Chambers v. Lautenbaugh
Decision Date | 24 May 2002 |
Docket Number | No. S-01-110.,S-01-110. |
Citation | 263 Neb. 920,644 N.W.2d 540 |
Parties | Ernie CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. Scott LAUTENBAUGH, Douglas County election commissioner, Appellee. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Robert V. Broom and Vard R. Johnson, of Broom, Johnson & Clarkson, Omaha, for appellant.
Thomas G. Incontro, of Raynor, Rensch & Pfeiffer, Omaha, for appellee.
In August 2000, Ernie Chambers brought suit against Scott Lautenbaugh, Douglas County election commissioner, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief relating to Lautenbaugh's act of redrawing the Omaha City Council district boundaries in August 2000 based on 1990 federal decennial census data. Lautenbaugh demurred, and on January 17, 2001, the Douglas County District Court sustained Lautenbaugh's demurrer. The court dismissed Chambers' petition with prejudice, finding that it could not be amended to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Chambers appealed.
In his operative petition, Chambers alleged that on August 30, 2000, despite Chambers' demands that Lautenbaugh cease and desist from his announced plans to redraw the boundaries, Lautenbaugh proceeded to draw "new boundaries for the election of members of the City Council at the primary election to be held April 3, 2001 and the general election to be held May 15, 2001." Chambers further alleged that Lautenbaugh drew the new boundaries for the stated purpose of "maintain[ing] substantial equality of population among the districts." The petition asserted that Lautenbaugh exceeded his authority by drawing the new district boundaries based on 1990 federal decennial census data, rather than waiting to use the data from the 2000 federal decennial census.
Chambers also alleged in his petition that "[t]he Election Commissioner has no authority to draw district boundaries for the Omaha City Council for the purpose of maintaining substantial population equality among the districts except as set forth" in Neb. Const. art. Ill, § 5, and Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 14-201.03 (Reissue 1997) and 32-553 (Reissue 1998). The petition contended that Neb. Const. art. Ill, § 5, requires the Legislature to redistrict the state into legislative districts after each federal decennial census. According to the petition, the election commissioner, pursuant to § 32-553, must, if necessary to maintain substantial equality of population within the districts, redraw the boundaries within 6 months after passage and approval of the Legislature's bill which redistricts the state on the basis of the most recent federal decennial census.
Chambers' petition asked the district court to declare that Lautenbaugh's redrawing of the Omaha City Council district boundaries in August 2000 was unlawful, since it was done before the data from the 2000 federal decennial census was available and before the Legislature had passed legislation redistricting the state in 2001. The petition also asked the district court to declare unlawful any implementation of the new district boundaries and the consequent expenditures of employee time and public tax money. Finally, the petition requested that the court declare unlawful any Omaha City Council elections held under the new city council district boundaries.
On December 15, 2000, Lautenbaugh filed a demurrer alleging that (1) the district court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, (2) the district court had no jurisdiction over Lautenbaugh, (3) Chambers had no legal capacity to sue, (4) there was a defect of parties, and (5) the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The district court held a hearing on the demurrer on January 8, 2001. On January 17, the court entered its order overruling allegations one through four of Lautenbaugh's demurrer, but sustaining allegation five on the basis that Chambers' petition failed to state a cause of action. In its order, the district court analyzed the arguments presented by Chambers and Lautenbaugh:
(Emphasis in original.)
The district court found it significant that the Legislature "in drafting Section 14-201.03 and Section 32-553 did not use limiting or restrictive terms such as `only' when mandating the redrawing of districts by the election commissioner when they became substantially unequal in population." The district court stated:
Since there is no language limiting the redrawing of districts by the election commissioner the Court further finds that the election commissioner can redraw, if necessary, districts more than the one time required in the year that the census figures are submitted to the State by the United States Department of Commerce.
On this basis, the district court found that Lautenbaugh's actions as election commissioner were lawful and that Chambers' petition could not be amended to state a cause of action against Lautenbaugh. The court sustained Lautenbaugh's demurrer and dismissed Chambers' petition with prejudice. Chambers appealed.
Chambers assigns, rephrased, that the district court erred in (1) determining that his petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and (2) determining that Lautenbaugh, as Douglas County election commissioner, had the authority to redraw the Omaha City Council district boundaries before the data from the 2000 federal decennial census was available.
