Wells v. State ex rel. Miller

• Citation: 237 W.Va. 698,791 S.E.2d 361
• Decision Date: 15 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 16–0779,16–0779
• Parties: Erik Patrick Wells, Petitioner/Respondent Below v. State of West Virginia ex rel. Charles T. Miller, Prosecuting Attorney for Kanawha County, Respondent/Petitioner Below
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

237 W.Va. 698

791 S.E.2d 361

Erik Patrick Wells, Petitioner/Respondent Below

v.State of West Virginia ex rel. Charles T. Miller, Prosecuting Attorney for Kanawha County, Respondent/Petitioner Below

No. 16–0779

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: September 7, 2016

Filed: September 15, 2016

Thomas P. Maroney, Esq., Maroney, Williams, Weaver, & Pancake, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Petitioner.

Charles T. Miller, Esq., Laura Young, Esq., Robert William Schulenberg, III, Esq., Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha County, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Respondent.

WORKMAN

, Justice:

This is an appeal from the circuit court's August 18, 2016, order granting respondent State of West Virginia's (hereinafter “respondent”) amended petition for writ of quo warranto, disallowing petitioner Erik Patrick Wells' (hereinafter “petitioner”) candidacy for the office of Kanawha County Clerk. The circuit court found that, as a registered member of the Democratic Party, petitioner's candidacy was governed by the provisions of West Virginia Code § 3–5–7

(2015) and that petitioner had failed to comply with its requirements, disqualifying him as a candidate for the office of Kanawha County Clerk.

Based upon our review of the briefs, legal authorities, appendix record, and upon consideration of arguments of counsel, we conclude that West Virginia Code § 3–5–7

is applicable to any person who seeks to hold an office or political party position to be filled by primary or general election. Therefore, in light of petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of West Virginia Code § 3–5–7, we affirm the circuit court's order granting the petition for writ of quo warranto.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 18, 2016, petitioner, a registered Democrat, filed a “Candidate's Certificate of Announcement for 2016 Partisan Elections” and paid the required filing fee to the Kanawha County Clerk's office. Petitioner left blank¹ a portion of the form, which states as follows:

I am a member of and affiliated with the following political party: ____________. I am a member of and affiliated with this political party as evidenced by my current voter's registration and I have not been registered as a member of another political party within sixty days of this date. (W.Va. Code § 3–5–7(d)(6)

)

Subsequently, petitioner filed a “Minor Party or Independent Candidate Nomination Petition,” seeking to become a certificate nomination candidate pursuant to West Virginia Code § 3–5–23

(2009). On this form, in the space provided for “Party,” the certificate stated: “Independent.” Petitioner submitted signatures from 1,019 individuals; the County Clerk invalidated 119 of the signatures, leaving 900 signatures as valid.²

On August 10, 2016, respondent filed a petition for writ of quo warranto pursuant to West Virginia Code § 53–2–1 et seq .

(1923),³ and the following day filed its amended petition. The circuit court conducted a hearing on this matter on August 12, 2016, during which a key issue was petitioner's failure to fully complete the certificate of announcement, having left his party affiliation blank. During the hearing, petitioner testified that he was and remained a registered Democrat and had voted on May 10, 2016, in the Democratic primary. Petitioner testified that he was running for the office of Kanawha County Clerk as an “independent,” as indicated on the “Minor Party or Independent Candidate Nomination Petition.” Petitioner further testified that he read and was aware of the requirements imposed on a candidate filing a certificate of announcement, but had not decided to run for office until after the primary election.⁴

By order entered August 18, 2016, the circuit court granted respondent's petition for writ of quo warranto and disallowed petitioner's candidacy for the office of Kanawha County Clerk in the November 8, 2016, general election. Specifically, the circuit court found that petitioner failed to fully complete the certificate of announcement required by West Virginia Code § 3–5–7

and that regardless, as a registered Democrat, petitioner could not avail himself of the certificate nomination process under West Virginia Code § 3–5–23. As pertained to the certificate of announcement, the circuit court reasoned that

[b]y failing to include the party affiliation in the certificate of announcement, the ... [petitioner] created confusion for the voters regarding precisely who is running for office and what party and party philosophies [petitioner] is affiliated with. Further, the failure to include a party affiliation in the certificate of announcement will create an impossible situation for election officials in preparing the ballet [sic] and for voters when voting.

