thank you may please the court my name is frank jackson on behalf of the appellant kevin rodriguez we're here today to ask this court to reverse the district court's dismissal of kevin rodriguez's case based upon perfectly quick question you wanted this record it's decision reversed is that correct that's correct it so you want to go back to the district court no we don't we want them to be their decision to be overruled if you will for this court to step in and make a determination is that the district court should have made specifically to address mr rodriguez's request for declaratory judgment by retore judgment to say what to say that the revised organic act section g vested exclusive jurisdiction in the thirty second legislature of the virgin islands to determine the qualifications of the members that were elected into that body i thought he said that know well what he said your honor is that mr rodriguez never became a member of that body because he never took an oath of office an oath of office was a prerequisite to becoming a member of that body ok maybe you were mincing words i thought he said it's up to the thirty second legislature to make the decision as to who should be seated as a senator between the two individuals who are popularly elected well and what he said your honor is that mr rodriguez was never made was never a member and therefore it was the court who was allowed to make the decision with respect to whether or not mr rodriguez even brought a case that was cognizable before the court steady dismissed case saying that there was  he did fail to state a claim specifically the court determined that an oath was required before those persons elected became actual members of the thirty second ice after right after the judge made a decision you called the president of the thirty second legislature after the opinion was posted to ask that you be given a no to be allowed to be the oath and the thirty second legislature through its president said no the that there were outstanding injunctions still remaining and that the case was still before the district court that the court had made that determination and therefore that the legislature was not going to impose itself the legislature to amend whether you deny it is a member it meaning does he have the qualifications set forth in the revised organic act and after that it would be their decision whether to administer the oath or not is that is that our position is that by the judge saying that he was not a member the judge the district court judge sort of taken the position that the district court did not have the the jurisdiction to make that determination thereby leaving it to the legislature to make that determination you know happy with that fuse maybe not happy with that not at all you know what do you want the judge to decide that you should be this is of course not we want the legislature to decide that the legislature but let me ask you question if we deem that the matter as it stands before us is moot i presume since the legislature is holding in abeyance a because ultimately the legislature would be making the decision but if you do have a problem with that and that means that your problem isn't merely putting it in the hands of the legislature to decide it's putting it in the hands of the legislature procedural posture that you believe your client should have and that is read litigation you're on and what we're saying is the judge should not have dismissed the underlying sorel matter for represent what i'm saying your honor is the district court erred when it dismissed that case for movement as opposed to dismissing that case what if what if those parties are content with that decision but that doesn't address the legal issues that speak for the court i e whether or not the parties are are that think that that action should have been dismissed removed was that another way do you actually have standing to argue that a case dismissed against other parties  was incorrect we have standing to argue that the basis of the dismissal of those parties for move miss was a wrong decision that the basis that it should have been dismissed for was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction  way let's talk about this our history second there were the board of election defendants and mr rodriguez was a defendant as i understood the district court's opinion it found it was moot as to the board of election defendants because it was a challenge after the board of was post certification whether that's right or wrong we don't have to debate but that was the the reason for moving is as it related to those parties as it related to mr rodriguez the court talked about the fact that it wasn't go interfere with what a coordinate branch of government was going to do this of the him so there is a moon as dismissal but that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court because sixty is not a striking of subject matter federal question jurisdiction over the revised organic after it then looked at the justice should billet he of that dispute found us to the defendant board an elector and that was moot because it was poster vacation but then when you got to your client isn't it a fact that really with the district court said i i'm not going to weigh in on this because of a bit of it being of a parody of a coordinate branch we might use political question nomenclature but wouldn't you agree that that's really what happened your honor what we see happen is the court failed to address this our request for declaratory judgment because we also requested injunctive relief and the court said as the court is indicating that because the district court did not want to interfere with the rights of the legislature they were not going who we have the courts or the legislature should make the determination of the qualifications of an of a duly elected duly certified candidate for office but given the language of sixty how could this particular issue be resolved of the otherwise the language is very very clear with regard to the authority of the legislature are we to put that aside what the judge did to be able to address that because the language is very clear and we agree with that what the court did instead is say that in addition to all of the qualifications set forth in sixty eight an oath of office is necessary before that elected official can take his seat and we agree an oath of office is necessary before the election official can carry out all of the duties of a seat not that he is not now a member of that thirty second legislature but he has to take an oath at some point in time to be able to carry out the it's post certification of your election result and then you are a member of elect are and you only become a member if you will at the time your term comes into effect but i mean january ninth two thousand and