Benjamin v. Walker
| Decision Date | 19 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 16–0228.,16–0228. |
| Parties | Brent D. BENJAMIN, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Petitioner v. Elizabeth D. WALKER, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia; West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant; West Virginia State Election Commission members Gary A. Collias and Vincent P. Cardi, Respondents. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Benjamin Bailey, Jonathan R. Marshall, Maryl C. Sattler, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner, Benjamin.
Thomas C. Ryan, K & L GATES LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Respondent, Walker.
Richard L. Gottlieb, Webster J. Arceneaux, III, Spencer D. Elliott, Lewis Glasser Casey & Rollins, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Respondents, Tennant, Collias & Cardi.
Petitioner Brent D. Benjamin is a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and a candidate seeking re-election to the Court in the upcoming May 10, 2016, non-partisan election. Although Justice Benjamin began his election campaign as a “traditional candidate,” i.e., a candidate financed by contributions from supporters, he later made the decision to enter the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Program, W. Va.Code § 3–12–1 et seq.
, and filed his formal Declaration of Intent to do so on September 11, 2015. Thereafter, Justice Benjamin became a “participating candidate” under the Act.
On February 10, 2016, the West Virginia State Elections Commission (“the Commission”) certified Justice Benjamin's campaign for public funding under the Act, overruling a number of challenges filed by Respondent Elizabeth D. Walker, a traditional candidate also seeking election to the Court.
Pursuant to the West Virginia Administrative Procedures Act, W. Va.Code § 29A–5–1 et seq.
, Respondent Walker appealed the Commission's decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which ruled in favor of Walker on all issues and held that “[t]he SEC's certification of Justice Benjamin was clearly erroneous and must be REVERSED because it directly violated Walker's constitutional rights to free speech and substantive due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” This appeal followed.
After thorough review of the record Appendix, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the court below and reinstate the decision of the Commission certifying Justice Benjamin.
West Virginia Code § 3–12–1 et seq.
(2014), the “West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Program” (“the Act”), was enacted by the West Virginia Legislature to “protect the Constitutional rights of voters and candidates from the detrimental effects of increasingly large amounts of money being raised and spent to influence the outcome of elections, protect the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, and strengthen public confidence in the judiciary....” W. Va.Code § 3–12–1(10). Pursuant to the Act as amended in 2013, there are now two types of candidates seeking a seat on the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia: traditional candidates who proceed under traditional campaign finance rules, and “participating candidates” who apply to receive public financing under the Act. Significantly, nothing in the statute prevents a traditional candidate from becoming a participating candidate, which is what happened in this case when Justice Benjamin filed his Declaration of Intent under the Act on September 11, 2015.1
There are two distinct time periods under the Act. The first is the “exploratory period,” W. Va.Code § 3–12–3(5)
, which is the period during which a participating candidate may raise and spend contributions not to exceed $1,000.00 individually and not to exceed $20,000.00 in the aggregate, prior to the date on which the candidate files his or her formal Declaration of Intent.2 The second distinct time period under the Act is the “qualifying period,” W. Va.Code § 3–12–3(14), beginning upon the filing of the Declaration and concluding on January 30, during which a participating candidate must gather at least 500 “qualifying contributions” from West Virginia voters. W. Va.Code § 3–12–9(c). Each such contribution may be as little as $1.00, but can in no event exceed $100.00. W. Va.Code § 3–12–9(a). The total amount of the qualifying contributions must be no less than $35,000.00 and no more than $50,000.00. Id. If the aggregate amount of a participating candidate's contributions exceeds $50,000.00, the excess is paid over into the Fund. Id.
During both the exploratory and qualifying periods, a participating candidate is required to file monthly reports of contributions, expenditures and obligations “along with all receipt for contributions received during the prior month ...,” W. Va.Code § 3–12–13(b)
, such reports to be filed electronically with the Secretary of State. Id. As previously set forth, Justice Benjamin was a traditional candidate until September 11, 2015, when he filed his Declaration of Intent and became a participating candidate, and therefore had never been obligated to file any reports of contributions since his campaign was not governed by the Act. When he attempted to file his first such exploratory contributions report on October 1, 2015, together with his first qualifying contributions report, he discovered that the software utilized by the Secretary of State would not accept the former filing—a “computer glitch,” as the Secretary of State's counsel characterized it before this Court.3 Justice Benjamin's representative was assured that since he had in fact received no exploratory contributions in September, there was nothing for him to report in October under W. Va.Code § 3–12–13(b) ; and that all of the exploratory contributions he had received prior to becoming a participating candidate would be reported in the final accounting due two business days after the close of the qualifying period.4
After a participating candidate has collected the requisite number and amount of qualifying contributions, he or she applies to the Commission to be certified to receive public financing. W. Va.Code § 3–12–10(a)
. The application must include a sworn statement that the candidate has and will comply with all requirements of the Program. Id. The application, as well as the sworn statement, must be filed within two business days of the close of the qualifying period on January 30. W. Va.Code of State Rules §§ 146–5–6.1 & 6.2. In this regard, since January 30, 2016, fell on a Saturday, the second business day was Tuesday, February 2, 2016.
