3:12-cv-00094
D.V.I.Jan 6, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. §1983 action seeking decertification of the November 2012 general election and an injunction against the January 2013 swearing-in of Virgin Islands officials.
- Defendants include the Virgin Islands Joint Board of Elections, the St. Croix Board of Elections, the St. Thomas–St. John Board of Elections, and named election supervisors/chairs sued in their official capacities.
- Plaintiffs allege ignored admonitions and violations of federal/local election laws, use of non-EAC-certified voting machines, and demand a new election via petition for recounts; they contend such conduct violated due process, equal protection, and federal/local statutes.
- The Amended Complaint outlines eight factual categories (election irregularities, non-enforcement of HAVA, misrepresentation of certification status, universal election concerns from numerous correspondences, and recount petitions) and seeks decertification and a one-page ballot for a new election.
- The court held a January 4, 2013 hearing, denied a TRO, ruled on a Motion to Dismiss, and ultimately denied injunctive relief and the motion to dismiss; it held the plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits and failed to show irreparable harm, and thus declined to grant a preliminary/mandating injunction.
- The court noted it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin legislative swearing-in and found that decertification would not preserve the status quo, therefore not warranting extraordinary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits of §1983 claims | Samuel/Olive/Magras/Mercer claim due process and equal protection violations and that recounts/HAVA violations infringe rights. | Defendants argue no cognizable private HAVA remedy, and plaintiffs fail to show a constitutional violation or substantial irregularities affecting the outcome. | Plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success on due process/equal protection and HAVA claims; no substantial irregularities shown to affect outcome. |
| Jurisdiction and HAVA implications | Claims arise under §1983 and HAVA; plaintiffs seek federal relief over state/local elections. | Defendants contend HAVA lacks private right of action and jurisdictional issues; laches arguments raised. | Court retains §1331 jurisdiction for §1983 claims; HAVA does not create a private remedy; no dismissal on this basis. |
| Appropriateness of injunctive relief (including mandatory relief) | Court should decertify and enjoin swearing-in to protect voters’ rights. | Injunctive relief would be extraordinary; swearing-in of legislators is non-justiciable; decertification would not preserve status quo. | Injunction denied; mandatory relief avoided; no basis to preserve status quo via injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (fundamental right to vote; equal protection)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (equal protection in voting rights)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal protection in the franchise treatment)
- Bryan v. Todman, 28 V.I. 42 (1992) (election invalidation rare; burden to show irregularities affect outcome)
- Sidamon-Eristoff v. United States, 669 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2012) (preliminary injunction standard and likelihood of irreparable harm)
- Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (no private right of action absent clear congressional intent)