Daily News Publishing Co. v. Virgin Islands Joint Board of Elections
2015 V.I. LEXIS 4
Superior Court of The Virgin I...2015Background
- Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Emergency Injunctive Relief on December 5, 2014 seeking access to the recount area.
- On December 4, 2014, Fiona Stokes was ejected from the recount area at the St. Croix Board of Elections; media and public were removed from the recount room and area.
- At the December 8, 2014 hearing, the parties stipulated that the media and public were not disruptive and that public access on December 4 was denied.
- Defendant contends everyone who observed the recount could enter the room, though space constraints allowed only one member of the public to sit in the doorway.
- The court sua sponte treated the matter as a request for temporary and permanent relief, noting the statute requires the recount to be public.
- The court concluded the recount must be open to the public with a restricted area for certain persons and issued a restraining order requiring open access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the recount have to be open to the public under statute? | Stokes and Daily News assert §629(b) requires public access to the recount. | Board contends access can be restricted to maintain order within a designated area. | Yes; statute requires public recount with restricted area. |
| May the board designate a restricted area while keeping the recount open to the public? | Any restriction that obstructs public observation is improper. | A restricted area is permissible for candidates and designees to maintain process integrity. | Restricted area permissible; public access must remain open to observers. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the statute when read in context? | Statutory language should be given plain meaning referencing the whole statute. | Statutory interpretation considers functional restrictions for order. | The words are unambiguous; recount must be public as written. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) (statutory interpretation canon: read statute as a whole and presume meaning)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (when interpreting a statute, start with the cardinal canon and unambiguous terms)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (utilizes plain-meaning approach when words are unambiguous)