Wooton v. Walker

• Decision Date: 19 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 16–0226.,16–0226.
• Citation: 786 S.E.2d 212,237 W.Va. 193
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: William R. WOOTON, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Petitioner v. Elizabeth D. WALKER, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia; West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant; West Virginia State Election Commission members Gary A. Collias and Vincent P. Cardi; West Virginia State Auditor Glen B. Gainer, III; and West Virginia State Treasurer John D. Perdue, Respondent.

237 W.Va. 193
786 S.E.2d 212

William R. WOOTON, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Petitioner
v.
Elizabeth D. WALKER, candidate for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia; West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant; West Virginia State Election Commission members Gary A. Collias and Vincent P. Cardi; West Virginia State Auditor Glen B. Gainer, III; and West Virginia State Treasurer John D. Perdue, Respondent.

No. 16–0226.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted March 23, 2016.
Decided April 19, 2016.

Robert M. Bastress, Jr., Morgantown, WV, Robert V. Berthold, Jr., Berthold Law Firm PLLC, Thomas Patrick Maroney, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner Wooton.

K & L Gates LLP, Thomas C. Ryan, Pittsburgh, PA, for Respondent Walker.

Richard L. Gottlieb, Webster J. Arceneaux, III, Spencer D. Elliott, Lewis Glasser Casey & Rollins, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Respondents Tennant, Collias & Cardi.

KEADLE, Acting Chief Justice:

Petitioner William R. Wooton is a candidate seeking election to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and a “participating candidate” as that term is defined in the “West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Program,” W. Va.Code § 3–12–3(11) (2014). On February 5, 2016, the West Virginia State Elections Commission (“the Commission”) certified Petitioner Wooton's campaign for public funding under the Act, overruling a challenge filed by Respondent Elizabeth D. Walker, a non-participating candidate also seeking election to the Court.

Pursuant to the West Virginia Administrative Procedures Act, W. Va.Code § 29A–5–1 et seq., Respondent Walker appealed the Commission's decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which certified the following question to this Court:

Whether the West Virginia State Election Commission's certification of Respondent [now Petitioner] Wooton for public financing of his candidacy for the West Virginia Supreme Court under West Virginia Code § 3–12–1 et seq., was valid.

The court answered the question in the negative.

After thorough review of the record Appendix, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we modify and answer the certified question, reverse the judgment of the court below, and reinstate the decision of the Commission certifying Petitioner Wooton.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

West Virginia Code § 3–12–1 et seq. (2014), known as the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Program, was enacted by the West Virginia Legislature to “protect the Constitutional rights of voters and candidates from the detrimental effects of increasingly large amounts of money being raised and spent to influence the outcome of elections, protect the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, and strengthen public confidence in the judiciary....” W. Va.Code § 3–12–1(10).

A candidate seeking public financing must file a Declaration of Intent prior to the end of the qualifying period, W. Va.Code § 3–12–7, which period begins on September 1 of the year preceding the election year and ends on the last Saturday in January of the election year. W. Va.Code § 31–12–3(13). After filing the Declaration of Intent but before certification for public financing, a candidate must gather at least 500 “qualifying contributions” from West Virginia voters. W. Va.Code § 3–12–9(c). Each contribution can be as little as $1.00, but can in no event exceed $100.00. W. Va.Code § 3–12–9(a). The total amount of the contributions must be no less than $35,000.00 and no more than $50,000.00. Id.¹

After a participating candidate has collected the requisite number of qualifying contributions, and within two business days of the close of the qualifying period,² he or she files

786 S.E.2d 215

a final report and applies to the Commission to be certified to receive public financing. W. Va.Code § 3–12–10(a) ; W. Va.Code of State Rules §§ 146–5–6.1, 6.2. The candidate's application must include a sworn statement that he or she has and will comply with all requirements of the program. Id. In the instant case, Petitioner Wooton filed his final report and all required substantive information on February 2, 2016, but did not file his sworn statement until February 3, 2016, one day late. This is the sole basis upon which Respondent Walker challenges Wooton's certification in this appeal.³

The Commission overruled the challenge, finding that it had the authority to certify the Wooton campaign for public financing notwithstanding the one-day delay in submission of the sworn statement. On appeal, the circuit court certified and answered the question set forth above, concluding, by necessary implication,⁴ that the Commission did not have such authority. Appeal to this Court followed, and the case was set for briefing and argument on an expedited schedule.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

It is well established that “[t]he appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo. ” Syl. Pt. 1, Gallapoo v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996).

III. DISCUSSION

Standing

As a threshold matter, we conclude that under the specific facts of this case, Respondent Walker has been “adversely affected” by the Commission's decision, a prerequisite for standing to appeal under the Administrative Procedures Act, W. Va.Code § 29A–5–4(a), and the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Financing Program, W. Va.Code § 3–12–10(i).

Respondent Walker frames the argument as one involving “the fundamental and sacred constitutional rights of free speech and substantive due process ...,” but there is very little meat on these constitutional bones. This Court has held that “speech is chilled ‘when an otherwise willing speaker is prevented from speaking, or cajoled into no longer speaking, by government conduct [,]’ ” Men and Women Against Discrimination v. The Family Services Protection Board, 229 W.Va. 55, 62, 725 S.E.2d 756, 763 (2011), and it would be a far stretch to conclude that the certification of Petitioner Wooton for public funding in any way abridges or chills Respondent Walker's free speech rights. She is as free now as she was prior to February 5, 2016, when the Commission certified Petitioner Wooton for public funding, to conduct her campaign and articulate the reasons she believes herself to be a candidate worthy of support at the ballot box.

In any event, “[i]nasmuch as this case may be decided on statutory grounds, this Court need not address the constitutional issue.” Hudson v. Bowling, 232 W.Va. 282, 291 n. 13, 752 S.E.2d 313, 322 n. 13 (2013), citing Lee Trace, LLC v. Raynes, 232 W.Va. 183, 191, 751 S.E.2d 703, 711 (2013). Simply put, in this case Respondent Walker was a party to the proceedings held before the Commission, and the Commission's decision at issue in this case was made as a direct result of her challenge to the Wooton campaign's certification. Under these circumstances, we can perceive of no basis on which to conclude that Respondent Walker has no first-party standing to appeal from the denial of that challenge.

Mandatory Disqualification/Substantial Compliance

Although the question certified by the court below is very broad, the briefs and arguments of the parties make it clear that the sole issue for decision in this case is very

786 S.E.2d 216

narrow: whether Petitioner Wooton's failure to file his sworn statement on or before February 2, 2016, the second business day after the close of the qualifying period, mandated his disqualification under the Act. Respondent Walker argues that “a deadline is a deadline,” and that under the Act and the legislative rules, W. Va.Code of State Rules § 146–5–1 et seq., the West Virginia State Election Commission has no discretion to excuse or extend any deadline for any reason. Further, Respondent Walker makes a policy argument that any exercise of discretion on the part of the Commission will erode public confidence in the integrity of the public financing program. Cf. Brady v. Hechler, 176 W.Va. 570, 574, 346 S.E.2d 546, 550 (1986).

In contrast, Petitioner Wooton argues that the legislative rules, and in particular W. Va.Code of State Rules §§ 146–5–6.1 & 6.2, are mere “administrative guide[s],” and that nothing in the Act or the legislative rules imposes an obligation on the Commission to disqualify any candidate on the basis of a late filing of his or her sworn statement. Petitioner Wooton also makes a policy argument that denying public funding to a participating candidate who makes any procedural misstep, no matter how inconsequential, would defeat the reform goals of the Act.

We begin with the...