Carson v. Reiner
370 P.3d 1137
| Colo. | 2016Background
- Three Mesa County Valley SD 51 electors filed a verified petition one week before the November 2015 school board election arguing Paul Pitton was unqualified because he did not reside in District B and was wrongfully certified to the ballot.
- Petition named the county clerk & recorder and the district’s designated election official and asked the court to prohibit counting votes for Pitton; petitioners brought the claim under § 1-1-118(1), C.R.S.
- The district court heard stipulated facts on the day before the election and denied relief, concluding § 1-1-118(1) did not authorize removing or disqualifying a certified candidate at that late stage.
- Petitioners applied for Colorado Supreme Court review under § 1-1-118(8); the Court accepted review because the issue had arisen repeatedly in recent school board contests.
- The Supreme Court analyzed whether the general pre‑election remedy in § 1-1-118(1) can be used to challenge a candidate’s qualification after the specific five‑day certification‑challenge window in § 1-4-501(8) has closed.
- The Court held that § 1-4-501(8) is the specific statutory vehicle and its five‑day limitation controls; once that window expires, a challenger cannot use § 1-1-118(1) to seek pre‑election relief based solely on candidate qualifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1-1-118(1) authorizes a pre‑election challenge to a certified candidate’s qualifications after the § 1-4-501(8) five‑day window has closed | Carson: § 1-1-118(1) is a catch‑all that permits challenging wrongful certification up to election day | Defendants: § 1-4-501(8) specifically governs qualification challenges and its five‑day limitation is controlling | Held: No. § 1-4-501(8) is the specific provision and its five‑day limit precludes using § 1-1-118(1) for the same purpose after the window closes |
| Whether reading § 1-1-118(1) to permit later qualification challenges would create a conflict making § 1-4-501(8) superfluous | Carson: allowing § 1-1-118(1) preserves enforcement when ineligibility is discovered late | Defendants: permitting § 1-1-118(1) would nullify the special five‑day rule | Held: The provisions conflict and are irreconcilable here; under statutory construction rules the specific (§ 1-4-501(8)) prevails |
| Appropriate remedy when an ineligible candidate is certified but not timely challenged | Carson: court order preventing votes for the ineligible candidate and stop counting | Defendants: remedy falls under certification‑challenge or post‑election contest framework | Held: Legislature intended post‑election contest or vacancy procedures to address late discoveries; pre‑election relief via § 1-1-118(1) is not available in this circumstance |
| Effect on election administration and voter enfranchisement | Carson: permitting late challenges protects integrity and informs voters their votes won’t count | Defendants: five‑day rule protects electoral finality and avoids disruption | Held: Court defers to legislative scheme favoring finality and statutory post‑election remedies (vacancy filling) over late pre‑election removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Figueroa v. Speers, 348 P.3d 967 (Colo. 2015) (addressed challenge to certified candidate’s residency and held post‑election contest and vacancy procedures govern late eligibility disputes)
- Hanlen v. Gessler, 388 P.3d 41 (Colo. 2014) (construed election statutes to favor resolving late‑arising candidate eligibility issues post‑election to preserve election finality)