The circuit court stated that if petitioner's name appeared on the ballot as a Democrat, it would create the impression that he was on the ballot because he either won the primary election or had his name placed on the ballot by the Kanawha Democratic Executive Committee or its chairperson. On the other hand, if his name appeared as “independent,” it would be inaccurate because petitioner is a registered Democrat. The circuit court further found that West Virginia Code § 3–5–23

was for use by “persons who seek elective office and who are not members of an organized party having a nominating election or a nominating convention.”

The circuit court further rejected petitioner's contention that he presented a viable, constitutionally-based “ballot access” challenge because “as a registered Democrat, [petitioner] had access to the ballot” and found that petitioner could have simply followed the various requirements to run for office. Specifically, the circuit court noted that petitioner could have filed a certificate of announcement for county-wide office or pursued having the Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee place his name on the ballot.⁵ This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Petitioner's appeal raises the issues of the application and scope of West Virginia Code § 3–5–7

and West Virginia Code §§ 3–5–23 and –24. In this regard, we have held that “ ‘[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.’ Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995)

.” Syl. pt. 3, Alden v. Harpers Ferry Police Civil Serv. Comm'n, 209 W.Va. 83, 543 S.E.2d 364 (2001). Mindful of this applicable standard, we now consider the substantive issues raised by the parties.

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises three assignments of error. First, petitioner asserts that the circuit court erred in concluding that the certificate of announcement requirements contained in West Virginia Code § 3–5–7(d)(6)

are applicable to a candidate seeking nomination by certificate. Second, petitioner contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that, as a registered Democrat, he could not avail himself of the certificate nomination process outlined in West Virginia Code § 3–5–23. Finally, petitioner asserts that in denying petitioner's candidacy, the circuit court denied him ballot access, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article III, Sections 7, 16 and 17 and Article IV, Sections 1 and 4 of the West Virginia Constitution.

Before we address petitioner's arguments, we note that the West Virginia Constitution reserves to the Legislature the ability to make laws concerning public officials and the manner in which those officials assume office. In syllabus point four of Morris v. Board of Canvassers of City of Charleston , 49 W.Va. 251, 38 S.E. 500 (1901)

, this Court held: “The constitution, in article IV, section 11, gives wide powers to the legislature to make all reasonable regulations and restrictions as to preparation of ballots and the conduct and returns of elections.”⁶

Article IV, section 8 provides that “[t]he Legislature, in cases not provided for in this constitution, shall prescribe, by general laws, the terms of office, powers, duties and compensation of all public officers and agents, and the manner in which they shall be elected, appointed and removed.” Additionally, Article IV, Section 11 provides that

[t]he Legislature shall prescribe the manner of conducting and making returns of elections, and of determining contested elections; and shall pass such laws as may be necessary and proper to prevent intimidation, disorder or violence at the polls, and corruption or fraud in voting, counting the vote, ascertaining or declaring the result or fraud in any manner upon the ballot.

This Court is further mindful that the Legislature “inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election-and campaign-related disorder.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party , 520 U.S. 351, 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997)

.

A. Applicability of West Virginia Code § 3–5–7 to certificate nomination candidates under West Virginia Code § 3–5–23

As indicated above, petitioner, a registered Democrat, seeks to be a candidate for the office of Kanawha County Clerk by utilizing the “certificate nomination” process outlined in West Virginia Code § 3–5–23

. The statute provides, in pertinent part:

Groups of citizens having no party organization may nominate candidates who are not already candidates in the primary election for public office otherwise than by conventions or primary elections. In that case, the candidate or candidates, jointly or severally, shall file a nomination certificate in accordance with the provisions of this section and the provisions of section twenty-four of this article.

W. Va. Code § 3–5–23(a)

.⁷ The nominating certificate must state the name and residence of each of the candidates; that he or she is legally qualified to hold the office; that the subscribers are legally qualified and duly registered as...