Coyne v. Edwards, SC 93194.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 93194.,SC 93194. |
| Citation | 395 S.W.3d 509 |
| Parties | Chief Charles COYNE, Respondent, v. Bernard F. EDWARDS, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Neil J. Bruntrager, Mary L. Bruntrager, Bruntrager & Billings PC, St. Louis, for Respondent.
Elbert A. Walton Jr., Metro Law Firm LLC, St. Louis, for Appellant.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, Jonathan M. Hensley, Attorney General's office, Jefferson City, for Attorney General as Amicus.
Bernard Edwards appeals the trial court's judgment overruling his motions to dismiss and for directed verdict and entering judgment in favor of Chief Charles Coyne. Mr. Edwards argues that his name should not have been removed as candidate for the office of Director of Community Fire Protection District on the April 2013 general election ballot because Chief Coyne did not possess capacity or standing to bring this action, because Mr. Edwards did not receive adequate notice of his obligation to file a financial interest statement, and because the statutory financial interest statement notice requirements are invalid under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court affirms.
The Community Fire Board of Directors had standing and specifically authorized Chief Coyne to pursue any legal action necessary to remove Mr. Edwards' name from the April ballot, thereby vesting him with capacity to bring this action on its behalf. Mr. Edwards received adequate notice of the financial interest statement filing requirements, including written notice of the filing deadlines he acknowledged receiving on the day he filed for candidacy, as well as written notice received by him after he failed to timely file his statement and prior to the final date for late filing.
This Court also rejects Mr. Edwards' complaints that the statutory requirement that he be disqualified from seeking office if he fails to timely file a financial interest statement is subject to strict scrutiny and unconstitutionally denies him ballot access. The test for a claim regarding ballot access is examined to determine whether the law places an undue burden on the candidate; Mr. Edwards did not show that it was an undue burden to comply timely with the filing requirement of which he admittedly knew and with which he admittedly did comply, but in an untimely manner. Mr. Edwards' equal protection claim is also rejected. This Court rejects his premise that candidates for elective office who have not filed a financial interest statement should be treated as similarly situated to elected officials who already have financial interest statements on file. Mr. Edwards' claim that he was not afforded due process also fails because he did not properly brief this argument and because he did not present support for either a facial or as-applied challenge to the statute. For all these reasons, the trial court did not err in overruling Mr. Edwards' motions to dismiss and for directed verdict and entering judgment in favor of Chief Coyne.
On December 11, 2012, Bernard Edwards filed a declaration of candidacy to run for the position of Director of Community Fire Protection District (“Community Fire”) in the April 2, 2013, general municipal election. Community Fire is a political subdivision located in St. Louis County “organized and empowered” to supply fire protection and other emergency assistance. § 321.010, RSMo 2000.1 Assistant Fire Chief James Conroy received Mr. Edwards' declaration of candidacy on behalf of the district.
Under section 105.483, “each elected official, candidate for elective office ... and the general counsel ... of each political subdivision with an annual operating budget in excess of one million dollars” must file a financial interest statement. A candidate for office who is required to file a financial interest statement must do so “no later than fourteen days after the close of filing at which the candidate seeks nomination or election” or be subject to a late fee. § 105.487; § 105.963, RSMo. Supp.2012. If a candidate for office does not file the financial interest statement “by the close of business on the twenty-first day after the last day for filing,” then the candidate's name will be removed from the ballot. § 105.492.2
Community Fire has an annual operating budget in excess of one million dollars. Each elected official and candidate for elective office in Community Fire, therefore, must file a financial interest statement. When Mr. Edwards submitted his declaration of candidacy on December 11, 2012, he was given a copy of a “Notice to Candidate” form prepared by the Missouri Election Commission (“MEC”). A copy of the form is appended to this opinion. The form notified Mr. Edwards that he was required to file a financial statement pursuant to sections 105.483 to 105.492 in order to run for Director. 3
As the last day of filing for the Community Fire election was January 15, 2013, pursuant to section 105.487 the financial interest statement was due 14 days later, on January 29, 2013. Accordingly, Part II, section II of the form, entitled “Part Two: Filing Status,” instructed:
1. If PFD/Financial Interest Statement is not filed by 1/29/2013 (14 days after filing closing date); PENALTY: Candidate will be assessed a minimum of $10 per day late fee for each day the report is late.
2. If PFD/Financial Interest Statement is not filed by 2/05/2013 (21 days after filing closing date); PENALTY: Candidate will be disqualified as a candidate and his/her name will be removed from the ballot.
