81.4 F
Cruz Bay
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeNewsArchivesSupreme Court Will Weigh in Wednesday on Latest Daniel Wrangling

Supreme Court Will Weigh in Wednesday on Latest Daniel Wrangling

Aug. 31, 2007 — In the most surprising move in a week of juridical twists and turns, the attorney for Harry Daniel of St. John filed a motion this week challenging a recent court order that helped his client gain a delegate spot in the upcoming Constitutional Convention.
Earlier this month, V.I. Superior Court Judge James S. Carroll III ordered St. Thomas-St. John District Board of Elections members to re-certify the results of the June 12 special election based on the number of votes each candidate received. In doing so, the board was prohibited from placing any limit on the number of delegates coming from St. John.
Carroll's order was based on arguments presented by Daniel's attorney, Clive Rivers, who has said that elections board members violated local law when they approved certain changes to the special-election ballot and limited to two the number of candidates that could be selected from St. John.
When reading his decision, Carroll said the "plain language" of the Constitutional Convention statute requires a minimum of two delegates from St. John, but gives no maximum number.
More than two weeks ago, board of elections members voted three-to-one to execute the judge's order. Though a subsequent motion to certify a new list of delegates failed, elections officials said that the initial decision to carry out the judge's ruling meant that Daniel — who garnered the eighth highest amount of votes in the district delegate race — would be seated as a Constitutional Convention delegate.
Two days later, the board reversed its decision, opting instead to appeal Carroll's ruling. According to court documents filed earlier this week, elections' attorneys said that a majority of the board did not agree to re-certify the special-election results, since one member initially sought to change her vote but was denied the opportunity to do so.
Rivers had recently maintained that the board's argument was moot, since a majority of members had already voted to carry out the judge's order. Hoping to put an end to the legal battle, the attorney subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal — which was then shot down by Associate Supreme Court Justice Ive A. Swan.
In an order sent down earlier this week, Swan said that dismissing the appeal would, in essence, be taking away the board's right to access the courts. And in rulings on Aug. 20 and 22, Carroll put a hold on Constitutional Convention activities to give both sides a chance to debate the appeal.
A Supreme Court hearing to decide the case has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Wednesday. In the meantime, Rivers has continued to keep busy, filing a separate challenge to certain sections of Carroll's original ruling.
In announcing his decision earlier this month, Carroll explained that Daniel did have an opportunity before the June 12 election to challenge the ballot redesign. Though Daniel initially said he was not aware of the changes until the day of the special election, he later confessed to reading articles in the V.I. Daily News describing the changes and the board's concerns about the original ballot design.
Daniel may have known about the new ballot as early as June 2, since local news outlets immediately picked up coverage of the board's decision, Carroll said. As a former board of elections member and delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Daniel should have kept up with the reports and could have taken up his challenge over the following 10 days, the judge added.
Since Daniel did not immediately contest the changes, his request to invalidate the special-election ballot — which would spur a new election — could be granted, Carroll said. However, board of elections members are still required to certify results in accordance with local law, which would give Daniel a seat among the top 13 candidates, the judge added.
In a new motion, filed earlier this week, Rivers accused Carroll of overstepping his bounds in ruling that Daniel's failure to challenge the ballot prior to the election "constituted unreasonable delay under the circumstances."
According a recent order from Swan, Rivers' motions, along with the board's appeal, will all be handled during the hearing Wednesday.
Back Talk

Share your reaction to this news with other Source readers. Please include headline, your name and city and state/country or island where you reside.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Keeping our community informed is our top priority.
If you have a news tip to share, please call or text us at 340-228-8784.

Support local + independent journalism in the U.S. Virgin Islands

Unlike many news organizations, we haven't put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as accessible as we can. Our independent journalism costs time, money and hard work to keep you informed, but we do it because we believe that it matters. We know that informed communities are empowered ones. If you appreciate our reporting and want to help make our future more secure, please consider donating.