Schwab v. Klapper

• Decision Date: 04 March 2022
• Docket Number: 124,849
• Citation: 315 Kan. 150,505 P.3d 345
• Parties: Scott SCHWAB, Kansas Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity, and Michael Abbott, Wyandotte County Election Commissioner, in His Official Capacity, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Bill KLAPPER, in His Official Capacity as a District Court Judge, Twenty-Ninth Judicial District, and The Honorable Mark Simpson, in His Official Capacity as a District Court Judge, Seventh Judicial District, Respondents.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

315 Kan. 150

505 P.3d 345

Scott SCHWAB, Kansas Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity,andMichael Abbott, Wyandotte County Election Commissioner, in His Official Capacity, Petitioners,

v. The Honorable Bill KLAPPER, in His Official Capacity as a District Court Judge, Twenty-Ninth Judicial District,andThe Honorable Mark Simpson, in His Official Capacity as a District Court Judge, Seventh Judicial District, Respondents.

No. 124,849

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed March 4, 2022.

Brant M. Laue, solicitor general, Kurtis K. Wiard, assistant solicitor general, Shannon Grammel, deputy solicitor general, Dwight R. Carswell, deputy solicitor general, Jeffrey A. Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for petitioners.

No briefs filed by respondents.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Stegall, J.:

On February 14, 2022, two lawsuits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief were filed in the Wyandotte County District Court. The suits named as defendants Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Wyandotte County Election Commissioner Michael Abbott. The complaints ask the district court to rule that the congressional reapportionment map known as "Ad Astra 2" and contained in Senate Bill 355 (2022) violates the Kansas Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs allege Ad Astra 2 is deliberately designed to elect Republicans to Congress at the expense of Democrats. In addition to the partisan gerrymander allegations, the plaintiffs also allege the Legislature racially gerrymandered the districts to intentionally dilute the minority vote. On March 1, a third lawsuit based on these same facts was filed in Douglas County District Court against Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew. The plaintiffs in these three lawsuits claim violations of Article 5, section 1 of the Kansas Constitution and of sections 1, 2, 3, 11, and 20 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

On February 18, 2022, the Kansas Attorney General, on behalf of Schwab and Abbott, filed in this court a petition for mandamus and quo warranto relief seeking dismissal of the two lawsuits pending before respondent, Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper. The Attorney General subsequently filed an amended petition on March 3, 2022, adding the Douglas County action and seeking dismissal of the lawsuit pending before the respondent, Douglas County District Judge Mark Simpson.

DISCUSSION

This court has original jurisdiction in proceedings in mandamus and quo warranto as provided by Article 3, section 3 of the Kansas Constitution. "This jurisdiction is plenary and may be exercised to control the actions of inferior courts over which the Supreme Court has superintendent authority."

State ex rel. Stephan v. O'Keefe , 235 Kan. 1022, 1024-25, 686 P.2d 171 (1984). Our original jurisdiction is discretionary and concurrent with that of lower courts. Ambrosier v. Brownback , 304 Kan. 907, 909, 375 P.3d 1007 (2016).

Determining whether to exercise discretionary jurisdiction is the first duty of a court when considering a petition in mandamus or quo warranto. In exercising our discretion to accept jurisdiction over such claims, we consider several factors, including: whether the case presents issues of significant public concern or matters of statewide importance; whether the petition presents purely legal questions or requires extensive fact-finding; or whether there is a need for an expeditious ruling. See, e.g., Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Jordan , 303 Kan. 844, 850, 370 P.3d 1170 (2016) (great public importance and concern); Stephens v. Van Arsdale , 227 Kan. 676, 682, 608 P.2d 972 (1980) (speedy adjudications of questions of law; matter of statewide concern); Mobil Oil Corp. v. McHenry , 200 Kan. 211, 239, 436 P.2d 982 (1968) (speedy adjudication to expedite official business).

The validity of a legislatively enacted congressional reapportionment scheme is a matter of great public concern and statewide importance. See generally Harris v. Anderson , 196 Kan. 450, 412 P.2d 457 (1966) (assessing the validity of a state House of Representatives redistricting scheme under this court's original jurisdiction). Indeed, "drawing lines for congressional districts is one of the most significant acts a State can perform to ensure citizen participation in republican self-governance." League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry , 548 U.S. 399, 416, 126 S. Ct. 2594, 165 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2006).

And we recognize these questions warrant a speedy resolution. Time is of the essence in resolving the issues presented in this case as the 2022 election cycle is fast approaching. The candidate filing deadline for the primary election is June 1, 2022. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 25-205. The primary election is scheduled for August 2, 2022. K.S.A. 25-203(a). And the general election will be held on November 8, 2022. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 25-101(a). Expeditious confirmation of congressional district lines benefits candidates seeking to run in congressional districts, state officials responsible for administering congressional elections in those districts, and constituents who need to know the congressional district in which they will reside.

But we also recognize the plaintiffs have made claims in the pending district court actions that may require fact-finding by the lower court. This can weigh against the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction See Oberhelman v. Larimer , 110 Kan. 587, 590, 204 P. 687 (1922) ("The defendants request that, if their motion to quash be denied, they be allowed time in which to answer. This indicates that questions of fact would be presented. This court is not as well equipped to try questions of fact as the district court. The remedy by mandamus in this court is not as complete as the remedy provided by law in matters of this kind.").

Considering all these factors together, we conclude that exercising our discretionary jurisdiction over this petition is in the interests of all concerned.

Having decided to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction, we turn to the second question we must address—have the petitioners properly stated a claim for relief under either mandamus or quo warranto? In the past, we have often framed this second question as asking whether an action in the nature of either quo warranto or mandamus "lies" to grant the petitioner the relief sought. See, e.g., Lauber v. Firemen's Relief Assn. of Salina , 195 Kan. 126, 129, 402 P.2d 817 (1965) ("Mandamus lies only to enforce a right in a clear-cut case."); State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita , 303 Kan. 650, 656, 367 P.3d 282 (2016) ("[Q]uo warranto generally will not lie when another plain and adequate remedy exists."); Stephens v. Van Arsdale , 227 Kan. 676, 682, 608 P.2d 972 (1980) ("Mandamus will not lie to compel a public officer to perform an unauthorized act."); Bank Commissioner v. Stewart , 113 Kan. 402, 404, 214 P. 429 (1923) ("Mandamus will lie to compel an officer of a corporation to deliver all books, papers, documents, and property to his successor in office, or to the corporation when the officer has ceased to act as such.").

Whether a particular action lies in either mandamus or quo warranto is a question of law. See State ex rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth , 285 Kan. 438, 443, 172 P.3d 1154 (2007). Where the relief sought is not of the kind available in an action for quo warranto or mandamus, the action is said not to "lie." This is a legal determination and not subject to the discretion of this court.

We recognize our prior decisions may have caused confusion by blurring the distinction between these two questions—one discretionary question (whether to exercise jurisdiction) and one legal question (whether the petition...