Justice v. Board of County Com'rs of Wyandotte County
| Decision Date | 03 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 68007,68007 |
| Citation | 835 P.2d 692,17 Kan.App.2d 102 |
| Parties | Norman JUSTICE, et al., Appellees, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In the absence of a statutory provision for appellate review of an administrative decision, no appeal is available, but relief from illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable acts of public officials and boards can be obtained by using such equitable remedies as quo warranto, mandamus, or injunction.
2. Reading K.S.A. 19-204 and K.S.A. 19-219 together, it is clear the organization of the board referred to in 19-204 is something that must occur annually. The annual organization must occur even though the same individuals may be longstanding members of the board.
3. Under K.S.A. 19-204, each county is not subject to redistricting every year; rather, under 19-204, each county is subject to redistricting at least once every three years.
4. In an appeal of a county redistricting plan, the appropriate standard of review for the district court and for this court on appeal is whether the board of county commissioners abused its discretion in approving the redistricting plan. An appellate court has limited judicial review of legislative acts to determine whether the board has the statutory authority to enter the order which it made. The board can be said to have abused its discretion if it acted illegally or if no reasonable person would take the position of the board.
5. Generally, a litigant must object to inadequate findings and conclusions of law in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct them. In the absence of an objection, omissions in findings will not be considered on appeal.
6. As used in K.S.A. 19-204, "compact" means that the territory shall be closely united and not necessarily that the residents of each district shall be united in interest.
7. Upon review of an action brought by three residents of Wyandotte County alleging the redistricting plan adopted by the majority of the Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County was illegal, it is held that the district court was without jurisdiction to act under K.S.A. 19-223 for failure of plaintiffs to comply with the procedural prerequisites of that statute. Even if construed as an action seeking equitable relief, the district court erred in concluding the Board's redistricting was untimely. A reasonable person could conclude a redistricting which is done two months after the Board is organized was not untimely under K.S.A. 19-204, but was done as soon as possible after the Board was organized. Plaintiffs did not cross-appeal the district court's conclusion that the districts were equal in population. We conclude the new districts are "compact" under 19-204(b), even though the wards are divided.
David M. Cooper, Asst. County Counselor, for appellant.
Michael J. Peterson and J.R. Russell, Kansas City, for appellees.
Before BRISCOE, C.J., and REES and BRAZIL, JJ.
The Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County (Board) appeals the district court's order which invalidated the Board's redistricting of Wyandotte County's three county commission districts.
This action has had a very short life. Plaintiffs' petition was filed on March 17, 1992. After denial of the Board's motion to dismiss and motion to conduct limited discovery, the district court scheduled the case for trial on April 22, 1992. Trial was held on that date over the Board's objection. Under direction of the Board, counsel for the Board did not participate in the trial. The trial lasted for less than two hours and, later that same day, the court filed the order from which this appeal is taken. The district court sought to timely resolve this action because the filing deadline for candidates for county commissioners in Wyandotte County is June 10, 1992.
The three named plaintiffs in this action, Norman Justice, Chester Owens, and Clyde Townsend, are longtime residents of Wyandotte County and of Commission District 2 within that county. In their petition, plaintiffs alleged the Board's March 17, 1992, redistricting, which was approved by a majority of the three-member board, violated the voting rights of the black minority of Wyandotte County. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged the new district lines were drawn with the intent to help retain two of the incumbent commissioners and to defeat another. Plaintiffs alleged the new districts violated K.S.A. 19-204(a) because they were not as compact and equal in population as possible. Plaintiffs argued the redistricting had the net effect of denying certain citizens of Wyandotte County the benefit of their vote because the strength of the black majority in the 2nd District has been diluted by the Board's action. By their petition, plaintiffs asked the district court to redraw the three county commissioner districts and to award damages.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' petition did not state a jurisdictional basis for their action against the Board. The Board argued the district court had no jurisdiction to hear an action under either the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq. (1988), or K.S.A. 19-223. The Board argued federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases under the Voting Rights Act. The Board also argued plaintiffs had failed to comply with the requirements of 19-223 because they had failed to serve written notice of the appeal on the clerk of the Board and to execute a bond.
