A state court has upheld the governor’s appointment of Farzana Leyva as Orleans County state’s attorney, rejecting an argument that a special election was needed to fill the seat.
In an order on Wednesday, the Orleans County Superior civil court dismissed a case that challenged Gov. Phil Scott’s authority to appoint Leyva as the county’s top prosecutor for a full term. Judge Daniel Richardson ruled that the Vermont Constitution gave the governor the authority to fill such a vacancy and did not require that a special election be held.
Leyva did not respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.
The Vermont Attorney General’s Office, which represented Leyva and Scott as defendants in the lawsuit, said through chief of staff Lauren Jandl that it was pleased with the ruling and looked forward to continuing its work with Leyva.
Leyva became interim state’s attorney in September after Scott named the incumbent, Jennifer Barrett, as a Superior Court judge. Barrett, who had been seeking reelection at the time, still appeared on the November ballot and won another four-year term — defeating Leyva’s write-in campaign.
As a judge, Barrett could not simultaneously serve as state’s attorney and declined her elected position.
In January, Scott appointed Leyva to carry out the remainder of Barrett’s tenure and to serve as state’s attorney for the 2023-27 term.
That same month, defense attorney David Sleigh filed suit, seeking to block Leyva’s appointment to a four-year term on behalf of criminal defense clients in Orleans County. He argued that a full-term vacancy can only be filled by a special election and not through a gubernatorial appointment.
The court allowed Leyva to be sworn in, but permitted Sleigh to file an amended complaint addressing whether the attorney had standing to file suit since he failed to identify clients who would be affected by Leyva’s becoming state’s attorney.
In Wednesday’s court decision, Richardson ruled that the plaintiffs – 31 individuals named in the amended complaint – did have standing to bring the complaint but dismissed it based on the merits.
When asked for comment on the ruling, Sleigh said he expected the case to be over since he did not think any of his clients would seek to appeal.