Davis v. Alabama Education Ass'n
2012 Ala. LEXIS 35
| Ala. | 2012Background
- State employees’ salaries are paid by the comptroller; the comptroller may deduct dues, voluntary contributions, and insurance premiums from salaries upon employee group request (min 200 members) under § 36-1-4.3 and related procedures in § 36-1-4.4; deductions must be based on organization-provided lists and can be revoked with notice; prior practice allowed PAC contributions through payroll deductions.
- On July 1, 2010, the comptroller stopped deductions for SEA-PAC and similar committees but continued dues for ASEA; portions of deductions appearing on paychecks were affected.
- The AEA and A-VOTE obtained a preliminary injunction against the changes, and ASEA/SEA-PAC sought intervention for their PACs; the circuit court enjoined continued honoring of deductions for AEA, A-VOTE, ASEA, SEA-PAC.
- Act No. 2010-761 (effective March 20, 2011) amended § 17-17-5 to prohibit payroll deductions for political activities and to require organizations to certify dues are not used for political activity; the Act also requires annual expenditure breakdowns.
- After the Act’s enactment, plaintiffs moved to vacate the injunction and dismiss as moot; federal actions challenging the Act were ongoing; the Supreme Court of Alabama found the case moot and vacated the injunction, remanding for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot after the Act | AEA/A-VOTE argued moot due to Act’s effect | D&Cs argued mootness not yet ripe | Case moot; injunction vacated and action dismissed. |
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction given mootness | Mootness deprived jurisdiction | Jurisdiction preserved to address mootness | mootness foreclosed jurisdiction; dismissal proper. |
| Whether the injunction should be vacated or revised for changed law | Injunction needed despite Act | Law changed; relief inappropriate | Injunction vacated; remanded for dismissal. |
| Public-interest exception to mootness applicable here? | Public-interest exception might allow review | Exception inapplicable; no lasting guidance | Exception not invoked; case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So.3d 120 (Ala. 2009) (mootness and abstract questions doctrine cited)
- Cornerstone v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., 42 So.3d 65 (Ala. 2009) (prevailing-party mootness rescission not grounds for dismissal)
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2009) (permits states to limit payroll deductions for political activity)
- King v. Campbell, 988 So.2d 969 (Ala. 2007) (public-interest mootness exception scrutiny; must recur)