Donald Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n is s u b j e c t to f o r m a l r e v is i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n in t h e Atlantic a n d Maryla n d R e p o r t e rs . U s e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d to notif y t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t o f a n y f o r m a l e r r o r s s o th a t c o r r e c t i o ns m a y b e m a d e b e f o r e t h e b o u n d v o l u m e s g o to p r e s s . D I S T R IC T O F C O L U M B I A C O U R T O F A P P E A L S No. 00- AA- 1500 D ONALD J A C K S O N , P E T I T I O N E R, v. D ISTRICT O F C OLUMBIA B OARD O F E L E C T I O N S A N D E THICS , R E S P O N D E N T . O n Responden t s Motion to Dismiss. (F ile d April 12, 2001) Donald Jackson, pro s e . Kenneth J. McG hie on the motion of r e sponde nt to dismiss. Before R UIZ and G L I C K M A N, Associate J udge s, a nd N E B E K ER , S e n io r Judge. P E R C U R I A M : O n N ove mbe r 20, 2000, responde nt, the Distr i c t o f Columb ia Board of Electi o n s and Ethic s ( the Board ), c e r tif ie d the results o f t h e N o v e mber 7 t h general election, inc luding the winners of seats on certain Advisory N eighborhood C o m m ission Single - Me mbe r Districts ( ANC ). On N o v e m b e r 27 t h this certificati o n w a s timely c ha lle nge d pur sua nt to D . C . Co d e § 1 - 1 3 1 5 (b) (1999), by the pro se petit ione r , Donald Ja c kson. The basis o f th e challe n g e w a s v a gue and the pe tition r e a d simp ly: viola tion of the e le c tio n proces s. O n D ecember 4 t h , the Board f ile d a motion f or summary affir m a n c e . P e t i t i o n e r did not file an opposition. B y a n or de r issue d D e c e mbe r 22, 200 0 , w e c o n st r u e d the Board s motion for summary a f f ir ma nc e a s a moti on to dismiss, g r a n t e d t h at request, and d i s m i s s ed this appeal. W e write now to explain o u r 2 r e a so n s f or that construction and to ide ntif y the minimum requireme nts a pe ti tio n f o r r e v i e w brought under § 1-13 15 ( b) must meet. I. A s noted, the B oard re sponde d to the pe tition in this case by se e k in g summary a f f i r m a nce of its N ove mbe r 20 t h e le c tor a l c e r tif ic ation. T o obtain summary relief, a movant must show that t h e l e g a l basis of the de c isio n o n r e v i e w is narrow and clear-cut, a nd must demons trate th a t the facts of the case are u n c o mplicated and undispute d. Se e Oli v e r T . C a r r Mgm t, I nc . v . Natio n a l D e l i c a t e ssen, Inc., 397 A .2d 914, 915 ( D . C . 1979). This standard wa s g iv e n sc a n t a t t ention in the Board s motion whic h a r gue d, first, t h a t pe titione r la c k e d st a n d i n g because as a candidate f or one A N C se a t h e could not ha ve vote d in th e e l e c t i o n f or the other A N C sea t whic h he wa s c ha lle nging. Sin c e no authority w a s o f f e r ed to support that pro p o s i tion its le ga l basis is unclear. The Board s se c o n d a ssertion, that petit i o n e r h a d not a lle ge d wr ongs suf f ic ie nt to invok e o u r statutory jurisdiction, w as similarly unf ounde d. Se c tion 1- 1315 ( b) permits u s to e i t h er se t aside an election and declare the tr ue results or void a n electio n because o f fra u d , mista ke, viola tion of spe nding laws, or othe r defects se r io u s en o u g h to vitiate the election as a fair e xpr e ssion of the will of the [voters ]. Whil e t h e petition did not specifically ide ntif y a ny of these statutory gr ound s, it did h a v e a letter a t t a ched w hich pe titione r wrote to the Board on Nove mber 1 6 , 2000. T h e lette r asserted tha t pe titione r ha d witne sse d some one a t a v o te r r e g i st r a ti on desk urging voters to e le c t a specific candidate ; or, a s the Board 3 p h r a se d it, engaging in imprope r electioneeri n g in viola tion of 3 D C M R § § 7 0 8 . 4 , 708.8 (1998). W e ha ve ne ve r addressed wheth e r e le c tione e rin g might, u n der s o m e circu m stances, be se r ious e nough to require this court to s e t a si d e o r void an election, an d w e refrain f r om doing so he r e . B y f oc using on th e fa i l i n g s o f the petition as an initia l ple a ding, the Board s motion wa s akin to a m o t i o n to dismiss for failure to state a c l a im , se e Sup e r. Ct. Civ. R . 12 (b)(6), a n d w e c onstrued it as such. See Fle ming v . Distric t of Colum bia , 633 A.2d 8 4 6 , 8 4 8 ( D . C . 1993)(motion is not determin e d b y its la be l or caption); accord , Allstate Ins. C o. v. R obinson, 64 5 A.2d 591, 593 ( D . C . 