State of W.Va. ex rel. Biafore v. Earl Ray Tomblin, 782 S.E.2d 223

Daniel Hall was elected WV State Senator (Ninth District) as a Democrat in 2012, switched party to Republican in November 2014, and resigned effective January 8, 2016.
The vacancy prompted competing claims over which party’s executive committee must submit three nominees under W. Va. Code § 3-10-5.
Petitioners (Democratic Party committees) filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Court to order Governor Tomblin to appoint from nominees submitted by Democrats to preserve voters’ mandate.
Respondents (Governor and Republican committee) relied on § 3-10-5 and the Attorney General’s opinion that the relevant party is the one with which the officeholder was affiliated immediately preceding the vacancy (i.e., Republican).
The West Virginia Supreme Court treated the dispute as appropriate for mandamus, found § 3-10-5 plain and unambiguous, rejected the petitioners’ statutory and policy arguments, and denied the writ; the Governor must choose from the Republican committee’s list.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper temporal reference in W. Va. Code § 3-10-5: which party provides the list of three nominees?	The statute should be read to preserve the voters’ mandate by referring to the party affiliation at the time of election (so Democrats should supply the list).	The statute unambiguously refers to the party with which the officeholder was affiliated immediately preceding the vacancy (so Republicans should supply the list).	Held: statute is clear and unambiguous; “immediately preceding the vacancy” controls. Governor must appoint from nominees submitted by the Republican executive committee.
Constitutional challenge: does the appointment scheme violate state or federal constitutional rights (voters’ rights/equal representation)?	Petitioners (and dissent) argued application here dilutes voters’ choice and may conflict with state constitutional principles protecting voters’ selection.	Respondents invoked Rodriguez and related precedent: appointment mechanisms for interim vacancies are constitutional and afforded deference; statute does not deny equal protection or association rights.	Held: statute is constitutional as applied; Rodriguez and WV precedent support states’ latitude to use appointment procedures and do not show a constitutional infirmity here.

U.S. v. Gonzales, 620 U.S. 1 (1997) (statutory interpretation: if statute is unambiguous courts must apply the text)
Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982) (upholding appointment mechanism for legislative vacancies; states have latitude to choose appointment over special election)
State ex rel. Robb v. Caperton, 191 W. Va. 492 (1994) (WV precedent recognizing constitutionality of appointment to fill vacancies and deferring to plain statutory language)
State ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Union Pub. Serv. Dist., 151 W. Va. 207 (1966) (mandamus is proper to compel nondiscretionary governmental duties)
State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W. Va. 538 (1969) (elements required for a writ of mandamus)