Clay Chastain and Vincent Lee v. Sylvester James
463 S.W.3d 811
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Sylvester James, incumbent Mayor of Kansas City, filed nominating petition and a sworn Declaration on Dec 9, 2014 stating he was current on city taxes; he was current as of that date but had unpaid 2014 Jackson County personal property taxes due Dec 31, 2014, which he paid Jan 13–Feb 2, 2015 (paid Feb 2, 2015).
- Final filing date for mayoral candidacy was Jan 13, 2015; 30-day statutory challenge deadline for primary-qualifications challenges ran Feb 12, 2015.
- Primary occurred Apr 7, 2015; Kansas City Board certified results Apr 15, 2015; James and Lee were the top two vote-getters.
- Chastain (pro se) filed an election-contest on Apr 15, 2015 challenging James’s qualifications to appear on the primary ballot; counsel later prepared an Amended Petition (filed Apr 30, 2015) adding Lee and asserting two counts: Count I (primary) by Chastain and Count II (general) by Lee, both under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.526.
- Trial court, on stipulated facts, denied leave to amend/join and dismissed the original and amended contests as time-barred under § 115.526.2 and for other independent reasons; Chastain and Lee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness of primary-ballot challenge under § 115.526.2 | Chastain argued his Apr 15 contest was timely (or that safe-haven 5‑day discovery proviso applied; alternatively, that his pro se pleading could be treated as a writ of prohibition so no statutory deadline applies) | James/Sanders argued statute requires filing ≤30 days after final filing date (Feb 12 deadline) and Chastain’s filing after that is untimely; prohibition cannot circumvent statutory scheme | Held: Chastain’s primary challenge is time‑barred; discovery proviso inapplicable; prohibition unavailable to bypass § 115.526 scheme. |
| 2. Timeliness of general‑election challenge under § 115.526.2 | Lee argued Count II should relate back to Chastain’s Apr 15 filing (or be treated as prohibition) so it would be timely | Defendants argued certification date (Apr 15) triggered 5‑day limit (deadline Apr 20), and Lee’s Apr 30 amended filing is untimely; new plaintiff/new claim cannot relate back under Rule 55.33(c) | Held: Lee’s general‑election challenge is time‑barred; Count II does not relate back because it is a new claim by a new plaintiff; prohibition argument fails. |
| 3. Applicability of administrative exhaustion (§ 115.342) | Plaintiffs argued administrative remedy did not apply to the City mayoral context | Defendants argued administrative remedy existed and plaintiffs failed to exhaust | Held: Court did not reach merits because Amended Contest was time‑barred; issue moot. |
| 4. Effect of repeal of § 115.346 and continued force of § 71.005 (tax‑based disqualification) | Plaintiffs argued § 71.005 still disqualifies municipal candidates delinquent in municipal taxes as of filing deadline | Defendants argued repeal and statutory amendments undermined that theory | Held: Court declined to resolve because Amended Contest dismissed as untimely; issue moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. Shawnee Gun Shop, Inc., 409 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (motion to dismiss standard reviewed de novo)
- Wright-Jones v. Johnson, 256 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (§ 115.526 challenge to primary qualifications must be brought before the primary is held)
- State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. banc 2012) (§ 115.526 creates private statutory right for candidates to challenge other candidates’ qualifications; quo warranto distinct)
- Foster v. Evert, 751 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. banc 1988) (election‑contest procedures are exclusive and must be strictly followed)
- Dally v. Butler, 972 S.W.2d 603 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (where statutes provide right to contest nomination, statutory procedures are controlling and exclusive)
- Board of Election Com’rs of St. Louis County v. Knipp, 784 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. banc 1990) (right to contest election exists only by statute)