. The General Assembly has given him that responsibility," the court filing added.
