62 V.I. 494
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2015Background
- Hansen, a write-in candidate for the Virgin Islands 31st Legislature District of St. Croix, challenged the recount of her votes after the November 4, 2014 general election.
- The Board of Elections certified results showing O’Reilly in 7th place with 4,755 votes and Hansen in 13th with 2,089 votes.
- O’Reilly petitioned for a mandamus to stop Hansen’s recount, arguing Hansen lacked standing and that no proper Board action occurred.
- The Superior Court held Hansen lacked standing as a write-in candidate and granted mandamus on that basis, while suggesting other grounds would fail if standing were conceded.
- This Court granted expedited review, determining Hansen is a “candidate” for purposes of section 629(a) and that the Board acted unlawfully by initiating a recount without a proper vote or timely Board authorization.
- The Court ultimately affirmed mandamus relief to stop the unlawful recount, while remanding for consideration of the proper Board actions and statutory deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Hansen a 'candidate' with standing under 18 V.I.C. §629(a)? | Hansen should be treated as a candidate due to write-in campaigning. | Write-in votes do not guarantee candidate standing under §629(a). | Hansen is a write-in candidate and possesses standing. |
| Did the Board actually vote to grant Hansen’s recount petition or merely accept it out of time? | The Board granted Hansen’s petition on November 26, 2014. | The Board did not vote to grant the petition; records show no formal decision. | Board never properly voted to grant the recount; proceeding was unauthorized. |
| Can the Board waive the statutory deadlines in §629(b)? | Board could extend or waive deadlines; relief appropriate if warranted. | Deadlines are mandatory and non-waivable; waivers undermine the process. | The Board cannot waive §629(b) deadlines; recount initiated unlawfully. |
| Was mandamus appropriate to stop an illegal recount and remedy the statutory violations? | Mandamus is the proper remedy to halt an unlawful recount. | Other remedies exist; mandamus should be used only if appropriate. | Mandamus was appropriate to stop an unlawful recount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (recounts and election integrity concerns; constitutional standards apply)
- Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 670 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2011) (finality and agency action; de novo review on finality)
- Caruso v. City of Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618 (2008) (final agency action and administrative decisions; finality in agency context)