On February 2, 2016, Justice Benjamin filed his application and sworn statement, as well as his summary of “[a]ll qualifying contributions received and funds expended or obligated during the qualifying period together with copies of any receipts not previously submitted for qualifying contributions.” W. Va.Code § 3–12–13(c)(2)
. He did not, however, file his final report of all exploratory contributions received prior to becoming a participating candidate, W. Va.Code § 3–12–13(c)(1), because once again, the Secretary of State's computer system experienced a “glitch” and would not accept the filing. Thereafter, Justice Benjamin sought and was granted a hardship exemption and was permitted to file this final report in paper form on February 8, 2016.
On February 10, 2016, following multiple challenges filed by Respondent Walker and four lengthy hearings held by the Commission, the Commission certified Justice Benjamin for receipt of public funding under the Act. There are three specific provisions in the Act that are at issue in Walker's challenges:
First, W. Va.Code §§ 3–12–8(d)
& 3–12–13(b), which require a participating candidate to file monthly reports of all exploratory and qualifying contributions received during the immediately preceding month;
Second, W. Va.Code § 3–12–13(c)(1)
, which requires a participating candidate to file a Final Summary Exploratory Financial Report no later than two business days after the close of the qualifying period; and
Third, W. Va.Code § 3–12–9(b)(2)
, which requires that every qualifying contribution to a candidate be acknowledged by a receipt that includes, inter alia, “the contributor's signature.”5
With respect to the first statute, Respondent Walker contends that Justice Benjamin was required to file monthly reports of exploratory contributions from the outset of his campaign, or at the latest from and after October 1, 2015, and that his failure to do so disqualifies him from receiving public funding under the Act. With respect to the second statute, Respondent Walker contends that Justice Benjamin was required to file his Final Summary Exploratory Financial Report on or before February 2, 2016, and that although the Commission might have the authority to grant him a hardship exemption as to the form of the filing (i.e., allow him to submit his report on paper), it had no discretion to grant him an extension of the date for filing. With respect to the third statute, Respondent Walker contends that none of the electronic contributions made to Justice Benjamin's campaign are valid because the electronic receipts for these contributions do not include a written signature.
On appeal, the circuit court agreed with all of Respondent Walker's arguments, concluding that the Commission was clearly erroneous in its resolution of all three issues and that Respondent Walker's constitutional rights had been violated as a result.
This is an administrative appeal and our review is governed by the same statutory standard that applied to the circuit court's consideration of this matter. As set forth in syllabus point one of Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996)
: “On appeal of an administrative order from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Jacobsen
...his interpretation of the UETA: Goldstein v. Sec. of the Commonwealth , 484 Mass. 516, 142 N.E.3d 560 (2020) ; Benjamin v. Walker , 237 W.Va. 181, 786 S.E.2d 200 (2016) ; and Anderson v. Bell , 234 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2010). Though not binding on this Court, we find the cases unpersuasive to ou......
-
Meyer v. Jacobsen
...raised a constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, and we declined to consider it for that reason. Goldstein is inapposite. ¶36 Benjamin held that the West Virginia Election Commission must accept electronic signatures for qualifying contributions under its public campaign fina......
-
State ex rel. W.Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Burnside
...floor applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” leaving no doubt of its primacy. See Benjamin v. Walker , 237 W.Va. 181, ––––, 786 S.E.2d 200 (2016) (acknowledging that statutory directive applying “notwithstanding any other provision of law” is mandatory); cf. State ex rel. Cit......
-
Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro
...cases nationwide analyzing the use of electronic signatures to effect direct democracy: Anderson, 234 P.3d 1147 ; Benjamin v. Walker, 237 W.Va. 181, 786 S.E.2d 200 (2016) ; and Ni v. Slocum, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1636, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 (2011). This case would be the fourth.Yoshimura raises t......