New Developments in Dover Case

Interesting follow up on the question of whether the new school board could get the Dover lawsuit mooted or not. It turns out that at least one person on the old school board wanted to attempt it. The old school board had one last meeting on Monday night before the new board takes over next month and one of the pro-ID board members, David Napierskie, made a motion to attempt to do just that. The York Daily Record notes:

He asked the board to revoke the curriculum change that includes intelligent design, agree to not add it again and ask their legal representation, Thomas More Law Center, to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against them.

Napierskie believes the action would make the case moot and prevent the district from paying legal fees...

Though Napierskie said he believes intelligent design, he made the motion to remove it Monday after talking to community members and seeing the voters' response to boot out eight incumbents who favor intelligent design. But his fellow members didn't agree and didn't second the motion.

In a follow-up article, the YDR looked at whether it would be that easy to get the case mooted and got some conflicting answers:

Napierskie said he believes the action would make the case moot and prevent the district from paying legal fees.

"It's not as simple as let's dismiss the case and walk away with paying $1," said Thompson, who spoke with Napierskie prior to his motion. "By merely dismissing the case, even if that were agreed upon, would not eliminate the plaintiffs' ability to ask for reasonable attorney fees."

Plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment.

Kevin Alan Lewis, assistant professor of theology and law at the Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in California, said the defense could file a motion to dismiss on the basis that there is no controversy because the new board doesn't favor the curriculum.

But despite the implications of the election, the judge could say the policy, one which can change often, falls under the possibility of escaping review and not accept a motion to dismiss -- much like the nine-month constraint surrounding abortion cases, he said.

Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don't figure into his ruling.

But then there's also this very interesting statement from Richard Thompson, the director of the Thomas More Law Center, the group defending the school board. I think this gives real insight into ulterior motives and fights within the ID side:

"The case was tried with the assumption that regardless of who won or lost an appellate court and maybe ultimately the (U.S.) Supreme Court would take a look at it and change the law," Thompson said. "If they don't appeal, what they've done is short-circuit the entire legal strategy that was put in place by the Thomas More Law Center."

But the new board can make its own decisions, he said. Napierskie said he was looking out for the taxpayers and started thinking about the possibilities the day after the election.

"I think (Thompson's) agenda is a little different from the way I'm looking at it myself," Napierskie said.

Thompson said he believed Napierskie was pushed by the pro-intelligent-design Discovery Institute.

I think Napierskie is right, Thompson's agenda is not the same as the school board's agenda, and the Discovery Institute's agenda is different from both of those as well. The TMLC just wants all the publicity and donations it can possibly wring out from this case. The DI, on the other hand, desperately wishes this case would just go away. They know that they are at serious risk of seeing their entire strategy blown up here and they would really prefer to stay alive to fight another day in court while defending a policy not so explicitly tied to religious intent.