Vowell v. Kander

• Citation: 451 S.W.3d 267
• Decision Date: 19 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. WD 77591.,WD 77591.
• Parties: Natalie A. VOWELL, Appellant, v. Jason KANDER, In His Official Capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

451 S.W.3d 267

Natalie A. VOWELL, Appellant

v.Jason KANDER, In His Official Capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, Respondent.

No. WD 77591.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 19, 2014.

Case Retransferred July 16, 2014.

Court of Appeals Opinion Readopted July 17, 2014.

David Roland, for appellant.

James R. Layton, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before Special Division: JAMES E. WELSH, Chief Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and KAREN KING MITCHELL, Judge.

Opinion

JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge.

Natalie A. Vowell appeals from the Circuit Court of Cole County's dismissal of her Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive relief filed against Jason Kander, in his official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State.

On March 11, 2014, Appellant filed with Respondent's office her declaration of candidacy to serve as the representative in the Missouri General Assembly for the 78th Representative District, seeking to be listed as a candidate in the Democratic primary election to be held on August 5, 2014. Respondent's office accepted, signed, and filed that declaration of candidacy.

On May 6, 2014, Respondent's office sent a letter to Appellant questioning her qualifications to serve as a representative for the 78th District because an examination of voter registration records indicated that she had not been a qualified voter for at least two years prior to the November 4, 2014 election. The letter stated that, if Appellant did not provide Respondent with documentation showing that she had been registered to vote in the State of Missouri for the two years required by Article III, Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution, Respondent would not certify Appellant's name for the ballot.

On May 13, 2014, Appellant filed her Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief seeking a declaration that Missouri law does not grant Respondent the authority to evaluate a candidate's qualifications and to exclude a candidate's name from the list of candidates certified to appear on a primary election ballot based on such an evaluation. In the alternative, she sought a declaration that Respondent's actions denied her reasonable due process to challenge an adverse decision related to her candidacy. She also sought a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction prohibiting Respondent from excluding her name from the list of candidates certified to appear on the primary election ballot.

On May 16, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant's motion for a temporary restraining order. Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to “argue the motion on the concept of judgment on the pleadings.” The parties then presented their legal arguments regarding Respondent's authority to determine a candidate's qualifications. As part of his argument, Respondent asserted that there was no justiciable controversy and that Appellant lacked standing to request a declaration regarding Respondent's authority to determine whether Appellant was qualified to serve as a representative because Appellant was not, in fact, qualified to serve as a representative. Appellant responded by arguing that she had standing and that the issue of her qualifications was not before the court. She claimed that the only issue before the court was whether, after a proper declaration of candidacy had been filed and accepted by Respondent, Respondent had the authority to unilaterally investigate and adjudge Appellant's qualifications to serve as a representative.

On May 21, 2014, the trial court dismissed Appellant's petition, concluding that Appellant lacked standing to pursue a declaration regarding Respondent's authority to determine whether Appellant was a qualified candidate because Appellant was not, in fact, a qualified candidate. The court stated, “Because Petitioner is not a qualified candidate, she cannot claim a justiciable controversy exists between her and the Secretary of State and is not entitled to declaratory relief as prayed for in Count I.” The court also stated, with regard to the due process claim in Count II of Appellant's petition, that, even if Appellant had standing, due process was satisfied by the provisions of § 536.150, et seq. related to administrative decisions without a hearing. Appellant brings three points on appeal.

In her first point, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that she lacked standing. “Standing is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. ” St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Ferguson, 354 S.W.3d 620, 622 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotation omitted). We determine “standing as a matter of law on the basis of the petition along with any other non-contested facts accepted as true by the parties at the time the motion to dismiss was argued.” State ex rel. Christian Health Care of Springfield, Inc. v. Mo. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 229 S.W.3d 270, 276 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (internal quotation omitted).

“A declaratory judgment action requires a justiciable controversy.” Mo. Alliance for Retired Ams. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 277 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Mo. banc 2009). “A justiciable controversy exists where (1) the plaintiff has a legally protectable interest at stake, (2) a substantial controversy exists between the parties with genuinely adverse interests, and (3) that controversy is ripe for judicial determination.” Schweich v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal quotation omitted). “The first two elements of justiciability are encompassed jointly by the concept of ‘standing.’ ” Id.

The term “standing” “means that the parties seeking relief must have some personal interest at stake in the dispute, even if that interest is attenuated, slight or remote.” St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors, 354 S.W.3d at 622–23 (internal quotation omitted). “To have standing in a declaratory judgment action, the party must have a legally protectable interest at stake.” Gerken v. Sherman, 276 S.W.3d 844, 853 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (internal quotations omitted). “A legally protectable interest means a pecuniary or personal interest directly in issue or jeopardy which is subject to some consequential relief, either immediate or prospective.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “A legally protectable interest exists only if the plaintiff is affected directly and adversely by the challenged action or if the plaintiff's interest is conferred statutorily.” St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors, 354 S.W.3d at 623. “There is no litmus test for determining whether a legally protectable interest exists; it is determined on a case-by-case basis.” Mo. Alliance for Retired Ams., 277 S.W.3d at 676.

Respondent contends, and the trial court found, that no justiciable controversy existed because Appellant does not satisfy the candidate qualifications for the Missouri House of Representatives set forth by the Missouri Constitution. However, Appellant's qualifications for candidacy were not at issue in the underlying declaratory judgment action. Appellant's petition requests a declaration only as to whether Respondent had the authority, under Missouri law, to unilaterally pass judgment on her qualifications as a candidate, not whether she was, in fact, a qualified candidate. A declaration as to whether Respondent can, under Missouri law, assess a candidate's qualifications for office bears no relation to whether Appellant actually satisfies the candidacy qualifications. Thus, Appellant's qualifications for candidacy are irrelevant to the question of whether Appellant's declaratory judgment action presents a justiciable controversy.

Instead, whether there is a justiciable controversy that Appellant had standing to raise turns on whether Appellant had a legally protectable interest at stake and whether a substantial controversy existed between the parties. Our evaluation of Appellant's petition establishes that both elements are present in this case.

First, official candidacy for public office is most certainly a protectable, legal interest. That is why there are official, statutory procedures for challenging and terminating such candidacy.See § 115.526 (establishing a procedure for candidates in a primary, general, or special election to challenge declarations of candidacy and qualifications of their opponents); see also § 115.563.2 (giving the Missouri state house of representatives authority to adjudicate contests based on the qualifications of a candidate for the office of state representative that have not been adjudicated prior to the general election). The petition in this case clearly reflects that Appellant had such a protectable interest at stake. Specifically, Appellant alleges that she timely complied with the requirements for filing her declaration of candidacy for representative of the 78th District with Respondent and that she was subsequently listed as a candidate on Respondent's website. She further asserts that Respondent accepted her paperwork without objection but later sent her a letter asserting that, based upon his assessment of the “qualified voter” requirement, she was not a qualified candidate. That letter indicated that Respondent would not certify Appellant's name to be on the primary ballot unless she established that she had been a “qualified voter” for the previous two years. Thus, the petition clearly alleged Appellant had a protectable interest in appearing on the primary ballot and that her interest was directly and adversely affected by the challenged action, namely Respondent's decision to pass judgment upon her qualifications as a candidate.

Secondly, a substantial controversy exists between Appellant and Respondent with respect to Respondent's authority to evaluate candidates' qualifications. Appellant contends in her petition that § 115.526 provides the exclusive mechanism by which a candidate's qualifications can be adjudicated and that Respondent has no statutory authority to assess a candidate's qualifications. Respondent avers that he has the discretionary authority to determine...