*1 Dr. experiences.” now Wadeson tioner]
аgreed diagnosis post-traumatic that a of a requires disorder the occurrence
stress “catastrophic”
causative event gurney He then defined
son involved. substantially such an event be-
accident as produced: disability
cause of the it had
“Any injury away person’s takes catastrophic experience.”
livelihood is a recognized ambiguity in
The Director by pointing out that “Dr.
this conclusion any concrete analysis lacked
Wadeson’s correlating the in-
non-personal stressors post
jury and the environment to work (emphasis add-
traumatic stress disorder”
ed).6
Affirmed. BATES, al., Petitioners,
Jeremy et
DISTRICT OF BOARD COLUMBIA ETHICS, ELECTIONS AND
OF
Respondent, Espenschied,
Peter Intervenor.
No. 92-AA-1428. Appeals.
District of Columbia Court
Argued 1993. March May
Decided contrary testimony fully tence of substantial evidence if Dr. Wadeson’s Even moreover, that, credited, finding court to substitute does not allow this we have stated McEvily, judgment the Director.” support for that of evidence to there substantial “[w]here findings, 1024 n. 3. mere exis- 500 A.2d at the Director's ... then the *2 Her letter boundary of that ANC district. Shapiro, Jeremy Howard E. with whom DC, Ain, Washington, moved out of her district explained that she Bates Ross brief, petitioners. the elec- approximately two weeks before tion, change of and that at the time of her DC, Lewis, Washington, with William H. mistakenly believed she was residence brief, McCrory, Alice P. was on whom prior to only required to reside in the ANC respondent. filing petition candidacy.1 her se, pro for the inter- Espenschied, Peter venor. 18, 1992, the Board held a On November meeting” certify the results of “special SCHWELB, FARRELL, and Before 1992, At ANC elections. the November KING, Judges. Associate meeting the noted that at the election, time of the the electors district KING, Judge: Associate not that Ms. Noroоzi was 3C09 were aware of the Board of Petitioners seek review not a “viable candidate.” Faced with (“the Board”) certifi- Elections and Ethics Noroozi, de- of Ms. the Board withdrawal Espenschied Peter cation of intervenor do, fact, certify, termined: need to “[w]e in the elec- November law, under the current case the second- Advisory Neighborhood Commis- tion for have, finisher, dо not and ... we (“ANC”) single-member district 3C09. sion event, authority to declare any specific Concluding that the Board did not adhere in this circumstance and to call a winner which of the statute posting of the ANC new election.”2 who required them to the candidate results, the in- the Board certified votes, highest we received the number winner, the notation cumbent as the with and re- decision of the Board rеverse the after the date that Ms. Noroozi “withdrew proceedings consistent mand for further prior to certification. of the election opinion. receiving the second num- Petitioners, district residents ANC Peti- of votes is declared the winner.” ber 3, 1992, elec- voted the November timely petition for review of tioners filed a for that tion for the ANC Commissioner 24, 1992. on November this certification еlection, Following the the Board district. l-1315(b) (1992) (any D.C.Code See Ms. Lois Noroozi received determined that may petition in an election son who voted votes), (59.2% of the total while 436 votes within such election this court review action, intervenor in this the incumbent and certification and days seven of the Board’s (“incumbent”), re- Espenschied Mr. Peter the results so “may set court aside (38% votes). of the total 280 votes ceived certified”). request, Upon petitioners’ we prior On November Board’s cer- stayed the effectiveness of the election, certification winner petition of this pending tification resolution writing Board in informed the Accordingly, the office has for review. “withdrawing holding from that she was January when since been vacant for 3C09” ANC Commissioner the office of term ended. lоnger the incumbent’s she no lived within because 1. There is no contention the Board to declare a ment. oral edged in his or her district for at least 60 election. That date’s ately preceeding Recent satisfy argument, nominating petition is filed. requires a member of the ANC to reside that Ms. legislation D.C.Code counsel legislation provides Noroozi satisfied this vacancy for the Board acknowl- that Ms. Noroozi failed l-256(a)(l)(B) on which the candi- specifically permit and hold a new days immedi- that “a va- Indeed, require- (1992), at 3 DCMR Advisory Neighborhood any caney 1826-27 would otherwise from a after a case (g) when the office of shall exist in the office on which (March single general 1300.1, [******] effective following member published begin; date of the commissioner’s occurs: district remains vacant an ANC Commissioner Commissioner _” in 40 of member of an vacancy is the D.C.Reg. new term in which when clear, guage of involved is Noroozi notified the When Ms. interpretation. longer not defer resident of do that she was withdrawing