State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton
| Decision Date | 29 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 23059,23059 |
| Citation | 196 W.Va. 208,470 S.E.2d 162 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Thornton COOPER, Petitioner Below, Appellee, v. Honorable Gaston CAPERTON, Governor of the State of West Virginia; Honorable Larrie Bailey, Treasurer of the State of West Virginia; and the Honorable Ken Hechler, Secretary of State of the State of West Virginia, Respondents Below, Appellees. STATE of West Virginia ex rel. the WEST VIRGINIA WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner Below, Appellee, v. The WEST VIRGINIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND JOBS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, Respondent Below, Appellant, Thornton Cooper, Intervenor Below, Appellee. |
1. Generally, findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. However, ostensible findings of fact, which entail the application of law or constitute legal judgments which transcend ordinary factual determinations, must be reviewed de novo. The sufficiency of the information presented at trial to support a finding that a constitutional predicate has been satisfied presents a question of law.
2. To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must articulate it with such 3. The procedures set forth in Section 2 of Article XIV of the West Virginia Constitution are designed to achieve two goals: (1) to ensure, through the endorsement of a legislative supermajority and the support of a majority of those voting in a statewide referendum, that constitutional amendments reflect a true and broad based political consensus; and (2) to guarantee that such a referendum may be held only after the Legislature has taken steps to inform the electorate fully and accurately about the proposed amendment.
[196 W.Va. 211] sufficient distinctiveness to alert a circuit court to the nature of the claimed defect.
4. No amendment to the West Virginia Constitution can be effected without: (1) the duly recorded concurrence of two-thirds of the members in each house; (2) the submission of the proposed amendment to the people; (3) the amendment's ratification by a majority of those voting in a statewide referendum; (4) the fulfillment of the legislative duty to inform the people about the proposed amendment through at least substantial compliance with the directives of Section 2 of Article XIV of the West Virginia Constitution and in a manner sufficient to permit the voters to make up their minds; and (5) an absence of evidence that the State's voter education mislead or confused the voters if not in strict compliance with Article XIV.
5. When the State fails to publish the full text of a proposed amendment in a newspaper in each county but instead publishes a summary of the amendment, the results of a referendum on the amendment will not be set aside if: (1) the summary fully, fairly, and accurately describes the amendment; (2) the summary is, in fact, more understandable than the actual text of the amendment; (3) the summary was adopted by the Legislature; (4) there was no probative evidence that the summary mislead voters or reasonably could be read to have had a misleading effect; and (5) there was no probative evidence that publication of the full text of the amendment would have made any difference in the outcome of the referendum.
6. Section 2 of Article XIV of the West Virginia Constitution requires the Legislature to cause the full text of a proposed amendment to be published in a newspaper in each of the State's counties having a newspaper and any departures from that requirement shall be strictly reviewed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County; Honorable Herman G. Canady, Jr., Judge, Civil Action No. 95-MISC-290.
Thornton Cooper, South Charleston, Pro Se.
Paul E. Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joy M. Cavallo, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellees Governor Caperton, Treasurer Bailey, and Secretary of State Hechler.
James K. Brown, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, for Appellee The West Virginia Water Development Authority.
Thomas J. Gillooly, Charleston, for Appellant The West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council.
This opinion follows the December 14, 1995, order issued by this Court affirming the August 30, 1995, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. In its 67-page order, the circuit court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the West Virginia Water Development Authority (Authority), 1 an appellee herein, demanding that the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council (Council), 2 the appellant herein, be ordered to provide the requisite certification to the Authority and the Treasurer of the State of West Virginia, the Honorable Larrie Bailey, also an appellee herein, so that the marketing and sale of certain general obligation bonds may proceed. The Council then brought this appeal seeking a final judicial determination by this Court.
In that same order, the circuit court also denied a petition for a writ of mandamus by Thornton Cooper originally filed against the
[196 W.Va. 212] Honorable Gaston Caperton, Governor of the State of West Virginia; the Honorable Larrie Bailey, Treasurer of the State of West Virginia; and the Honorable Ken Hechler, Secretary of State of the State of West Virginia, also appellees herein. Mr. Cooper challenges the constitutionality of the underlying amendment authorizing the issue and sale of the bonds. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal issues involved in this case, we affirm the circuit court's order.
