760 F. Supp. 2d 202
D. Mass.2011Background
- Turner, an elected Boston City Councillor, was convicted of extortion on October 29, 2010, with sentencing set for January 25, 2011; Turner’s potential prison sentence would trigger automatic removal from office under Massachusetts law.
- On December 1, 2010, the Boston City Council expelled Turner from office, citing Charter authority and Rule 40A to remove him for conduct unbecoming a council member, including felony conviction.
- The Council scheduled February 15, 2011 and March 15, 2011 special elections to fill Turner’s seat.
- Turner and voters allege the Council lacked authority under Massachusetts law to promulgate Rule 40A and remove Turner, arguing this violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that Rule 40A is a criminal sanction violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- On January 10, 2011, plaintiffs sought a preliminary or permanent injunction to halt the elections and restore Turner; the court debated abstention or certification to state courts given unsettled state-law questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court should abstain or certify state-law questions | Turner plaintiffs contend state law should decide authority to remove | Defendants argue federal court should determine federal constitutional questions now | Court contemplated abstention or certification, not decided yet |
| Whether Rule 40A is civil or criminal in nature | Turner contends Rule 40A is a criminal sanction | Defendants argue it is civil; subject to state-law construction | Court notes uncertainty; issues to be addressed through state-law determination |
| Whether removal of Turner sought by the Council violates state law or constitutional rights | Removal exceeded Massachusetts authority and disenfranchises voters | Removal within state-law authority; elections should proceed | Awaiting resolution of state-law questions to determine federal rights implicated |
| Whether holding the elections would be moot if Turner is sentenced | Elections would be moot if Turner vacates office by statute | Unclear until state-law issues resolved; potential abstention or certification remains prudent | Dependent on outcome of abstention/certification decision and state-law rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1941) (abstention when uncertain state law may control federal questions)
- Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1982) (abstention or certification when state law may resolve federal issues)
- Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984) (certification as permissible to secure state-law determination)
- In re Hundley, 603 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2010) (certification available where Massachusetts law may be determinative)
- Bonas v. Town of North Smithfield, 265 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2001) (election law largely within state-court competence)
- Mieczkowski v. Board of Registrars, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 62 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (Massachusetts election-law questions addressed by state courts)