Case Title: Davis v. Prado

Citation: 

Docket Number: 562, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
DWIGHT L. DAVIS,                      
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  No. 562, 2004 
 
Petitioner Below-  
 
§  
 
Appellant,   
 
 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   C.A. No. 04M-11-005 
SAMUEL PRADO, 
 
 
§  
     
 
 
     
 
 
§  
Respondent Below- 
 
§  
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted: June 17, 2005 
 
 
 
 
       Decided: August 5, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 5th day of August 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Dwight L. Davis, filed an appeal from 
the orders of the Superior Court a) dismissing his petition contesting the 
2004 election for the Fifth District seat on City Council, Wilmington, 
Delaware, on jurisdictional grounds and b) denying his amended petition on 
 
 
-2-
jurisdictional and substantive grounds.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In 2004, Davis and respondent-appellee, Samuel Prado, were 
candidates for the Fifth District seat on Wilmington City Council.  In the 
primary election, held on September 11, 2004, Davis was the unchallenged 
Republican nominee and Prado was the unchallenged Democratic nominee.  
In the general election, held on November 2, 2004, Prado defeated Davis for 
the Fifth District seat.   
 
(3) 
On the day following the election, Davis filed a petition in the 
Superior Court challenging the results of the Fifth District race.  In the 
petition, Davis claimed that: a) Davis’ name was erroneously omitted from 
some of the absentee ballots; and b) Prado’s candidacy for public office 
while employed in the executive branch of Wilmington City government 
violated the “separation of powers” and “dual public office” doctrines of the 
Delaware Constitution.    
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Davis claims that: a) the Superior Court sitting as 
the Board of Canvass lacked jurisdiction to act on his petition; and b) even 
assuming it had jurisdiction over the matter, the Superior Court nevertheless 
                                          
 
1 Both of these orders were signed by both the President Judge of the Superior Court and 
New Castle County’s Resident Associate Judge, purportedly sitting as the Board of 
Canvass pursuant to Del. Const., art. V, § 6 and Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, § 5701 (1999). 
 
 
-3-
committed legal error and abused its discretion by denying him relief.  Davis 
requests this Court to declare Prado ineligible to run for City Council, set 
aside the election, declare Davis the only eligible candidate, and arrange for 
Davis to be sworn in as the Fifth District representative.     
 
(5) 
Davis’ first claim is that the Superior Court sitting as the Board 
of Canvass was without jurisdiction to rule on his petition.  Initially, Davis is 
correct that the Superior Court sitting as the Board of Canvass does not have 
authority under the Delaware Constitution to certify the vote in a City of 
Wilmington election.2  However, the Superior Court does have statutory 
jurisdiction to decide issues arising from contested City of Wilmington 
elections,3 which it properly asserted in this case.  While the Superior Court 
erroneously invoked its authority as the Board of Canvass in its orders 
denying Davis’ request for relief, we find that error to be harmless, since 
there is no discernible prejudice to Davis.   
 
(6) 
Davis’ second claim is that the Superior Court should have 
granted his request for relief because his name was omitted from some of the 
absentee ballots and because Prado’s candidacy was unconstitutional.  This 
claim, too, is unavailing.  First, while Davis’ name initially may have been 
                                          
 
2 Abrahams v. Superior Court, 131 A.2d 662 (Del. 1957) (the Department of Elections of 
New Castle County has responsibility for certifying the vote in City of Wilmington 
elections). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, § 7527 (1999); Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, §§ 5941-5955 (1999).  
 
 
-4-
omitted from some of the absentee ballots, the record reflects that any error 
in that regard was corrected approximately two weeks prior to the election.4  
Second, while this Court has held that it would violate the Delaware 
Constitution for an individual to hold an office in the executive branch of 
State government and simultaneously occupy an elected seat in the 
legislative branch of State government,5 Davis has cited no Delaware 
authority that prohibits an employee of Wilmington City government from 
becoming a candidate for a City Council seat, as long as the employee 
resigns his position with the City of Wilmington after he is elected to City 
Council.6  In this case, the record reflects that Prado resigned his position 
with Wilmington City government upon his election to City Council. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice   
                                          
 
4 A letter to voters from the Department of Elections dated October 18, 2004 stated that 
“a name” had unintentionally been omitted from the absentee ballot and enclosed a 
corrected ballot.  The letter also stated that, if the original ballot had already been 
submitted, it would be destroyed upon receipt of the corrected ballot. 
5 In re Request of the Governor for an Advisory Opinion, 722 A.2d 307, 319 (Del. 1998). 
6 Id. 
7 While the Superior Court did not rely on the same rationale we do here, we, 
nevertheless, conclude that its decision to deny Davis’ request for relief was correct and 
should be affirmed.  Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 
1995).