State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 13537

Decision Date20 December 1974
Docket NumberNo. 13537,13537
Citation158 W.Va. 298,210 S.E.2d 649
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE ex rel. Patrick CASEY v. Jack L. PAULEY, etc., et al.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The certification of the results of an election by a board of canvassers is a nondiscretionary duty and mandamus lies to require the discharge of such duty by public officials.

2. The effective date of a constitutional amendment is the date the amendment is voted on by the people unless the effective date is otherwise specified in the amendment.

3. Courts are not concerned with the wisdom or expediencies of constitutional provisions, and the duty of the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution.

4. 'Where a provision of a constitution is clear in its terms and of plain interpretation to any ordinary and reasonable mind, it should be applied and not construed.' Point 3, syllabus, State ex rel. Smith v. Gore, 150 W.Va. 71, 143 S.E.2d 791.

5. Terms of office can be extended by the vote of the people ratifying a constitutional amendment.

6. The effect of the ratification of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment and the vote of the people at the general election on November 5, 1974 for the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County was to create an additional circuit judge in the Thirterenth Judicial Circuit circuit judge in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

Catsonis, Winter & Linkous, Larry A. Winter, DiTrapano, Mitchell, Lawson & Field, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Charleston, for relator.

Goodwin, Goodwin, Bryan & Lobert, Herbert W. Bryan, Charleston, for respondent Wood.

Larry W. Andrews, Charleston, for respondents Pauley, Kuhns, Black and Castleberry.

BERRY, Justice:

This original proceeding in mandamus was instituted by Patrick Casey against Jack L. Pauley, individually and as the County Clerk of Kanawha County, Dewey E. S. Kuhns, Thomas Black, and Kelly Castleberry, individually and as Commissioners of the County Court of Kanawha County and ex-officio board of canvassers, and Judge George W. Wood, individually and as incumbent Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, to compel the county court as the ex-officio board of canvassers to reconvene for the purpose of certifying the petitioner as the one elected to the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County in the November 5, 1974 general election. This Court granted a rule in mandamus on November 25, 1974 returnable December 3, 1974 but the case was continued until December 10, 1974. The county court filed a demurrer and the respondent Wood filed an answer to the petition and the case was submitted for decision on the briefs and oral arguments on behalf of the respective parties.

In the November 5, 1974 general election the petitioner, Patrick Casey, the prosecuting attorney of Kanawha County, was the Democratic nominee for the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County and George W. Wood, who held the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County before the general election, was the Republican nominee. Judge Wood's term of office was to expire on December 31, 1974. At the general election the petitioner received 31,490 votes and the respondent, George W. Wood, received 23,678 votes. At the same general election on November 5, 1974 the voters of Kanawha County, as well as voters statewide, voted upon the question of ratification of a proposed amendment to the Constitution of West Virginia, which was designated as the Judicial Reorganization Amendment. In Kanawha County the voters voted 30,546 for ratification and 15,579 against ratification of the amendment. The Judicial Reorganization Amendment was ratified by a large majority throughout the state.

On November 18, 1974 the board of canvassers completed its canvas and publicly announced that the petitioner received 31,490 votes and respondent George W. Wood received 23,678 votes. On November 20, 1974 Jack L. Pauley, the County Clerk of Kanawha County, submitted the certificate of election results to the board of canvassers. However, the certificate of election results omitted the results with respect to the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County. Jack L. Pauley stated in an accompanying letter to the board of canvassers: 'The ratification of the Judicial Reform Amendment raises certain questions concerning the expiration of the term of office of incumbent Judge George W. Wood. Until these questions are finally resolved, I would withhold certification of Patrick Casey as the winner of that election.' The board of canvassers then certified the results of the November 5, 1974 general election, omitting certification of the results of the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County.

