Conflicting Court Rulings on Whether Independent Candidate Should be on Ballot Create Crisis in Virgin Islands

Early voting in the U.S. Virgin Islands started on October 21. Among the offices on the ballot are candidates for the territory’s unicameral legislature, which is called the Senate, and which has 15 members, all with two-year terms.

On October 24, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ordered incumbent independent Senator Alicia “Chucky” Hansen removed from the ballot, even though early voting had already started. Bryan v Fawkes. The Court said her name should be covered up with stickers on all the ballots that hadn’t been distributed yet. See this newspaper story, which says election administrators have now halted early voting.

Hansen failed to file income tax returns for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004. She was convicted of three misdemeanors. The Virgin Islands charter says senators must not have been convicted of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude. Hansen was elected to the Senate in 2010 and re-elected in 2012. She filed to run for a third term this year, but on August 28, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ruled that failure to file income tax returns is a crime of moral turpitude, and that she is not eligible to run for re-election, even though the Virgin Islands charter says the legislature itself shall be the “sole” judge of the qualifications of its members.

On September 2, the Governor of the Virgin Islands pardoned her, but a Virgin Islands superior court (a territorial court, not a federal court) refused to order election officials to put her back on the ballot. Some of Hansen’s supporters then filed a federal lawsuit on September 7, Payne v Fawkes, 1:14cv-53, saying their voting rights were being violated by keeping Hansen off the ballot. On September 12, the federal court put her on the ballot. At first the superior court blocked that, and on October 6, the federal court said that it could not interfere with a territorial court order. But on October 10, the superior court agreed that she should be on the ballot. Ballots were then printed with her name on. But, surprisingly, on October 24, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court (which apparently really dislikes Senator Hansen) said she should not be on the ballot. Thanks to Derek T. Muller and his Excess of Democracy blog for this story. Professor Muller thinks Senator Hansen and her voters may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Virgin Islands Supreme Court.


Comments

Conflicting Court Rulings on Whether Independent Candidate Should be on Ballot Create Crisis in Virgin Islands — 1 Comment

  1. “But, surprisingly, on October 24, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court (which apparently really dislikes Senator Hansen) said she should not be on the ballot.”

    Courts should not rule because its members like or dislike someone. They should rule based on the Constitution, the statues, and nothing else. If the above is true, this is another reason why all Courts should have a membership which is term-limited, and staggered in its terms – whether elected or appointed.

    I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of Ms Hansen. If, as the story reads: “Virgin Islands charter says the legislature itself shall be the “sole” judge of the qualifications of its members,” then hopefully the SCOTUS will honor such.

    If Ms Hansen does owe back taxes, the legislature should then act according to its own charter rules for qualification to office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.