WILMINGTON, Del. - Wilmington City Councilman James Spadola's immediate future is now in the hands of the Delaware Chancery Court.
Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick listened to 37 minutes of oral arguments Tuesday, on whether Spadola's decision to switch from Republican to Democrat should lead to him forfeiting his at-large seat on council.
Elections for the four at-large seats have a relatively obscure rule, that any one party can put up three nominees for the four seats, ensuring that the fourth seat must be won by someone other than a member of the majority party.
In Wilmington's current political climate, 12 of the seats are held by Democrats, with Spadola winning the Republican pathway to the 13th seat.
Spadola announced last October that he was switching to the Democratic Party, suggesting he could not find a reason that fit his values or vision for Wilmington.
Wilmington City Council passed a resolution in April asking state lawmakers to change Wilmington's city charter requiring one member of a non-majority party to have an at-large seat at all times, in effect preventing Spadola's move.
That resolution did not lead to action in the recently-ended session.
A month later, council voted to remove Spadola for office, citing his party switch, but before the vote, Spadola had filed the lawsuit in Chancery Court to stop it from being enforced.
Chancellor McCormick issued a temporary injunction allowing the vote to take place, but not allowing the result to stand until a hearing, which took place Tuesday.
Spadola's attorney Bill Larson argued that Spadola has a First Amendment right to affiliate with groups, including political parties, at his own free will, and that political parties are not included in the list of reasons that Wilmington City Council can vote to vacate a seat.
He also added that Spadola is not a representative of the Republican Party, but rather a person that Wilmingtonians voted into office.
He also posited hypothetical situations, including if two minority party candidates were voted in at at-large, and both wanted to switch, how would that work, and what if they were an at-large candidate, how would they be replaced.
Former Delaware Attorney General Jane Brady represented Congo and City Council, arguing the election rules merited clear intent to have the split between parties.
She said the election rules would be "superfluous" if you could flip parties after the election.
She also rejected the first amendment argument, saying that Spadola is elected instead of employed, so he doesn't enjoy all the same First Amendment protections.
She also noted that by playing by the rules, two of the 5 Democrats in the primary did not have the opportunity to advance to the General Election, which could have protected Spadola's ability to win a seat.
Her final argument was that Spadola made a choice that has "consequences", noting he could have joined any other party, or none, and been fine, but that by becoming a Democrat, he created the 4-0 situation.
Larson returned to the podium, putting up another hypothetical wondering how council would act if it was a 6-6 party split as a result of a dismissal.
Brady counted by saying that hypothetical arguments were being made by the prosecution, and then the arguments ended at 11:37 a.m., 33 minutes after they began.
Chancellor McCormick took in the proceedings quietly, and did not ask any questions to either side.
She ended the proceedings, but did not give any indication when she would be providing a ruling.
Until that point, Spadola remains on Wilmington City Council.
Spadola left the courtroom saying he wanted to debrief with council, but Congo did speak with us, saying if Spadola was removed, he felt it would be right if Spadola's potential replacement was still a member of the Republican Party.
Under current Wilmington City Council rules, that Republican would be voted on by the 12 remaining council members, all Democrats.