The petitioner asked the board of canvassers, by letter, to reconvene and certify him as the winner of the office of Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County. However, the board of canvassers wrote a letter to the petitioner informing him that the ratification of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment raised certain questions concerning the date of expiration of Judge Wood's term of office and refused to certify the petitioner as winner of that election until the questions were resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Article VIII, section 5 of the amendment which was ratified by the voters on November 5 states that: '* * * each statutory court of record of limited jurisdiction existing in the State immediately prior to such effective date shall become part of the circuit court for the circuit in which it presently exists, and each such judge of such statutory court of record of limited jurisdiction shall thereupon become a judge of such circuit court.' Article VIII, section 7 provides that:

'Any justice of the supreme court of appeals and any judge of any circuit court, including any statutory court of record of limited jurisdiction which becomes a part of a circuit by virtue of section five of this article, in office on the effective date of this article shall continue in office until his term shall expire, unless sooner removed or retired as authorized in this article: Provided, That as to the term of any judge of a statutory court of record of limited jurisdiction which does not expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred seventy-six, the following provisions shall govern and control unless any such judges shall be sooner removed or retired as authorized in this article: (1) If the term would otherwise expire before the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred seventy-six, such term shall continue through and expire on said thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred seventy-six (2) if the term would otherwise expire on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred seventy-seven, such term shall terminate and expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred seventy-six, and (3) if the term would otherwise expire after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred seventy-six, but other than on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred seventy-seven, such term shall continue through and expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred eighty-four.

The threshold question to be answered in this proceeding is whether or not mandamus is a proper remedy in a case of this kind. Mandamus cannot be used for the trial of an election contest case in the first instance. State ex rel. Booth v. State Board of Ballot Commissioners, W.Va., 196 S.E.2d 299 (1973). There is no question that the petitioner received the greater number of votes for the office for which he was a candidate at the November 5, 1974 election and the election itself is not contested. The certificate of election and the certificate of the results of the election were withheld as to the petitioner because of certain questions raised by the respondents. It is true the board of canvassers cannot determine constitutional questions or interpret a constitutional amendment. Dickinson v. Thorn, 102 W.Va. 673, 135 S.E. 478 (1926). However, the certification of the results of an election by a board of canvassers is a nondiscretionary duty and mandamus lies to require the discharge of such duty by public officials. Mandamus lies to compel a board of canvassers to perform its legal duty. Code, 3--1--45, as amended. Duncan v. County Court of Cabell County, 138 W.Va. 106, 75 S.E.2d 97 (1953); State ex rel. Bumgardner v. Mills, 132 W.Va. 580, 53 S.E.2d 416 (1949). This Court has held that mandamus may be used to determine constitutional questions. State ex rel. City of Charleston v. Coghill, W.Va, 207 S.E.2d 113 (1974); State ex rel. Building Commission v. Moore, W.Va., 184 S.E.2d 94 (1971); State ex rel. County Court v. Demus, 148 W.Va. 398, 135 S.E.2d 352 (1964); State ex rel. County Court v. Bane, 148 W.Va. 392, 135 S.E.2d 349 (1964).

It is agreed by the parties in this proceeding that the date of the ratification of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment was November 5, 1974, the date of the election. Under the law, this is the date a constitutional amendment becomes effective unless another date is otherwise specified in the amendment. State ex rel. O'Connell v. Duncan, 108 Mont. 141, 88 P.2d 73 (1939) Whitcomb v. Young, 279 N.E.2d 566 (Ind.1972). The provisions of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment pertinent to the questions raised in this proceeding are self-executing since no legislation is necessary to give effect to the provisions. See Kneip v. Herseth, 214 N.W.2d 93 (S.D.1974); Appeal of Crescent Precision Products, Inc., 516 P.2d 275 (Okl.1973); Haile v. Foote, 90 Idaho 213, 409 P.2d 409 (1965).

It is clear from the pertinent provision of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment that the term of office of the respondent George W. Wood is extended...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Randolph County Bd. of Educ. v. Adams
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1995
    ...of the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution.' Syl.Pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 158 W.Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975)." Syllabus Point 2, Jarrett Printing Co. v. Riley, 188 W.Va. 393, 424 S.E.2d 738 6. " 'The mandatory requi......
  • State ex rel. Workman v. Carmichael
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 2018
    ...the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution." Syl. pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley , 158 W.Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975). Insofar as an officer of the state facing impeachment in the Court of Impeachment has a constitutional rig......
  • Fields v. Mellinger
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 2020
    ...the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution." Syl. pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley , 158 W. Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975). See also Syl. pt. 3, Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corp. , 146 W. Va. 543, 122 S.E.2d 436 (1961) ("The obj......
  • State ex rel. Biafore v. Tomblin
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 22 Enero 2016
    ...the judiciary is merely to carry out the provisions of the plain language stated in the constitution." Syl. pt. 3, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 158 W.Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975). This is so because "[t]he provisions of the Constitution, the organic and fundamental law of the land, stan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT