294 P.3d 895
Wyo.2013Background
- Wyoming’s term limit statute, § 22-5-103(a)(i), prohibits certain statewide office candidates after eight years in sixteen in that office.
- Maxfield, Secretary of State, filed a declaratory judgment challenge asserting the statute is unconstitutional as to statewide officials.
- Cathcart v. Meyers previously held subparts (ii) and (iii) of term limits for legislators unconstitutional; legislature repealed those provisions.
- District court certified two questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court about justiciability and the statute’s constitutionality.
- Maxfield alleges a real, existing right to seek a third term as secretary of state; the State argues rights are not exclusive and the statute is permissible.
- Court concludes Maxfield presents a justiciable controversy and § 22-5-103(a)(i) is unconstitutional as applied to the offices of secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a justiciable controversy? | Maxfield's right to seek a third term is affected by § 22-5-103. | Controversy is hypothetical; no current intent to run means no actual harm. | Yes; Maxfield presents a justiciable controversy. |
| Is § 22-5-103(a)(i) unconstitutional as to statewide offices? | Constitutional qualifications are exclusive; statute adds impermissible terms. | Constitutional provisions set minimums but are not exclusive; statute valid. | Unconstitutional for secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cathcart v. Meyers, 88 P.3d 1050 (Wy. 2004) (term limits and exclusive qualifications analysis; prohibits adding qualifications by statute)
- Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574 (Wyo. 1974) (relaxation of justiciable controversy for matters of great public importance)
- White v. Board of Land Comm’rs, 595 P.2d 76 (Wy. 1979) (no justiciable controversy when advisory and contingent)
- Anderson v. Wyo. Dev. Co., 154 P.2d 318 (Wy. 1944) (context on justiciability and harm)
- Eastwood v. Wyoming Highway Dept., 301 P.2d 818 (Wy. 1956) (public interest may justify answering moot questions)
- Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Langdon, 626 P.2d 1032 (Wy. 1981) (ongoing public dispute may justify decision absent full controversy)
- West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell, 206 P.3d 722 (Wy. 2009) (declaratory judgment not justiciable where no particular harm tied to obligation)
- Cathcart v. Meyers, 88 P.3d 1054 (Wy. 2004) (reiterated that art. 1, § 1 and art. 1, § 3 protect political rights from incumbency-based restrictions)