Comments

1
Woolley's major problem is that in order to rule in his favor, the court would need to come up with a test or a standard by which a candidate can be considered "running" for a particular office. The advice Smith received, which is that filing to run is what would trigger the resignation requirement, is an easy-to-understand, bright-line test.

Courts don't like to have to draw up random tests or standards, because they are a) easy to game in future circumstances, leading to even more confusion and litigation and thus a burden on the court system, and b) because any decision based on an arbitrarily created standard is bound to be appealed.

Think of the Supreme Court's pornography-related jurisprudence and the famous (or infamous) "I know it when I see it" test. Does Woolley simply "know" that Smith is/was running at a certain point, just because he deemed it so?

I think the existing "filing" standard recommended to Smith by the attorney, while potentially problematic, is still the standard we should be using, mostly because it is within the realm of possibility that a would-be candidate could fundraise, create a webpage, etc., and still ultimately decide not to file. In that case, I don't think Woolley could say with a straight face that that candidate was "running" for the position because...they didn't run for the position. Laying groundwork and measuring your support is not running. Filing and actually running is running.
2
Flavio, the state election statutes define candidacy already, and based upon the definition in law, she is a candidate.

The plain meaning of "running for office" is also clear. People who aren't running for office don't have active campaigns to run for office.

The County Attorney didn't provide advice that says that filing is the definition of running. She wrote (with defendant's editing marks):

"Aside from ‘filing’, the charter and the code do not [specify] other actions that would ‘be the same as a resignation’.
"Because filing for another office in the last year of an elective term shall not constitute resignation, you can file on, or after, January 1, 2018, without resigning your D2 seat."

It is possible to file without resigning, but Smith filed campaign activity long before she filed to be on the ballot. Those are also filings. Further, the County Attorney noted there was nothing else being "the same as resignation." The previous sentence (in the charter) says running (not filing) requires resignation, first. That creates a duty to resign. If you file at all, resignation is merely considered effective at the filing date of the filing. A duty to resign and a resignation effective date clause are two different things. Note that filing sets out what is "the same as a resignation" and providing an effective date. The indefinite article "a" makes clear this isn't the only way resignation can happen.

You have a duty at the scene of an accident you are involved with an injured person, but if the law doesn't provide for a single bright line for your performing a duty in a particular case among many, it's not an elimination of the duty. Indeed effective duty can involve going to a police station after conveyance of a person to a hospital rather than remaining at the scene.

The headline says it hinges upon the definition of running. Correct, but that was only part of my argument. Since she also admits via her campaign manager that she should be considered to have filed documents related to her city campaign long before Jan 1, in order to avoid the other half of my complaint, that also triggers the effective date clause making those "the same as resignation."

Minor point of clarification to the article: I said "call hearing" as in a calendar call to schedule the next hearing -- we both showed up in person via representatives (myself in my case). No arguments were made at this hearing.

Smith wasn't just laying groundwork. She announced her candidacy to the press, had a website and social media pages for constituents to engage with, had already sought endorsements and raised a lot of money.

In state statute, taking money alone makes one a candidate for office. Some candidates never file to be on the ballot but run to completion anyways. I know personally two people who ran as a write-in and won the final election (even more for nominations). I know many others who ran as a write-in and lost. Appearance on a pre-printed ballot isn't a bright line for candidacy and that is why the definition under state law is constructed to be more clear.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.