Wood v. Booth
Citation | 990 So.2d 314 |
Decision Date | 22 February 2008 |
Docket Number | 1060953. |
Parties | Benjamin Russell WOOD, Jr. v. Alfred Q. BOOTH et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mark G. Montiel, Montgomery, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and James W. Davis, asst. atty. gen., for appellees Autauga County Judge of Probate Alfred Q. Booth and Secretary of State Beth Chapman.
Robert D. Segall and Shannon L. Holliday of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for appellees Edgar C. Gentle III, Marvin Wise, Jean Gerber, Cynthia A. Bell, and Joe Turnham, in his individual capacity.
Joe C. Espy III of Melton, Espy & Williams, P.C., Montgomery, for appellees the Alabama Democratic Party and Joe Turnham, in his official capacity.
Benjamin Russell Wood, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing Wood's action against Alfred Q. Booth, in his official capacity as probate judge of Autauga County, and Nancy Worley, in her official capacity as secretary of state of Alabama.1 We affirm.
On October 13, 2006, Wood, a registered voter and a resident of Autauga County, sued Judge Booth and the secretary of state in the Autauga Circuit Court. Wood sought the revocation of the certificates of nomination that had been issued after the primary election to four candidates for the state senate—Lowell Barron, Roger Bedford, Zeb Little, and Hank Sanders.2 Barron, Bedford, Little, and Sanders had not been opposed in their respective districts in the June 6, 2006, primary election, and the secretary of state had certified those candidates on August 31, 2006, as the nominees of the Democratic Party for the office of state senator in their respective districts. Wood also sought to have those candidates' names removed from the ballot for the November 7, 2006, general election.
Wood's complaint sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, a writ of mandamus, and a writ of quo warranto. The complaint alleged that Barron, Bedford, Little, and Sanders had failed to file certain reports required to be filed by the Fair Campaign Practices Act ("the FCPA"), formerly § 17-22A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ( ).3 Specifically, the complaint alleged that, before the June 6, 2006, primary, Barron, Bedford, Little, and Sanders had not filed the reports described in former § 17-22A-8 (currently § 17-5-8) of the FCPA.4
Judge Booth and the secretary of state filed an answer to the complaint on October 25, 2006. Among other things, the answer asserted that Wood's action was an untimely election contest and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Wood's claims.
On October 30, 2006, the Alabama Democratic Party; its chairman, Joe Turnham, acting in his individual and official capacities; and two voters moved to intervene in the action.5 The intervenors also filed a motion to dismiss, asserting, among other things, that the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and that Wood had failed to join indispensable parties; a motion to transfer the case to the Montgomery Circuit Court; and a cross-claim and third-party complaint that named various probate judges, the secretary of state, and Republican senatorial nominees Jabo Waggoner, Harri Anne Smith, Del Marsh, and Steve French. The intervenors' complaint alleged that Waggoner, Smith, Marsh, and French also had failed to file pre-primary reports under the FCPA. The intervenors requested that, in the event the trial court granted the relief Wood requested, the trial court also grant similar relief to the intervenors against Waggoner, Smith, Marsh, and French.
The Autauga Circuit Court granted the intervenors' motion to intervene and later granted the intervenors' motion to transfer the case to the Montgomery Circuit Court.6 In the Montgomery Circuit Court, the intervenors filed an amended cross-claim and third-party complaint alleging that 26 additional Republican candidates for various offices had violated the FCPA, but the intervenors did not attempt to add those candidates as parties to the action.
On January 9, 2007, the intervenors filed additional materials in support of their pending motion to dismiss. The intervenors asserted that Senators Barron, Bedford, Little, and Sanders had been elected at the November 7, 2006, election, that they had taken the oath of office and had received certificates of election, and that, under Art. IV, § 46 and § 51, Ala. Const. 1901, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action.
On March 15, 2007, after the parties had filed several additional pleadings, the Montgomery Circuit Court entered an order dismissing the action on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction. Specifically, the order asserted that the court did not have jurisdiction under Art. IV, § 46 and § 51, Ala. Const.1901. Wood filed a timely notice of appeal, and the intervenors filed a cross-appeal.7
This appeal presents issues similar to those we addressed in Roper v. Rhodes, 988 So.2d 471 (Ala.2008), in which we considered whether the Crenshaw Circuit Court had jurisdiction in an action filed by William Roper and Cynthia Roper just before the November 7, 2006, general election seeking to have a candidate's name removed from the ballot. William was a candidate in the June 6, 2006, primary election to select the Democratic Party's nominee for the Crenshaw County Board of Education, district 1. William and Ronald A. Rhodes participated in a runoff election on July 18, 2006, that resulted in a tie vote. William lost to Rhodes in a "domino draw" conducted by the Crenshaw County Democratic Party, and on August 14, 2006, Rhodes was certified as the Democratic nominee. 988 So.2d at 472.
On October 30, 2006, the Ropers filed an action in the Crenshaw Circuit Court against the probate judge of Crenshaw County and the secretary of state. Like Wood's requests for the revocation of the certificates of nomination issued to the senatorial candidates and for the removal of their names from the ballot for the general election, the Ropers sought the revocation of the certificate of nomination issued to Rhodes and the removal of his name from the general-election ballot.8 Additionally, the Ropers' action was based on alleged violations of the FCPA by Rhodes before the primary and runoff elections. 988 So.2d at 477.
Similar to Wood's allegations regarding the senatorial candidates in the present case, the Ropers claimed that Rhodes had violated § 17-22A-8 (currently § 17-5-8) of the FCPA, and the Ropers asserted that the circuit court had jurisdiction to enforce § 17-22A-21 (currently § 17-5-18) of the FCPA, which requires, under certain circumstances, the revocation of a certificate of election or nomination issued to a candidate who has not complied with the FCPA.
Roper, 988 So.2d at 477-78. We then stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryan v. Hubbard
......, Paul Reynolds (by phone), Harold Sachs, Kevin Speed, George Williams (by phone), and Bill Wood (by phone). . "The Chairman stated the purpose of the meeting was to hear the ... Wood v. Booth, 990 So.2d 314, 317-18 (Ala.2008)(quoting Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855, 858 (Ala.2005)). . ......
-
State ex rel. Allison v. Farris
......v. Powell, 748 So.2d 869 (Ala.1999) ; Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997).’ ”Wood v. Booth, 990 So.2d 314, 317–18 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855, 858 ......
-
Rice v. Chapman
......Hubbard, 6 So.3d 491 (Ala.2008); Roper v. Rhodes, 988 So.2d 471 (Ala.2008); and Wood v. Booth, 990 So.2d 314 (Ala.2008). 6 The Court also notes that it is undisputed ......
-
Interpreting the Alabama Constitution
...due regard being had to the broader objects and scope of the constitution as a charter of popular government.").22. See Wood v. Booth, 990 So. 2d 314, 332 (Ala. 2008) (Smith, J., concurring specially) (noting that "This Court has applied the expressio unius maxim in interpreting provisions ......