Ex parte Krages
Decision Date | 07 February 1997 |
Citation | 689 So.2d 799 |
Parties | Ex parte Bert P. KRAGES. (Re Thomas A. CARDER, et al. v. CITY OF ORANGE BEACH, et al.). Thomas P. CARDER, et al. v. CITY OF ORANGE BEACH. Bert P. KRAGES v. Thomas A. CARDER, et al. 1952161, 1960063 and 1960114. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. P. Sutley and Spencer of E. Davis of Murchison & Sutley, L.L.C., Foley; and P. David Matheny of Bishop & Matheny, P.C., Bay Minette, for Thomas P. Carder, et al.
Algert S. Agricola, Jr., and Charles B. Campbell of Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt, L.L.C., Montgomery; and Gregory L. Leatherbury, Jr., and Bryan A. Thames of Hand, Arendall, L.L.C., Mobile, for Bert Krages.
J. Patrick Courtney III and William E. Screve, Jr., of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., Mobile, for City of Orange Beach.
C. Bennett McRae, Gulf Shores, for Haywood Baker.
These cases arise out of an election contest commenced in the Baldwin County Circuit Court challenging the results of a municipal election in the City of Orange Beach. More specifically, they arise out of a runoff election held on September 17, 1996, to choose members of the city council of the City of Orange Beach ("the City") and to choose between Bert Krages and Jerry Davidson for mayor.
On September 23, 1996, Thomas A. Carder, Anne M. Douglas, V.L. Arnold, Gerald Davidson, Stuart Gilliam, and Mike Reilly, residents and electors of the City, filed a three-count complaint initiating the contest. The individual defendants were Bert Krages, candidate for mayor, and Haywood Baker, candidate for city council, Place Two. 1 Other defendants were the City, the city council, and the Mayor.
Count One alleged that certain absentee ballots cast for Krages "should not have been counted in determining the [mayoral] election ..., because ... the electors were either unqualified, or the ballots were not properly executed." Count Two alleged that "in accordance with Ala.Code § 11-46-69 and the provisions of the 'Fair Campaign [Practices] Act,' [Ala.Code 1975, §§ 17-22A-1 to -23] ... Krages ... and Baker were not eligible candidates for the offices for which they ran ..., because they failed to properly file the appropriate reports of 'contributions and expenditures' as required by Ala.Code § 17-22A-8." Count Three alleged that "illegal votes were counted in determining the winner[s] of the election" for mayor and members of the council.
By October 1, 1996, the city council had not certified the election results or issued a certificate of election. On September 30, 1996, Krages filed an answer, which included, as a cross-claim, a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the city council to certify him as the winner of the mayoral election. The same day, Circuit Judge Pamela Baschab issued a writ of mandamus, writing and holding in pertinent part:
On October 1, 1996, before the city council had complied with the writ, Judge Baschab recused, in response to a motion by the plaintiffs, and the action was reassigned to Judge Charles C. Partin. On that same day, Judge Partin issued an order stating in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
Judge Partin heard oral argument on October 3, 1996, and, on October 4, 1996, granted the contestants' "motions for a judgment on the pleadings" as to Krages and ordered the city council "to convene before October 7, 1996, and issue a certificate of election to Jerry Davidson in the mayoral race due to the disqualification of ... Krages." Judge Partin also ordered the City council to issue a certificate of election to Baker for Place Two on the city council. He certified the judgment as final, pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Also on October 4, Krages filed in this Court an "Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus," asking this Court to direct Judge Partin to "withdraw his order ... commanding the City Council of Orange Beach ... to issue a certificate of election to ... Jerry Davidson." On October 5, 1996, the city council met and issued a certificate of election to Davidson and scheduled his investiture for 7:30 p.m. on October 7. On October 7, Krages filed in this Court a "Motion for Leave to File Amended Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus," in which he "requested that the swearing in be prevented from taking place." However, on October 7, Davidson took the oath of office as scheduled.
The plaintiffs and Krages appealed and cross-appealed, respectively, the October 4 judgment. Krages's mandamus petition is case 1952161; the plaintiffs' appeal is case 1960063; and Krages's cross-appeal is case 1960114.
The respondents--Judge Partin, the City, and the plaintiffs--contend that the writ of mandamus should not issue because, they insist, the requisites for the extraordinary writ are not present. Those requisites are: "(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) a lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex parte Martin, 598 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Ala.1992). In particular, the respondents argue that Krages had "another adequate remedy," namely, the right to appeal the judgment.
As to this third requisite, we have stated:
598 So.2d at 1383 (emphasis added).
Krages, however, insists that the third requisite is met here, because of City of Talladega v. Pettus, 602 So.2d 357 (Ala.1992), which stated: "A court can prevent the issuance of a certificate of election to a municipal office, but, once the certificate is issued, the court is without authority to revoke it." Id. at 359. In his mandamus petition, Krages stated: "[I]f the City Council meets and issues the certificate of election to candidate Jerry Davidson, Petitioner Krages ... will be deprived of any remedy if it is subsequently determined that the order [to certify Davidson] should not have been issued."
Also, the City contends that Pettus is inconsistent both with caselaw and with statutes governing the duties of municipal governing bodies in municipal elections. The City requests that this Court define or clarify the procedure that must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Booth
...§ 17-22A-21 and stated: "After carefully reexamining [City of Talladega v.] Pettus [, 602 So.2d 357 (Ala. 1992),] and [Ex parte] Krages, [689 So.2d 799 (Ala. 1997),] we conclude that Pettus interpreted § 17-22A-21 in the only way that it could be interpreted without violating the separation......
-
Working v. Jefferson County Election Comm'n
...under the applicable statute; this Court has previously stated that those duties are "ministerial" in nature. See Ex parte Krages, 689 So. 2d 799, 805 (Ala. 1997) ("The duty to canvass election returns and certify a winner is ministerial in nature." (citing, among other cases, Sears v. Cars......
-
Slagle v. Ross
...would be an unreasonable meaning, and thus a meaning we would be unwilling to attribute to clause 3 in any event. See Ex parte Krages, 689 So.2d 799, 805 (Ala.1997) (“ ‘ “If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which is workable and fair and the other unworkable and unjust ......
-
Slagle v. Ross
...would be an unreasonable meaning, and thus a meaning we would be unwilling to attribute to clause 3 in any event. See Ex parte Krages, 689 So. 2d 799, 805 (Ala. 1997) ("'"If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which is workable and fair and the other unworkable and unjust ......