The district court granted the Board's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act, concluding actions brought pursuant to the Act are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The court denied the Board's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with 19-223 by ruling the statute was inapplicable because the decision challenged by plaintiffs was legislative in nature. The court ruled 19-223 applies only to the review of board decisions which are judicial or quasi-judicial in nature.
Although the court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction, the court did not identify in any of its orders how it had jurisdiction. In its memorandum decision entered after trial, the court stated K.S.A. 77-621 governed its scope of review. However, that statute is a part of the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions and is intended to apply to state agencies. Decisions rendered by political subdivisions of the state are not subject to review under this Act. K.S.A. 77-602(k). Neither the Act nor the specific portion of the Act cited by the district court would provide the court with jurisdiction to review a decision by a board of county commissioners.
In its ruling on the merits, the district court specifically ruled the population of the three proposed districts was as equal as possible. Although the court noted the proposed districts divided wards but not precincts, no specific ruling was made regarding compactness. The sole basis for the court's ruling vacating the Board's March 17, 1992, redistricting was the court's conclusion that the Board's action was untimely under the plain language of K.S.A. 19-204. The court reached this conclusion after finding the present Board was "organized" and commenced business on the Monday following the general election in November 1990.
The Board raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 19-223; and (2) whether the district court erred in setting aside as untimely the Board's action creating new county commission districts.
K.S.A. 19-223 states:
"Any person who shall be aggrieved by any decision of the board of commissioners may appeal from the decision of such board to the district court of the same county, by causing a written notice of such appeal to be served on the clerk of such board within thirty days after the making of such decision, and executing a bond to such county with sufficient security, to be approved by the clerk of said board, conditioned for the faithful prosecution of such appeal, and the payment of all costs that shall be adjudged against the appellant."
The Board argues 19-223 applies to plaintiffs' appeal of the Board's decision but cannot provide the district court with jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to serve a written notice of appeal on the Board's clerk and failed to file a bond. Plaintiffs concede they are guilty of these procedural shortcomings, but argue 19-223 is not applicable to their action because they are seeking review of a legislative decision. Plaintiffs contend the court had jurisdiction to act in this case under its equitable powers.
As both parties agree the requirements of 19-223 were not satisfied and our review of the record supports that conclusion, it is clear the district court did not obtain jurisdiction under 19-223. The parties present no other statutory authority for the district court's review of the Board's redistricting action, and by our own search we have found none.
Did the district court have equitable jurisdiction to grant equitable relief to plaintiffs? Plaintiffs did not seek equitable relief. In their prayer, they asked the court to redraw the district lines and award damages, attorney fees, and costs. However, in Dutoit v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 233 Kan. 995, 998, 667 P.2d 879 (1983), the court stated:
Plaintiffs allege in their petition that the Board acted illegally. If true, that claim would entitle them to equitable remedies....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McShares, Inc. v. Barry
...findings of fact. The district court's determinations of fact, therefore, are final and conclusive. Justice v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 17 Kan.App.2d 102, 109, 835 P.2d 692, rev. denied 251 Kan. 938 The district court's findings of fact are as follows: "1. On or about November 27,......
-
Mynatt v. Collis
...and conclusive.'" Powell v. Simon Mgt. Group, L.P., 265 Kan. 197, 199, 960 P.2d 212 (1998) (quoting Justice v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 17 Kan. App.2d 102, 109, 835 P.2d 692, rev. denied 251 Kan. 938 A. Statute of limitations Collis and Hughes assert that although they may have be......
-
Powell v. Simon Management Group, L.P., 79544
...trial judge's findings of fact. "Determinations of fact, unappealed from, are final and conclusive." Justice v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 17 Kan.App.2d 102, 109, 835 P.2d 692, rev. denied 251 Kan. 938 (1992). The trial judge in this case, however, generally failed to determine issu......
-
A.P., In Interest of
...not challenge these findings of fact on appeal. Findings of fact, unappealed from, are conclusive. Justice v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs., 17 Kan.App.2d 102, 109, 835 P.2d 692, rev. denied 251 Kan. 938 (1992). C.P. is an alcoholic and has failed efforts at treatment because she is un......