seventeen i'm so sorry everything that you status the analogy that you're trying to draw to other instances whether it be the senate house the founding fathers and what they thought about this doesn't seem to be a positive because it's clear that member elect doesn't care it doesn't carry a portfolio and what the district court was saying was you know you don't have status as member like and there's clearly a distinction to be drawn between member and member alike hence the conclusion so why should we disturb the only distinction your honor is this is that a member of elect remains of member elect until his term of administered is the question and we submit the judge has instituted his decision as to when the time and matter should take place as opposed to saying time and manner of the oath is a question for the  we want to judge thomas to decide that under rule sixty of the revised organic act that the court no courts have jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of members and that a member is a member of that find that sounds fine to me so far no court has jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of who should be a member of the thirty second legislature yes and that an oath oath or did he essentially say that when he said i'm not going to make this decision that's a decision for the thirty second legislature what he didn't do was the clear the rights of the parties but even the rights of the parties that it was the rights that he said that he would not step into the wrong realm of the legislature because he was not going to order them to do anything but because he said they are there to coordinate branch of government and he is not going to intrude in processes that belong to the legislature but he did intrude he intruded by saying that the legislature had not set a time and manner for the taking of the old and to the extent that they didn't do it which is a legislative function he will then decide the time and manner of taking of the oath when you are no injunctions precluding him from taking the oath that nobody actually entered an order of that nature like  removed from the spirit of court and of and the supreme court have the obligation to address the question of the underlying jurisdiction of the sirocco party to even have brought that lawsuit we submit that rule sixteen of the revised organic act injunction was the impediment why not make an application to him to dissolve those injunctions section fourteen fifty of title twenty a gives the district authority to do just that and i didn't see an application to do that because that's what sounds like is the impediment from your point of view yes it is your honor and we we we say that our complaint itself asking for to clear a tory judgment the court had the obligation to give us all all relief that we were entitled to under declaratory judgment even if the court did not want to issue an injunction against the the legislature and so we submit that the court by way of our complaint by way of its own underlying obligation to determine jurisdiction when the case came over by removal to it the court had the obligation to look and see whether or not that underlying court case even had a right to be filed in spirit court and once it was removed the district court had the obligation to then determine whether or not they had subject matter jurisdiction by operation of removal the removing party is representing that subject matter jurisdiction exists in the district court because that's what a petition removal sets and in fact there is subject matter jurisdiction implicated because it's a federal question your problem is that the court should not have decided weigh in on the issue but i don't understand how that how you can say the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the police when you folks were moving party and it had subject matter jurisdiction to remove it because it was undressing a federal law ok but once it removed it then it had to look at the underlying jurisdiction of the case that now was removed to it and determine whether there was jurisdiction for their case to even be brought into court so when you say you're using the jurist the word jurisdiction in this latter phase of your the district court here should have said sphere court never have jurisdiction yes if you don't you don't disagree that it's a to the legislature to determine the qualifications of its members based on yes exactly we think it's exactly the legislature's determination to make the determination with respect to the qualifications of its members here the court intervene by saying that mr rodriguez was not a member because he did not take the oath and they're for the legislature did not have the authority you know wait a second i'm not sure that the court with that for i think court essentially said that it's up to the legislature to make that decision with regard to residency re and he didn't he didn't rule one way or the other did no he did not but what by by not declaring the rights of the parties and and dismissing this are ok for moving is that allowed all the terminations of this a period court and the supreme court to remain in effect understand what was in effect was injunctions was enjoining mr rodriguez from take an oath the legislature was chilled and say we have reading of the case the legislature can say mr rodriguez you satisfy residency requirements as soon as you take your oath you will be a member of this body i see nothing to prevent the legislature for making that decision we you know we think they should of the legislature specifically said this matter is before the so according to the orders the legislature could have made this judgment from your point of view yes could have potentially qualified him and then your client would have said what i meant currently enjoined i can't take the oath with a then complained you would have make an application dissolve that that we agree that post election posts are vacation the courts can no longer make determinations with respect to the qualifications of candidates who have been elected isn't it actually when we're legislature convenes that's when the court from your point of view would be it would not be able to we said both ways your honor we first say that post election post certification the law is clear the exclusive determination of the qualifications of the members is the legislature however term beginning so there's two points at which we say jurisdiction we say it should have been there from the beginning but it certainly was lost at the time the thirty second legislators turn began to have one question very very straightforward you have two individuals who are popularly elected in the region iowans who decide which one should be seated we submit we submit is that court or the legislature the legislature ok write the legislation thank you so