Gutierrez v. Ada
| Decision Date | 19 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | 9951 |
| Citation | 528 U.S. 250,145 L.Ed.2d 747,120 S.Ct. 740 |
| Parties | Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GUTIERREZ et al. v. ADA et al. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT51 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
GUTIERREZ et al.
v.
ADA et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued December 6, 1999
Decided January 19, 2000
The Organic Act of Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 1422 provides, inter alia, that "[i]f no [slate of] candidates [for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Guam] receive[s] a majority of the votes cast in any election, . . . a runoff election shall be held." Petitioners, candidates running on one slate for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, received a majority of the votes cast for gubernatorial slates in the 1998 Guam general election, but did not receive a majority of the total number of ballots that voters cast. Respondents, petitioners' opponents, sought a writ of mandamus ordering a runoff election. The District Court issued the writ, and the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed, interpreting the statutory phrase "majority of the votes cast in any election" to require that a slate receive a majority of the total number of ballots cast in the general election.
Held: The Guam Organic Act does not require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election. Section 1422 contains six express references to an election for those offices, two of them preceding the phrase "in any election," and four following. So surrounded, "any election" can only refer to an election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, for words are known by their companions. See, e.g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575. This reading is confirmed by the fact that, later in §1422, Congress varied the specific modifier when it spoke of the "general election" at which the gubernatorial election would occur. Congress would hardly have used "any election" to mean "general election," only to mention "general election" a few lines further on. It would be equally odd to think that after repeatedly using "votes" or "vote" to mean an expression of choice for the gubernatorial slate, Congress suddenly used "votes cast in any election" to mean "ballots cast," as respondents suggest. Congress, indeed, has shown that it recognizes the difference between ballots and votes in the very context of Guamanian elections: From 1972 until 1998, §1712 expressly required that the Guam Delegate be elected "by separate ballot and by a majority of the votes cast for Delegate." To accept respondents' reading would also impute to Congress a strange preference for making it hard to select a Governor, because a runoff would be required even though one slate already had a majority of all those who cared to choose among gubernatorial candidates. Requiring a majority of the total number of voters on election day would also be in some tension with §1422a, which provides for removal of a Governor or Lieutenant Governor upon the vote of at least two-thirds of the total number of persons who actually voted for such office, not the total number who went to the polls. Respondents' two considerations pointing to a contrary reading that because §1712 specifically states that "a majority of the votes cast for . . . Delegate" is necessary to elect a Delegate, §1422 would require a comparably clear modifier to refer to sufficient votes to elect gubernatorial slates; and that this Court's reading of "any election" would render that phrase a nullity and thus offend the rule against attributing redundancy to Congress are rejected. Pp. 4 8.
179 F.3d 672, reversed and remanded.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CARL T. C. GUTIERREZ and MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, PETITIONERS
v.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
[January 19, 2000]
The question here is whether the statute governing elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory of Guam compels a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election. We hold that the statute requires no runoff.
In the November 3, 1998, Guam general election, petitioners Carl T. C. Gutierrez and Madeleine Z. Bordallo were candidates running on one slate for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, opposed by the slate of respondents Joseph F. Ada and Felix P. Camacho. Gutierrez received 24,250 votes, as against 21,200 for Ada. Ada v. Guam, 179 F.3d 672, 675 (CA9 1999); App. 16. One thousand and two hundred ninety-four voted for write-in candidates; 1,313 persons who cast ballots did not vote for either slate or any write-in candidate; and 609 voted for both slates. 179 F.3d, at 675; App. 16. The total number of ballots cast in the general election was thus 48,666, and the Gutierrez slate's votes represented 49.83 percent of that total. The Guam Election Commission certified the Gutierrez slate as the winner, finding it had received 51.21 percent of the vote, as calculated by deducting the 1,313 ballots left blank as to the gubernatorial election from the total number of ballots cast. 179 F.3d, at 675. Respondents Ada and Camacho sued in the United States District Court for a writ of mandamus ordering a runoff election, contending that Gutierrez and Bordallo had not received a majority of the votes cast, as required by the Organic Act of Guam, 64 Stat. 384, as amended, 48 U.S.C. § 1421 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III).
So far as relevant, the Organic Act provides that:
48 U.S.C. § 1422.
Respondents' position boils down to the claim that the phrase "majority of the votes cast in any election" requires that a slate of candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor receive a majority of the total number of ballots cast in the general election, regardless of the number of votes for all gubernatorial slates by those casting ballots. If this is the correct reading of the phrase, the parties agree that a runoff was required. If, however, the phrase refers only to votes cast for gubernatorial slates, no runoff was in order, and petitioners were elected Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
The United States District Court for the District of Guam read the statute to require a majority of the total number of voters casting ballots in the general election and so ruled that the Gutierrez slate had not received "a majority of the votes cast in any election." The court accordingly issued a writ of mandamus for a runoff election to be held on December 19, 1998, Ada v. Guam, No. Civ. 98 00066 (Dec. 9, 1998), App. to Pet. for Cert. A 25, A 55.
Although the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an emergency stay of the District Court's order pending appeal, 179 F.3d, at 676, it ultimately affirmed. The Court of Appeals understood the reference to "majority of the votes cast" as meaning "all votes cast at the general election, for Congress presumably would not have included the phrase 'in any election,' if it meant to refer only to the votes cast in the single election for governor and lieutenant governor." Id., at 677. The court thought that any other reading would render the phrase "in any election" a "nullity." Ibid. The Court of Appeals also relied on a comparison of §1422, with 48 U.S.C. § 1712 which provides that a candidate for Guam's Delegate to Congress must receive "a majority of the votes cast for the office of Delegate" in order to be elected. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that Congress could have used similar language of limitation if it had intended the election of a Governor and Lieutenant Governor to require only a majority of votes cast for gubernatorial slates. 179 F.3d, at 678. The Ninth Circuit stayed its mandate pending disposition of petitioners' petition for a writ of certiorari.
We granted certiorari, 527 U.S. ___ (1999), to resolve a split between the Ninth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Valenti
- United States v. Hansen
-
GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL, WATER v. US ex rel. Wilson
... ... "`The maxim noscitur a sociis, ... while not an inescapable rule, is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.'" Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, 255, 120 S.Ct. 740, 145 L.Ed.2d 747 (2000) (quoting Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307, 81 S.Ct. 1579, 6 L.Ed.2d 859 (1961)). Here, the immediate proximity of "congressional" and "[GAO]" suggests that "administrative" should be read, like its neighbors, as ... ...
- Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
-
Of Two Minds About Plain Meaning: the Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Word "any" in 28 U.s.c. Section 2680(c) - Kevin Hembree
...any gubernatorial election by noting the two preceding references and four following references to gubernatorial elections. Gutierrez, 528 U.S. 250, 254-55 (2000). "With 'any election' so surrounded, what could it refer to except an election for Governor . . .?" the Court asked. Id. at 254-......
-
Electoral Recall in Washington State and California: California Needs Stricter Standards to Protect Elected Officials from Harassment
...Legislatures, at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm (last modified June 23, 2003). 40. See Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250 41. Bowser, supra note 39. There are state-wide recall provisions in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Ida......
-
Brief of the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska in Stenberg v. Carhart(*).
...portion" of the child) to extend the law beyond its D&X mooring. A word is known by the "company it keeps," Gutierrez v. Ada, 120 S.Ct. 740,744 (2000) (quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. [8] 561,575 (1995), and the word "substantial," in context, cannot tenably refer to a dismemb......