When Courts Avoid the Hard Questions, Democracy Pays the Price

Guest Opinion by Sheila McNeil, Democratic Candidate for the Alabama Public Service Commission, Place 2

There are moments in our democracy when the courage of our institutions is measured not by the decisions they make, but by whether they are willing to make them at all. Courts are entrusted with a responsibility that extends beyond resolving disputes between opposing parties. They are charged with interpreting the Constitution, protecting legal rights, and ensuring that the exercise of government power remains within the boundaries of the law.

That responsibility becomes especially consequential when a legal challenge involves the rules governing an election already approaching.

My case, McNeil v. Ivey, presents precisely that concern. My challenge to Alabama House Bill 475 raises questions about the restructuring of the Alabama Public Service Commission, the consequences for an elected office, and the constitutional implications of changing the rules governing public office while an election process is underway. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The court has received filings addressing the State’s motion to dismiss. A motion for preliminary injunctive relief has also been prepared and pursued as part of the effort to obtain meaningful judicial consideration before the November 3 election.

As of this writing, the central concern is whether the court will address the request for relief while meaningful pre-election relief remains possible. The court has not announced that it will refuse to rule. Nor can anyone outside the court know what the judge intends to do. But the absence of a decision as an election approaches raises a legitimate question that deserves public attention: What happens to a constitutional claim when the passage of time threatens to make the requested remedy meaningless? Justice delayed can become justice denied.

Courts must have time to consider the law, examine the evidence, hear opposing arguments, and apply the appropriate legal standards. No litigant is entitled to a favorable ruling simply because an election is approaching. Nor should a judge be pressured to reach a particular conclusion because one side considers the matter urgent. But there is a difference between taking the time necessary to decide a case and allowing the calendar to determine whether a remedy remains available.When a case concerns an upcoming election, time is not merely an administrative consideration. It can be part of the substance of the dispute. If a court does not consider a request for pre-election relief until after the election has occurred, the practical consequences may be profound. A candidate may have completed an election under rules being challenged as unconstitutional. Voters may have cast ballots without the requested judicial clarification. And a court may later confront the question of what meaningful relief remains available.

That does not mean every election-related lawsuit must be expedited or that every request for an injunction should be granted. It means that courts should recognize the consequences of delay and evaluate urgent requests in a timely manner, consistent with the law.

The question is not whether the court should rule in my favor. The question is whether the constitutional issues should receive meaningful consideration while the court can still provide effective relief, if the law and evidence warrant it.

Judicial courage is not partisan. Our country depends on an independent judiciary precisely because constitutional disputes can be politically difficult. Judicial independence means that judges must not decide cases to satisfy politicians, candidates, public opinion, or the preferences of any political party. It also means that judges must not allow the political sensitivity of a dispute to become a reason to avoid the legal questions properly before them.

The courage required of a judge is not the courage to agree with a particular litigant. It is the courage to apply the law faithfully, even when the outcome is controversial, inconvenient, or unwelcome to those in power. A ruling against a government is not inherently courageous, just as a ruling in its favor is not inherently wrong. The measure of judicial integrity is the reasoning, the law, and the fair application of legal standards—not which side wins.

But when a court’s silence leaves the public uncertain about whether a potentially consequential constitutional question will be addressed in time, confidence in the judicial process can suffer. That concern deserves an answer grounded in the administration of justice, not speculation about a judge’s motives.

The danger of allowing the calendar to decide a constitutional right is not meaningful merely because someone may be permitted to argue about it later. In election disputes, the timing of judicial review can affect whether a remedy is practical at all. Once votes are cast and election results are certified, the legal and practical barriers to relief may change substantially. Courts must consider those realities alongside the legal doctrines governing jurisdiction, standing, equitable relief, and election administration.

The State may have legitimate legal defenses. The court must evaluate them. The judiciary must also respect the limits of its authority and the need to avoid unnecessary disruption to elections. Yet those considerations make timely judicial analysis more important, not less. If a claim is legally deficient, a court can explain why. If the plaintiff lacks standing, the court can address that question. If the requested relief is unavailable under governing law, the court can say so. And if the case presents a legally sufficient basis for relief, the court can determine what remedy is appropriate.

A reasoned decision provides clarity even when it disappoints one side. Indefinite uncertainty provides neither a resolution nor a clear explanation of the law. The public should not have to guess whether a serious constitutional challenge will be decided on its merits, resolved on procedural grounds, or left without meaningful pre-election consideration because time has run out.

The public deserves accountability from every branch

This case is about more than one candidate or one election. It raises broader questions about the relationship between elected government, statutory restructuring, constitutional limits, and the ability of citizens to seek judicial review.

Public institutions derive their legitimacy in part from the confidence that they will follow established rules and fulfill their responsibilities. Legislatures must act within constitutional limits. Executive officials must exercise their authority lawfully. Courts must independently adjudicate disputes within their jurisdiction. No branch should be exempt from scrutiny simply because a controversy is politically difficult.

That principle cuts both ways. A litigant must respect the court’s authority and accept that the law may not support the relief requested. A court, in turn, must apply the law without regard to political consequences or the identity of the parties. The public has every reason to expect both.

The question is whether justice will arrive in time. I am not asking the court to abandon its legal obligations, overlook procedural requirements, or rule in my favor because the election is near. I am asking that the constitutional questions presented in my case receive timely and meaningful consideration, and that any decision be grounded in the law. The court may ultimately agree with the State, agree with me, or reach a different conclusion about the scope of the available relief. That is the judicial process. But the approaching election makes the timing of that process consequential. If effective pre-election relief is legally available, waiting until it is no longer practical could defeat the very purpose of seeking it.

Our democracy cannot depend on whether difficult questions are politically comfortable to answer. It depends on whether our institutions will perform their duties when the stakes are high and the answers are difficult. Judicial courage does not mean choosing a side. It means refusing to let political pressure, controversy, or inconvenience replace the disciplined application of law.

The court does not owe me a particular outcome. It owes the parties a fair process under the law. And when time threatens to extinguish the practical value of a requested remedy, the public has a legitimate interest in seeing that question addressed.

The ultimate test is not whether a court delivers the decision a litigant wants. It is whether the law—not political convenience, public pressure, or the passage of time—determines the result. That is the standard our Constitution demands. It is the standard every branch of government should be prepared to meet.

I Have Done My Part in Seeking Justice.

I brought this case because I believe constitutional questions deserve to be heard, rights deserve to be protected, and the law must apply regardless of who holds power. I have taken the step available to me: seeking justice through the courts and asking for meaningful consideration of the constitutional issues raised in my case.

To date, the justice I have sought has not come in the form of a ruling on the relief I am pursuing. I remain hopeful that the court will address these issues while meaningful relief is still possible. But I must also acknowledge the reality that time is passing and the election is approaching. If a decision does not come in time for meaningful pre-election relief, I will know that I did my part. I raised the questions. I brought the challenge. I placed my concerns before the institution entrusted with interpreting the law. I did not remain silent, and I did not abandon my responsibility to seek an answer. My responsibility is to pursue justice through the lawful process available to me. I have done that, and I will continue to stand by the principles that led me to file this case.

Justice is not measured solely by whether we receive the answer we seek. It is also measured by whether we have the courage to stand up, invoke our rights, and insist that the law be applied—even when the outcome is uncertain and the clock is running out.

Sheila McNeil is the Democratic candidate for Place 2 on the Alabama Public Service Commission.

For more information on McNeil and her campaign, visit https://mcneilforpsc2.com.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.