that she was ANC district and (1992) provides D.C.Code Board, holding from in its own in each dis- “[t]he words, period, post- in a “limbo found itself trict *3 in to which it had election/precertification,” in such shall declared the cast be “go could determine whether winner, a in the case of tie the except that finisher, or, fact, place to second l-1314(e) procedures forth in shall set it a election?” The does have to be provides no govern.” Although the statute required Board that it was concluded exceptions to this man- qualifications or certify place finisher the second and was date, that they maintains are Board authority “not to without declare a winner only required certify qualified a candi- election.” con- ... and to call a new We most date votes. clude this was error. support interpretation, In of its Generally, agency an when inter l-256(a)(l)(A), pro- Board cites which regulations or prets the statute its own that one cannot be a “member of an vidеs administers, we will defer to that which it Advisory Neighborhood Commission” un- interpretation long as it is as not inconsis qualified “is registered less one a elector applicable tent with the statute. Colum actually single-member district living in the Comm’n, Hous. Realty bia v. Rental from which he was selected.” (D.C.1991); A.2d section, “in clear contends that and Comm’n, McCulloch v. Rental Hous. 584 unequivocal language, defines ANC candi- (D.C.1991). reviеwing A.2d In qualifications.” Section 1- interprets agency ap an decision which however, 256(a)(1)(A), applies plies statutory provisions, we follow the ANC,3 tions of actual members of Supreme two-part test Court’s established candidate, operative is the not to a which U.S.A., in Chevron Inc. v. Natural Re (the required Board is term Council, Inc., sources Defense receiving the certify the most candidаte (1984). 81 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. votes). provisions of Accordingly, the Realty, supra, See 590 A.2d at Columbia for the provide support no first, requires, 1046. This deter we 1-258, pursuant only it can claim to § meaning mine whether the the statute candidates. qualified “Only ambigu clear. when part require ous court turn to the Noroozi met all does the second Ms. inquiry, which is to determine ments for to the ballot and wheth access candidacy officially challenged per er the decision is a never based on during challenge period. See D.C.Code missible construction statute.” Id. Chevron, 842-43, 256(b)(1).4 does (citing The Board not con supra, U.S. at § 1— short, In she met all the Accordingly, lan- tend otherwise.5 S.Ct. at (A) presented provides: Prepared and to the Board in It regulations of the Board accordance with (a)(1) be a No shall member of аn day calendar the 60th before later than Advisory Neighborhood Commission unless he: election in which he intends the date of the (A) registered qualified actually Is a elector candidate; be a residing single-member district from (B) Signed by elected; less than 25 which he was (B) qualified who are residents of the residing electors in such Has been district con- seeks tinuously days immediately pre- district from he for the 60 сeding which he nomi- election. on files the nating petitions as a candidate as such (1992) 1-1312(o) (provides for 5. See D.C.Code § member; and petition challenges by registered voters to (C) public elected office. Holds no other candidates). placement Coun ballot filed provides: argument It at oral conceded sel for though was not resident Advisory (b)(1) that even member of Candidatеs for an had at the time Neighborhood of the district Commission shall be nominat- having legal requirements for her name all petition: met ed attached to each borrowed word necessary to ensure her requirements learning from body which was that she was and we conclude on the ballot taken”). Every dictionary have consult- candidate within the therefore a essentially as one еd defines reaching that conclusion we of § of the definitions who seeks office. None virtually authority that the unanimous note candidate to those who are limit the term gener- of common use are holds that words every Here Ms. Noroozi met qualified,6 natural, according to the ally construed legal requirement to listed on the ballot meaning, and that ordinary plain and candidate, nothing in the and we find mean- has a fixed technical where a word suggests that the governing statutes that taken in that sense. FRANCIS ing it is to be restricted in the term candidate should be Statutory McCaffRey, J. Construction by the Board. Thus we manner advanced see Barbour D.C. *4 exactly term means what conclude that the Services, Employment 499 Department of says and that Ms. Noroozi was a candi- it (D.C.1985)(“words a stat of A.2d 125 meаning of within the date construed their common ute must be sense”) (cita ordinary and their certify requires The law that the omitted); tions v. American Secu Stuart highest candidate the number the (D.C.1985) Bank, 494 A.2d 1338 rity are of votes in an ANC