Mr. Edwards signed his name at the bottom of the form, acknowledging that he had received the form as well as a separate “Guide to Ethics Law” booklet. Assistant Chief Conroy signed the form as a witness.
Mr. Edwards did not file his statement by January 29, 2013. The MEC sent him a letter the following day, advising him that it had not received his financial interest statement and that if he failed to file the statement by February 5, 2013, the MEC would notify Community Fire that his name must be removed from the April ballot.4
The MEC did not receive Mr. Edwards' financial interest statement until February 7, 2013. He had sent it by regular mail on February 5, 2013, the date it was required to be filed. Under section 105.487, a financial interest statement is considered timely even if received after the deadline for filing the statement so long as it is “postmarked not later than midnight of the day previous to the day designated for filing the statement.” In order for Mr. Edwards' statement to be timely filed, a postmark of February 4, 2013, was necessary. Mr. Edwards' letter was postmarked February 5, 2013, the day he mailed it.
When the MEC determines that a candidate has failed to file his or her financial interest statement by the statutory deadline, it must notify the election official who accepted the candidate's declaration. § 105.492.2. Because Community Fire accepted Mr. Edwards' declaration of candidacy, the MEC sent it the notice of Mr. Edwards' disqualification. After receiving notice of a disqualification, the election official has until the 10th Tuesday prior to the election to notify the election authorities responsible for conducting the election of the disqualification. § 115.125, RSMo Supp.2012. A “late notification” of change can still be made to the authorities between the 10th and 6th Tuesdays prior to the election, however, so long as it is accompanied by a court order. Id.
January 22 was the 10th Tuesday prior to the April 2, 2013, general municipal election and March 26, 2013, the 6th Tuesday prior to that election. Because MEC's notice to Community Fire of Mr. Edwards' disqualification came after the 10th but prior to the 6th Tuesday before the April 2 general municipal election, the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners informed Community Fire, pursuant to section 115.125, that in order to remove Mr. Edwards' name from the ballot the request must be accompanied by a court order.
After receiving the MEC notification, the Community Fire Board of Directors authorized the filing of any legal actions necessary and appointed Fire Chief Charles Coyne to act on behalf of the Board. On February 13, 2013, Chief Coyne filed a petition requesting the St. Louis County circuit court enter an order directing Mr. Edwards to show cause why his name should not be stricken from the April 2 ballot.
The court held a hearing on the order to show cause on February 15, 2013. Chief Coyne presented evidence on behalf of Community Fire showing that Mr. Edwards' financial interest statement had not been timely filed. Chief Coyne testified, without objection, that he was testifying in his representative capacity as Fire Chief for Community Fire. Mr. Edwards' counsel filed motions for dismissal and for a directed verdict alleging the unconstitutionality of the notice provisions, lack of capacity or standing of Chief Coyne to sue, and that the disqualification requirement violated his constitutional rights to ballot access, equal protection and due process. The court granted Chief Coyne leave to file the minutes of the Community Fire Board of Directors meeting during which the board authorized Chief Coyne to file any legal action necessary to have Mr. Edwards' name removed from the ballot. The trial court overruled the motions to dismiss and for directed verdict. Mr. Edwards chose not to present any evidence.
The trial court found that Mr. Edwards had not timely filed his financial interest statement and was disqualified from running for Director of Community Fire. He ordered that Mr. Edwards' name either be removed from the April 2 ballot or that the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners—the election authority responsible for conducting Community Fire elections—post signs at the applicable polling places advising voters that Mr. Edwards was disqualified and that any votes cast for him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Johns
...the United States Supreme Court have held that the right to seek office is not fundamental, and Johns does not disagree. See Coyne v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 509, 517 (Mo. banc 2013) (citing Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 964–65, 102 S.Ct. 2836, 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982) ).12 See, e.g., Dunn v.......
-
Smith v. Duesenberg (In re J.D.S.), WD 78318
...complained of in the suit, so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is before the court." Id. at 397–98 (quoting Coyne v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 509, 516 (Mo. banc 2013).)"Interest," generally, means a concern which is more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire. One inte......
-
In re E.N.C.
...affected by the conduct complained of in the suit, so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is before the court.” Coyne v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 509, 516 (Mo. banc 2013).“Interest,” generally, means a concern which is more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire. One inte......
-
Mo. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. Mo. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations
...challenge, one first must show that he or she is similarly situated to those who he alleges receive different treatment." Coyne v. Edwards , 395 S.W.3d 509, 519 (Mo. banc 2013). "The similarly situated standard is a ‘rigorous one’ requiring proof that the two classes ‘were similarly situate......