66 V.I. 237
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2017Background
- Nov. 8, 2016 general election: Kevin A. Rodriquez placed sixth for the St. Thomas/St. John district and was certified a winner; Janelle Sarauw placed eighth.
- On Nov. 21, 2016 Sarauw received an anonymous email containing part of Rodriquez’s Jan. 25, 2016 bankruptcy petition in which he swore he was a Tennessee resident; Brigitte Berry (Sarauw volunteer) submitted the petition to the Supervisor of Elections challenging Rodriquez’s eligibility under the three‑year residence requirement in the Revised Organic Act.
- Board of Elections certified results Nov. 22, 2016; election contest window under local statute had closed according to the Supervisor of Elections.
- Sarauw and Berry sued in Superior Court on Dec. 9, 2016 and moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Rodriquez from taking the oath of office; Superior Court granted the preliminary injunction on Dec. 29, 2016 and scheduled a merits trial.
- Rodriquez appealed; this Court exercised expedited interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction order and heard arguments on whether Sarauw and Berry are likely to succeed on the merits that Rodriquez was not a bona fide resident (domiciled) in the Virgin Islands for the prior three years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars the residency challenge | Sarauw/Berry: challenge timely because they only learned of the bankruptcy petition Nov. 21, 2016 | Rodriquez: plaintiffs delayed and prejudiced him by waiting until after certification | Court: laches does not bar challenges to a candidate's qualifications; equitable defense generally unavailable in quo warranto/election‑qualification contests; Superior Court did not err |
| Proper legal test for “bona fide resident” under §6(b) Revised Organic Act | Sarauw/Berry: "bona fide resident" = domicile; use domicile test | Rodriquez: Vento taxpayer‑residency test applies (or other tax rules); ambiguous whether domicile required | Court: Vento tax test was wrongly applied; for election eligibility "bona fide resident" is synonymous with domicile; but Superior Court’s factual findings nonetheless addressed domicile factors so error was harmless |
| Whether evidence shows Rodriquez domiciled in VI for prior 3 years (likelihood of success) | Sarauw/Berry: sworn statements, use of Tennessee address, late re‑registration and license switch, tax filings, mortgage/household presence show lack of intent to remain in VI | Rodriquez: he testified St. Thomas is his home and emphasized physical presence in VI | Held: Superior Court’s credibility findings and emphasis on sworn bankruptcy statements and other indicia of intent were not clearly erroneous; Sarauw/Berry demonstrated likelihood of success |
| Appropriateness of preliminary injunction (balance/public interest/irreparable harm) | Plaintiffs: irreparable harm and public interest support injunction to preserve judicial review and election integrity | Rodriquez: injunction harms him and may be unnecessary because residency can be challenged later | Held: Rodriquez waived appellate challenge to third and fourth injunction factors by not briefed them; Superior Court’s issuance affirmed on remaining grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Vento v. Dir., V.I. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 715 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2013) (taxpayer‑residency factors used by Third Circuit for Virgin Islands tax residency)
- Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1983) (meaning of "resident" varies by context; generally requires physical presence and intent to remain)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (domicile established by physical presence plus intent to remain)
- Stephenson v. Woodward, 182 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2005) (effect of post‑election disqualification on voters' intent and remedies)