election. Since we (“words in are to be construed a statute language 1-258 is that the of satisfied ordinary sense and according to ‘their clear, for conclude that there is no basis mеaning commonly attributed the of the deferring to the Board’s construction omitted); ”) (citation In McDermott them’ 590 Realty, supra, statute.7 Columbia ternational, Wilander, 498 U.S. (court Inc. only addresses issue of A.2d at 1046 337, 345, 807, 811, 112 L.Ed.2d agency decision is based on whether (1991)(when of a statute uses a “term statute the construction of the missible art,” Congress assume intended Court will ambiguous); is see also J. Parreco statute meaning); Moris it to have its established Rental v. District Columbia & Son of 246, 263, States, (D.C.1989) Comm’n, sette v. A.2d United Hous. (1952)(“where statute, (when interpreting L.Ed. 288 the court 5.Ct. a Congress language terms of art in which are look to the of the borrows must first statute; and mean “if are clear and unam- accumulated the tradition the words ings practice, presumably biguous, give we must effect to its of centuries of Thus, meaning”).8 the Board adopts the cluster of ideas that we conclude knows and placed supra. United States who resides in or is domiciled on the ballot. See note Coun- Columbia, eighteen Board also conceded that had she not of who will be sel for the the District regained residency years age withdrawn and had she of the next of sched- adjudged mentally incompe- in the district before the new term was who has not been lawfully begin, 1-1302(2) (1992). she could have taken uled to Julius Cae- tent. D.C.Code expired. elector, is, course, office when the incumbent’s term duly of not a sar legitimate candi- and is therefore not a write-in (6th See, e.g., Dictionary ed. Black’s Law l-1312(r)(3). pursuant It follows that to § 1990); Webster's New International Dictio- Third eligible not be for certifica- Julius Caesar would 1986); (3d Dictionary nary ed. Random House his name tion the Boаrd in the event that (2d English Language ed. highest of votes as a write- received the number reason, could Julius Caesar in. For the same argument, maintained that At oral the Board placed he could not not be on the ballot since reading could lead to absurd of the statute l-256(a)(l)(B) requirements meet the of If, Caesar,” example, "Julius as a results. registered qualified which limits ballot access to candidate, highest number received the write-in "continuous- electors who resided in the district votes, the Board fears that it would be re- of immediately preceding ly days for the 60 certify quired Julius Caesar as the winner of nominating petitions day on which he files the concern is unfounded. the election. Such a candidate_" as a l-1312(r)(3) (1992) provides that in D.C.Code § eligible public election to order to bе argument, emphasized the duly registered 8. At oral be a "a write-in candidate shall her name fol- fact that Ms. Noroozi withdrew meet all the other elector and shall election, thereby suggesting lowing that it required A for election to the office.” tions "qualified certify reason. Ms. No- not her for that a citizen of the could elector” is defined as obligated to declare Ms. Noroozi as the where deceased or candidate disqualified was votes, winner of the since she receives the most election and ... provides most a candidate receive ... candidate who received the votes. must any gov- do we in the of In such event find basis number votes. case, in erning permit statutes which certifi- the absence a statute to contrary, finisher is to cation of the sеcond as the the result render the nugatory, prevent winner of the election of the election. person receiving the next reading produces Our statute votes”). great In accordance with the result is consistent with over- weight authority, we conclude that § whelming majority juris- in American view permit read to the Board cannot be dictions, also as the known “American did as a winner cаndidate who not that holds that where rule/’ greatest receive number of votes an deceased, most receiving dis- election. qualified, ineligible, runner-up candi- or Although certify Ms. No- the Board must not be date will deemed the winner of the roozi as According Com- election. to the American rule: clearly missioner of ANC deceased, disqualified, votes cast for actually eligible to hоld the office. As ineligible person are not to be treated as noted, l-256(a)(l)(A) supra, D.C.Code re- away, void or thrown are to be count- but *5 quires of that a member the ANC reside in determining ed in result of the the elec- the from district which she was elected. regards tion as to other candidates.... And, acknowledged as in its application The result of in such cases Board, letter to longer thе she no lives in nugatory, is to render the election and to eligible ANC 3C09. Therefore is not to prevent the election of the receiv- ANC, be an of actual member the ing next the number of votes. ineligi- cannot take office. Because of her Smith, Annotation, P.V. Result Election of bility