City of Casper v. Holloway
354 P.3d 65
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Casper City Clerk interpreted referendum statutes to require exact address matching with the county voter list for a municipal referendum; Holloway sued for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging clerk’s actions.
- Ordinance history: 2012 ordinance banning smoking in enclosed public places; 2013 amendment allowed smoking in bars; referendum sought to challenge the 2013 ordinance; petitions submitted in 2018.
- City Clerk reviewed 3,078 signatures with a 2,393 valid count; 24,548 registered voters in Casper yielded 2,454 signatures needed for referendum; 67 addresses on signatures did not match registration list on later list.
- Holloway initially pursued declaratory judgment; district court granted relief and found clerk’s action arbitrary and capricious; jurisdiction was contested.
- Wyoming Supreme Court held jurisdiction existed for certain issues under declaratory judgment and overturned other aspects; remanded to address proper statutory interpretation and jurisdiction limited to §§ 22-23-1005/1006, while rejecting broader review under statewide initiative statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is district court's jurisdiction limited to declaratory judgment under WY law? | Holloway argues § 22-24-1222 provides statewide review; declaratory relief appropriate under Rule 12.12. | City contends § 22-24-1222 narrows review to statewide actions, not municipal referenda; jurisdiction proper under 12.12/1-37-101. | Jurisdiction exists under Rule 12.12/Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, not under § 22-24-1222 for municipal referenda. |
| Does a moved elector remain a qualified elector for a municipal referendum if their Casper address differs from the voter list? | Holloway contends moved residents remain qualified electors; clerk’s automatic disqualification is improper. | Casper contends relocation within the city can render a signature invalid if not updated. | Electors can move within the city without automatic disqualification; petition signatures should be considered under totality of circumstances. |
| May the City Clerk automatically reject signatures when petition addresses do not match the voter list? | Clerk erred in automatically disqualifying signatures without considering other information. | Address matching is a necessary standard to ensure qualification of electors. | Automatic rejection based solely on address mismatch is improper; Clerk must balance information and may tailor review process. |
| Is the declaratory judgment action the proper vehicle to challenge the City Clerk’s actions, given the undisputed facts? | Holloway seeks construction of statutes governing clerical review of petitions. | Action should be reviewed as agency action; proper avenues exist under Rule 12 and declaratory judgments. | Yes, through 12.12 and 1-37-101, but limited to statutory interpretation; district court’s broader arbitrariness ruling was reversed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomson v. Wyoming In-Stream Flow Committee, 651 P.2d 778 (Wyo. 1982) (relevant to purposes of initiative/referendum limits and review standards)
- Voss v. Goodman, 203 P.3d 415 (Wy. 2009) (declaratory judgments in administrative action context)
- Stutzman v. Office of Wyoming State Eng'r, 130 P.3d 470 (Wy. 2006) (limits of appellate review in administrative decisions)
- North Laramie Range Found. v. Converse County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 290 P.3d 1063 (Wy. 2012) (arbitrary and capricious review standards in certain proceedings)
- Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Catchpole, 6 P.3d 1275 (Wy. 2000) (uniform declaratory judgments act principles in education/agency contexts)