Initially, Mr. Cooper and the Authority filed independent mandamus actions with this Court on April 7, 1995, and April 13, 1995, respectively. We rejected both petitions without prejudice. Subsequently, both parties filed separate actions in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Mr. Cooper intervened in the Authority's suit and, on May 30, 1995, filed a motion to consolidate the two actions. Finding there existed common issues of law and fact between the two cases, the circuit court granted Mr. Cooper's motion. 3 After the circuit court entered its final order on August 30, 1995, the Council appealed for a determination by this Court. The parties stipulate to many of the facts.
This case involves the "Infrastructure Improvement Amendment" (Amendment) that was placed on the ballot for voter approval in the general election held on November 8, 1994. The duly canvassed and certified votes from that election reflect that the Amendment was ratified by the voters by a margin of 191,373 votes favoring the Amendment to 186,224 votes rejecting the Amendment.
Mr. Cooper, who is a citizen, taxpayer, and lawyer in Kanawha County, opposed the Amendment. 4 Following the election, Mr. Cooper learned that the full text of the Amendment was not published in any newspaper in the State prior to the election as is required by Section 2 of Article XIV of the West Virginia Constitution. 5 Instead, the Secretary of State's Office directed one newspaper in each county to publish a legal advertisement listing the title of the proposed Amendment, the number assigned to the proposed Amendment, and the legislatively adopted "Summary of Purpose" of the proposed Amendment. 6 This information The circuit court found that at least as early as 1989 and perhaps as early as 1982 the Secretary of State generally ceased directing that the full text of amendments be published in newspapers across the State. 8 Due to the failure to publish the full text of the Amendment, Mr. Cooper announced that he would challenge the Amendment which created concern over the marketing and sale of the bonds. Therefore, the Council states it declined to "certify the amount to be retained for payment of principal and interest on bonds to be issued pursuant to the Amendment, pending a judicial ruling on the legality and constitutionality of the Amendment, and of the related legislation." As a result of these circumstances, the two actions below were filed--one by the Authority seeking certification from the Council, the other by Mr. Cooper challenging the Amendment.
[196 W.Va. 213] was published in 54 of the 55 counties in West Virginia. 7
Mr. Cooper, as an appellee, 9 cross-assigns error in no fewer than fourteen iterations. However, we find this appeal boils down to one question: Whether the circuit court erred by concluding that the publication of the "Summary of Purpose" of the proposed Amendment rather than the full text of the Amendment was in substantial compliance with the West Virginia Constitution? After careful perscrutation of both the record and the rich variety of challenges marshalled by Mr. Cooper and the Council, we affirm.
Generally, this Court reviews findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. However, ostensible "findings of fact," which entail the application of law or constitute legal judgments which transcend ordinary factual determinations, must be reviewed de novo. In note 5 of Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Department of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573, 582, 466 S.E.2d 424, 433 (1995), we suggested that (466 S.E.2d at 433).
That the original proceeding was based upon petitions for writs of mandamus does not require us to change our standards of review. In our recent decision of Staten v Dean, 195 W.Va. 57, 464 S.E.2d 576 (1995), we settled any doubt as to the standard of review for appeals in mandamus actions in West Virginia. In Syllabus Point 1 of Staten, we stated: "The standard of appellate review of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hechler v. Christian Action Network
...de novo because it involves the interpretation of statutes which are questions of law."). See also State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 213, 470 S.E.2d 162, 167 (1996) (" '[M]ixed questions of law and fact, like pure questions of law, or those involving statutory interpretations......
-
State v. Miller
...considerations of fairness, judicial economy, and practical wisdom. Just recently, we stated in State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 216, 470 S.E.2d 162, 170 (1996): "To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must articulate it with such sufficient distinctiveness to al......
-
State v. Whittaker
...on pain that, if they forget their lines, they will likely be bound forever to hold their peace. . . . State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 216, 470 S.E.2d 162, 170 (1996) (citations omitted). Accord State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 17, 459 S.E.2d 114, 128 (1995) ("`One of the most......
-
Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours And Co.
...by setting forth with particularity and at the appropriate time the legal ground upon which the parties intend to rely. Id., 196 W.Va. at 216, 470 S.E.2d at 170 (citation omitted). Trial courts should not have to guess the nature of claimed defects. Further, this Court should not have to ex......