to incum- hold since the by Votes Cast or Deceased Affected expired being bent’s his term without Person, 319, Disqualified 133 A.L.R. subsеquent term,9 sworn in for a the office (1941) (listing jurisdictions); cases from 29 currently of Commissioner in ANC 3C09 Bd., see also Evans State Election permits vacant. the to hold This Board 1125, (Okl.1991) Smith, (quoting P.2d special vacancy. election in order to fill the 321); 133 A.L.R. supra, Chester J. l-257(d) (“Whenever a va- See D.C.Code § Municipal Antieau, Law, CORPORATION cancy single-member in a exists district (“a (1992) person receiving only 17.24 § Commission, Advisory Neighborhood the minority thе of votes cast a local Board hold a the shall government election is not to be awarded single-member district fill the vacan- the office when person receiving the the cy....”).10 largest legally disqualified”); vote 3 Eu- gene Municipal Corporation, Concluding that the erred when it Board McQuillan, (3d 1990) (same); 12.17 ed. the winner in certified the incumbent as § Am.Jur.2d re- (1966) (a “problem Elections arises ANC district § rathеr, candidacy; did not the of the roozi she withdrew from withdraw her 10. Because we reverse certification holding office. That action adhere on the Board’s failure to based requires, the does not alter fact that 1-258 § plain language remand to § of 1-258 and qualification exception, without or Ms. Noroozi as Board to certify the who received election, petitioners’ оf the we do not address Regardless highest number of votes. of the appeal, namely, that we should other claim by Ms. actions taken Noroozi after 1315(b) under void the election D.C.Code 1— receiving she was the “candidate ... “defect, there serious on the basis that votes_” of D.C.Code expres- enough as a fair to vitiate qualified sion will staying 9. Our December 1992 order the ef- voting electors thеrein.” pending fectiveness of the certification Board's prevented resolution of in- this review being cumbent from sworn in for another term. common Surely verse the decision of the Board and remand sioner. sense warns us reaching proceedings for further hesitate a little before such a re- consistent with opinion. sult.
Reversed and remanded.
May
exactly
On
1893—almost
a cen-
tury ago,
аppears
in a case that
on the first
SCHWELB,
concurring:
Judge,
Associate
page
the first District of Columbia Re-
Shepard
porter
wrote
Although
agree
I
with the result reached
—Justice
court that
majority
Judge
and with much that
[wjhile
judicial power,
it is not within the
written,
King
I
join
has
am unable to
construction,
to cure defects which
part
analysis
appears
to make
may
unjust
oppres-
render laws
оr even
hinge
“plain meaning”
the result
sive,
exist;
they clearly
yet
no statute
“candidate,”
is used in
as that word
render it
should be so construed as to
(1992). According
D.C.Code
1-258
unreasonable,
operation,
unjust
or
plainly
majority,
the word “candidate”
if there
room for construction at all.
means the individual
the most
votes, regardless
of whether or not he
Columbia, App.D.C.
v. District
Bush
According
qualified
she is
to take office.
Wright
v. United
Board,
hand,
on the other
States,
(D.C.1974),
315 A.2d
conjunction
read in
must be
stated,
very surprisingly,
which we
not so
256(a)(1)(A),
which defines the
“absurdity is
courts
a result
should
Commissioners,
tions of ANC
and thus ex-
Accord,
United
view with disfavor.”
I suppose plainness,
cludes Ms. Noroozi.
Katz,
States v.
beauty,
eye
like
is in the
of the beholder.
(1926).
Nevertheless,
ever,
agree
my colleagues
I
with
Espenschied
properly
Mr.
could not
[wjhile
аccept
general principle
as a
declared the winner of an election which
appellants’
claim that
the courts
adopted
he was trounced.
must
to an
construction
defer
theory
with the most
administers,
that where
of a statute
we are also
disqualified,
is
the candidate with
interpreting
votes
mindful that
statute an
is deemed
second
agency and the court must avoid аbsurd
theory recognizes
logical
elected. This
results....
inexorably
limiting principle, and thus
leads
majority
tended.
rule,”
which is followed
the overwhelm-
ing majority
country.
in this
of courts
incumbent, received
Espenschied, the
Mr.
Ms. Noroozi received
of the votes.
widgets.
This case is
It is not
38%
not about
announcing the
logical
A
headline
money.
right
It
59.2%.
even about
is about
controversy
(or,
of this
Board’s resolution
one’s choice
vote for the candidate of
Moreover, suppose
perhaps,
right
against
particu-
“THE
WINS!”
LOSER
vote
campaign
candidate).
following
years
based
a hundred
bitter
lar
More than
differences,
ideological
ago,
Supreme
characterized the
Court
major
99%
right,
Noroo-
for Ms.
franchise as “a fundamental
because
had cast their ballots
voters
Yick
Wo
preservative
rights.”
of all
Espenschied.
Mr.
Under
only
zi
1%
Hopkins, 118 U.S.
6 S.Ct.
Espenschied
Mr.
approach,
Reyn-
(1886);
To frustrate the matter. very serious here,
Where, as three electors voted have
against every an incumbent two who him, designation
voted of that incum-