1994). II. S ection 1-1315 (b) permits a vot e r in a give n e le c tion to pe tition this court f o r review within seven d a ys of the Board s c e r tif ic ation of the e lec tio n results. O n review w e may se t a s i d e t h e results, declare the tr ue results, or void t h e e l e c t i on in whole or in part. Se e § 1- 1315 (b). The pr ovision is un u s u a l because it effectively a l lo w s a com plaint, a n initia l ple a ding, to be f ile d in this court w i t hout identifying any requireme nts f or tha t initia l ple a ding. Nor mall y, petitions whic h se e k our r e vie w of an a g e n c y a c tion must contain [a] concise statement o f t h e n a ture of the pr oc e e dings a s to wh ic h r e v i e w is sought a n d the grounds on whic h the pe titione r r e lie s a nd c onc er n in g w h i c h e r r or is alleged[.] D . C . App. R . 15 (c). In its concern f or c le ar an d adequate notice, our rule is the s a m e a s every othe r si g n i f ic a nt pr ovision wh ic h 4 g o v e r n s i nitial pleadings in this jur isdic tion. Se e , e .g., Super. Ct. Civ. R . 8 (a)(civil c omplaint must contain a short a nd plain sta te me nt of the claim showin g t h e p l e a d er is entitled to relief); Super. Ct. C r i m . R . 7 ( c ) ( c r imina l i n d i c t m e nt o r i n f o r m a t i o n shall be a plain, c onci s e a n d definite wr itte n sta te me nt of th e e sse n t i a l facts constituting th e o ffense charged); D . C . App. R . 21 ( pe tition f o r writ o f mandamus must contain a sta te me nt of facts necessar y to a n u n d e r st a nding of t h e issues presented); D . C . Code § 16- 1901 ( 1997) ( pe tition f o r writ o f h abeas corpus must set f orth a p r im a facie case). Because this s a m e clarity a n d spe c ificity are particularly impor ta nt whe n w e are a ske d to ta ke th e extraordinary step of intervening in the e le c tor a l process, w e c a nnot create a n e x c e p t i o n fro m th e usual notice ple a ding requirements. W e hold tha t a pe titio n b r o u g h t p ursuant to § 1-1315 (b) must contain a concise sta te me nt of cl a im s a n d must i d e ntify facts show ing an e ntitle me nt to r e lie f . In orde r to obtain r elie f , t h e petitioners burden is not only to s h o w d e fects or ir r e gula r itie s in th e e l e c t i o n ; petitioners must pr o v e a l s o tha t the f la we d e le c tion le d to a result th a t is n o t t r u e [ .] Scolaro v. D istric t of Colum bia Bd. of Ele c tions & Ethic s, 7 1 7 A . 2 d 8 9 1 , 893 ( D . C . 1998). If tha t is wha t must be pr ove n to obtain r e lie f , th e n t h a t is w h at must be w ell-pled. T h e petitio n in this case f a ile d to me e t tha t sta nda r d. The complete st a t e m e n t of error read: vio latio n of the e le c tion proces s. There w a s n o concise statement of cl a im s a nd only by e xa mining the a tta c he d le tte r wh ic h p e t i t i o n e r w rote to the B oard, did the outline s of a n a lle ge d viola tion appear. In his letter, petitioner stated that a t 7:15 p . m . on Nov e m b e r 2, 2000, Mr. Robert 5 Yodell w as w orking at the voter registrati o n d e sk a nd r e mme nding [ sic ] those voters e l e ct a specific individ ual. T he Board s regulations prohibit a ny politic a l activit y whic h ma y directly o r indirectly interfere with the orderly c onduc t of the e le c tion fr o m t a k i n g p l a c e in, on, or within a reasonab le dista nc e outside the building b e in g u se d a s a polling or vote counting place. 3 D C M R § 708.4 (1998). Polit ic a l activ ity includes activity intende d to pe r suad e a p e rson to vote f or a c a ndid a te . S e e i d . a t § 70 8 . 8 . If a w orker a t a polling pla c e wa s ur ging voters to e lec t a s p e c ific candidate, that migh t constitute impermiss ible e le c tione e ring in v i o l a t i o n of § 708.4. B ut it is n o t c l e a r f r o m the facts a lle ge d in his le tte r th a t this is actually w hat petitioner c l a im s oc c ur r e d. Peti t i o ner s le tte r sta te d th e activity o ccurred on N ovember 2 n d , f ive days before a ny polling pla c e wa s o p e n . While st a ti n g t h a t it occurred a t a vote r r e gistr a tion de sk the le tte r also f a ile d to otherwise identify the locale . T o f ind a claim o f e le c tione e ring w e would h a v e h a d to p r e su m e the date wa s in e r r or a nd the activity oc c ur r e d a t a po llin g o r vote c o unting place. T his would h a v e gone be yond a ge ne r ous r e a ding o f th e p e t i t i o n to our rew riting of the ple a ding. F or the foregoing re a sons w e c onstr ue d respondent s motion f o r summary affirmance as a motion to dismiss a nd dismisse d the pe tition f or failure to state a c l a im . S o o r d e r e d.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.