In considering a demurrer, a court must assume that the facts pled, as distinguished from legal conclusions, are true as alleged and must give the pleading the benefit of any reasonable inference from the facts alleged, but cannot assume the existence of facts not alleged, make factual findings to aid the pleading, or consider evidence which might be adduced at trial. Malone v. American Bus. Info., 262 Neb. 733, 634 N.W.2d 788 (2001).
In determining whether a cause of action has been stated, the petition is to be construed liberally. If as so construed the petition states a cause of action, a demurrer based on the failure to state a cause of action must be overruled. Id. Whether a petition states a cause of action is a question of law, regarding which an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of that of the inferior court. Id.
Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Premium Farms v. County of Holt, 263 Neb. 415, 640 N.W.2d 633 (2002).
A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court's decision. Wilcox v. City of McCook, 262 Neb. 696, 634 N.W.2d 486 (2001). Standing is a jurisdictional component of a party's case because only a party who has standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court. Ritchhart v. Daub, 256 Neb. 801, 594 N.W.2d 288 (1999).
Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. Tri-Par Investments v. Sousa, 263 Neb. 209, 640 N.W.2d 371 (2002). While it is not a constitutional prerequisite for jurisdiction, the existence of an actual case or controversy is necessary for the exercise of judicial power. Wilcox, supra.
Lautenbaugh argues that Chambers' case is moot due to several events which have occurred since the district court sustained Lautenbaugh's demurrer in January 2001. On April 3, 2001, Omaha City Council primary elections were held pursuant to the new district boundaries Lautenbaugh drew in August 2000. On May 15, the general election for the Omaha City Council was held utilizing the same boundaries. On May 16, an amendment to § 14-201.03 became operative, which, inter alia, removed the election commissioner's authority to redraw city council district boundaries and placed the responsibility with the Omaha City Council. See 2001 Neb. Laws, L.B. 71. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Heineman
...more recently suggested that one of our illegal expenditure cases should be treated as raising a matter of great public concern.In Chambers v. Lautenbaugh,68 the illegal expenditure case, the plaintiff alleged that the Douglas County election commissioner had illegally redrawn the district ......
-
In re Guardianship of Tschumy
...(Mo.1972) ; State ex rel. Ronish v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Fergus Cnty., 136 Mont. 453, 348 P.2d 797, 800 (1960) ; Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 644 N.W.2d 540, 547 (2002) ; State v. Glusman, 98 Nev. 412, 651 P.2d 639, 643 (1982) ; State v. Swift, 101 N.H. 340, 143 A.2d 114, 116 (1958......
-
Rath v. City of Sutton
...to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds raised for governmental purposes. (Emphasis supplied.) Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 928, 644 N.W.2d 540, 547-48 (2002). See, also, Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Bd., 264 Neb. 403, 648 N.W.2d 756 (2002); State ex rel. Steinke ......
- Manker v. Manker
-
You Can't Take My Land! Is Thompson v. Heineman, 289 Neb. 798, 857 N.w.2d 731 (2015), Transformative Law or a Political Anomaly?
...216 (1979). 82. Project Extra Mile v. Neb. Liquor Control Comm'n, 283 Neb. 379, 391, 810 N.W.2d 149, 160 (2012); Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 928, 644 N.W.2d 540, 548 83. 4 Neb. at 414. 84. Id. at 411-312. 85. Id. at 412. 86. Id. at 413. 87. Id. at 414-15 (quoting JAMES L. HIGH, H......
-
The Frequency of Redistricting in Nebraska and the Balance Between One Person, One Vote and Electoral Stability: How Often Is Too Often?
...helpful insights for this note. I thank also my parents Lyndall and Bonnie Bergan, for the solid foundation they provide me in life. 1. 263 Neb. 920, 644 N.W.2d 540 (2002). 2. The court relied on the public interest exception in deciding to resolve the otherwise moot case, as discussed infr......
-
Addressing Constitutional Concerns and Strengthening Nebraska's Election Administration: a Roadmap to Substantive Reform Comment
...the City Council Map, Omaha World-Herald, Aug. 25, 2000 (Sunrise Edition), at 15. 285. Id. 286. Id. ; see also Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 644 N.W. 2d 540 287. Rick Ruggles, Chambers Challenges Redistricting Plan, Omaha World-Herald, June 3, 2000 (Sunrise Edition), at 1. 288. Id.......