Last updated on 2019-05-04
Update 2019.05.04 23:05 CDT: The star in the title arises from my conversation with in-house legal scholar Bearcreekbat in the comment section below.
While we were talking about Lafawn Janis’s federal lawsuit over Rapid City Area Schools business manager David Janak’s rejection of her school board nominating petition, I wondered why she didn’t take her case to state court, as SDCL 12-1-13 indicates is the proper next step after a local election officials has dealt with a petition.
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier wondered the same thing… and her wondering resulted in her tossing Janis’s suit for lack of federal jurisdiction:
Judge Schreier said federal courts should refrain from meddling in state and local elections “where state review procedures provide an appropriate venue for redress.” Janis’s case rested entirely on readings of state statute and petition rules that lay within the jurisdiction of state circuit court.
Judge Schreier also advises federal restraint unless litigants demonstrate “aggravating factors such as denying the right of citizens to vote for reasons of race, or fraudulent interference with a free election by stuffing of the ballot box, or other unlawful conduct which interferes with the individual’s right to vote” [Pettingill v. Putnam, 8th Circuit 1973]. Judge Schreier says Janis, who is Native American, made no argument that Janak discriminated against her or other voters. She just argued petition rules.
Judge Schreier thus did not have to rule on whether Janak unfairly scrutinized Janis’s petition and let slide deficiencies on the petition of her now unopposed opponent and walk-on board member Brian Johnson. Had Janis gone to state court to establish the comparable deficiencies, the incomparable treatment, and the need to construe petitions liberally to respect the clearly expressed will of the voters (Johnson v. Gant 2012!), she could have gotten a fair hearing of those facts and points of state law and had a shot at seeing her name restored to the ballot.
Cory, in the interest of accuracy you might want to change your headline:
Judge Schrier neither said, nor ruled, that the federal court has no jurisdiction. Rather, the Judge ruled that the district court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction at this time applying a doctrine called “abstention.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abstention
Judge Schrier’s order states that the court abstained from the exercise of its jurisdiction, and thus dismissed the case “without prejudice.” This latter phrase means that the case can still be refiled in the federal court if Plaintiff presents some additional evidence that makes abstention inappropriate under 8th Circuit precedent. The Judge’s order explained this and identified what factors must be shown to avoid abstention. in the Judge’s order.
A more accurate headline might be: “Judge Schreier Dismisses Janis Petition Suit, Says Court Will Abstain.”
A reasonable explanation, BCB. I take it I would be incorrect to state that jurisdiction does not exist because Janis failed to make the argument about “aggravating circumstances”?
But because this is an interesting and seemingly tricky distinction (and because you are a decent and worthy intellectual whetstone), I relish the opportunity to question your reading. “Finally,” writes Judge Schreier, “Janak requests the court to abstain because of the underlying principles of federal-state comity articulated in Younger v. Harris. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The court is not abstaining because of Younger, but is dismissing the action because the Eighth Circuit has held in Pettengill that there is no constitutional basis for a federal court to oversee the administrative details of a state election absent aggravating factors, especially when a state law remedy is available. 472 F.2d at 122.”
To my layman’s ears, “no constitutional basis” sounds a lot like “no jurisdiction.” Can you distinguish those terms for us?
Cory, I’d say she’s relying more on the “especially when a state law remedy is available.”
This seems to me to be a reasonable position to take. The plaintiff should, if possible, seek relief at the most local jurisdiction before going nuclear.
I don’t know if there is any case law to support or deny this, but one could make the argument that this would indeed be a federal case given that Indians are wards of the federal government.
Ah! An interesting suggestion, Roger! But, if I may ask, are you able to take any complaint you have straight to federal court, just by dint of your heritage?
Even if there is something to that suggested argument, Janis appears not to have asserted any claim of Indianness that could trigger federal interest.
Cory, based on the statutory and constitutional grants of jurisdiction to federal courts over all claims under the U.S.Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, it is a mistake to conclude, “jurisdiction does not exist because Janis failed to make the argument about “aggravating circumstances.” To the best of my knowledge the existence of “aggravating circumstances” in any factual situation neither confers nor denies civil or criminal federal court jurisdiction.
I can see how Judge Schrier’s phrase “there is no constitutional basis for a federal court to oversee the administrative details of a state election” might be misleading. Yet it cannot mean the court lacks subject matter or personal jurisdiction, as there is both a constitutional and stautory basis conferring federal jurisdiction over the case (i.e., subject matter jurisdiction), and there is no indiction that the defendant was not properly served, or subject to service of, a Summons (i.e., personal jurisdiction).
As pointed out, despite any confusing language in the order, the reality is that the district court simply tried to comply with the binding precedent of an appellate court in deciding whether this case involved a unique factual situation in which a federal court should abstain from exercising existing subject matter jurisdiction. And in layman’s terms, abstention simply means that just because a court can do something doesn’t mean it should do it.
In contrast, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over the subject of the claim rather than over the person) would mean that a federal court was always and in all cases without power to do it – i.e. hear and decide any case brought challenging particular conduct. For example, even if a federal court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a murder case, and even if there are aggravating circumstances up the ying yang, the court still lacks subject matter jurisdiction if the murder was committed in Aberdeen on private or state property and involves no federal officials.
Thus if accurate, the statement that the “Feds Have No Jurisdiction” in the Janis case would mean that a federal court could not hear any claim brought under the constitutional provisions (14th Amendment, due process and equal protection) or the statutory provision (42 U.S. 1983) relied upon by Janis. Of course, this is incorrect. There are a whole host of reasons why a federal court might dismiss or decline to hear such a case, but the lack of jurisdiction is simply not one.
Hope this explanation helps.
That does, thank you.