505 P.3d 345
Kan.2022Background
- In Feb–Mar 2022 plaintiffs filed three district‑court suits challenging Kansas congressional map "Ad Astra 2," alleging partisan and racial gerrymandering and violations of the Kansas Constitution.
- The suits named Secretary of State Scott Schwab and county election officials; suits were pending before Judges Bill Klapper (Wyandotte) and Mark Simpson (Douglas).
- On Feb 18 (amended Mar 3) the Kansas Attorney General filed an original petition in the Kansas Supreme Court seeking mandamus and quo warranto to force dismissal of the three district‑court actions.
- The Supreme Court considered whether to exercise its discretionary original jurisdiction in mandamus/quo warranto and whether the petition, if accepted, "lies" in mandamus or quo warranto.
- The Court accepted discretionary jurisdiction given statewide importance and the need for speed (upcoming 2022 elections) but held, as a matter of law, the claims did not lie in either mandamus or quo warranto and therefore denied the petition without reaching the map merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the KS Supreme Court should exercise discretionary original jurisdiction over the petition | The matter is of statewide importance and requires an expedited, authoritative ruling | Lower‑court fact‑finding may be required; original forum not ideal | Court exercised discretion to take the petition due to public importance and timing |
| Whether mandamus lies to compel dismissal of the district court cases | Judges have a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to dismiss; mandamus appropriate to prevent ongoing unlawful proceedings | No mandatory duty to dismiss; judges have not ruled; appeals provide adequate remedy | Mandamus does not lie—no clear legal duty to dismiss and appeal is adequate |
| Whether quo warranto lies to challenge the district judges' actions | Judges are unlawfully exercising authority and must show by what authority they act | Even erroneous rulings are not unlawful usurpations; errors are remediable on appeal | Quo warranto does not lie—incorrect rulings are not unlawful exercise of office |
| Whether the Supreme Court may decide the merits because of importance | Importance and need for speed justify deciding merits here | Court may not reach merits if the petition does not lie in an original action | Court refused to reach merits; denied petition but urged prompt district court resolution and timely appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stephan v. O'Keefe, 235 Kan. 1022 (1984) (plenary original jurisdiction over mandamus/quo warranto and controlling actions of inferior courts)
- Ambrosier v. Brownback, 304 Kan. 907 (2016) (Kansas Supreme Court original jurisdiction is discretionary and concurrent with lower courts)
- Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Jordan, 303 Kan. 844 (2016) (factors for exercising discretionary original jurisdiction include statewide importance and need for speed)
- Lauber v. Firemen's Relief Assn. of Salina, 195 Kan. 126 (1965) (mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right)
- State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650 (2016) (quo warranto will not lie when a plain and adequate remedy exists)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (drawing congressional district lines is a significant state function)