i had some sense back on this one boy if you want to make sure i heard you correctly so so that means according to the superior court had the ability to review the board of elections determination actually i presume you argue that the spirit court never had the ability to review the board of elections determination once sort of heard on november twenty second that's correct right yes that's nov twenty second in january ninth when the stat when the legislature convened your point is no one had jurisdiction the spirit court didn't have jurisdiction and then when it went up to the supreme court they didn't have and then when it was moved post well actually when when you brought suit on january tenth and then removed the other action that there was right you'd you'd say there was no ability to disturb it right so you'd say exactly after november twenty second nobody no one could do anything no courts could do anything and that it's entirely within the purview of the legislature after november twenty second yes how do you reconcile that with brian now because brian the fox is a version supreme court case and it says before the legislature convenes the board of election has the power and then it says that power will shift from the board of elections to the legislature pursuant to rule sixteen only after the election has concluded and the legislature has actually convened so isn't that authority for the decision available to the court up into the time it convenes and only after it can be only after can these does it go back to the legislature and i'm reading that from bryan isn't that the way the virgin onscreen c interpreted its that rule brian is preelection bryant case was brought pre election pre certified cation our cases post election post serve occasion but that language is talking about a shift of power it's talking about as a concept looking at section says the board of elections authority the legislatures authority in making a decision at that power shift really happened on january ninth not november twenty sixth so for that for a period of time until january ninth you're saying a court could  acted but once january ninth happened no court should decide that your position will we certainly agree january night no court should decide we do not necessarily agree post election post certification that us courts still have jurisdiction to address the issue so you want us to overturn it or do you think fox doesn't go as as broadly as was just suggested we think fox is good law with respect to the pre election we do not think it's a good law post election it doesn't address the issue thank you we'll hear you back on the book i understand that we have this griffith's participating by phone is that correct honor good morning to you and we will hear you i understand there has been an adjustment of time ye and maybe i can is asking a question if you are difficult to follow could you tell me what disagreement you have with the district court's decision that is entirely up to the thirty second legislature to determine which of two candidates is qualified to take an oath and be seated as the next senator that that in a special election with called and i could ask you if the injunctions were dissolved and those injunctions are those that bore currently bore mr rodriguez from oath if they were dissolved what would happen after the special election yeah yeah currently like if if though right now we've you've had your special election as far as i know it hasn't been certified my correct you're right they have not and certified so what would happen if the meet them then it would turn to your client who as i understand it prevailed in the special elections if that election is certified and then they would adjudicate her membership qualifications isn't authority that have not been defined but yet but my question is i'm going back to if the injunction is dissolved it's your position that there's some a determination by one of by one of the decision makers spiric or supreme court that he's not a member and therefore he's already been blocked and is that because of the discussion about the need for an oath i don't know  without and the better turned out and about you but the the the governor's intervention i know you would say it was at the behest of the invitation by the district court but at the end of the day  think the point is that this is all going to be left to the well presumably one scenario is that it's left the legislature to seat either mr rodriguez or your client depending on whether it's moving not that it's moot then that would seem to be the choice and doesn't by default go to one or the other  qualifications the body decides whether i have and upon decision on that point they then decide whether they're going to administer the oath and seat me isn't that the sequence you're describing  already in november that's not my question my question is a matter of proper procedure before the legislature because your you said in response to judge question that the oath is a very important thing but i don't know that it was actually answering the question he was asking you and so i least for a question that his lead me to have which is isn't the sequence on the day the legislature's convened you present yourself to the legislature they look at your qualifications do you meet the specified qualifications i dissatisfied with the board of elections determinations they could then get court review because the board of elections is not one of the three branches of government but once the legislature convenes then qualification decisionmaking is vested with them that's what i regards to this decision regarding the oath with regards to his decision regarding the status of kevin record as a member elect and not a member and of course with regards to the lower court's decision to not issue an injunction forcing or attempting to force the legislature to do anything or to issue a declaratory judgment because there was no dispute as to the language or the meaning or interpretation of section sixteen is your is your primary argument now that as we sit here now because the legislature convened on january ninth this is this matter is now entirely  we should merely affirm and the legislature is empowered at that point to then make its determination as to who it will see somewhat your honor the legislators position is that it was always empowered as of january ninth to take any action or to not take any action in exercising its discretion the legislature considered vacs there was already jurisdiction in the courts because of the timing of the sorrow barry lawsuit the legislature could have intruded and ceded kevin rodriguez or not city kevin rodriguez and make some determination with regard to his qualifications or i could have let the litigation run its course the legislature decided to let the litigation run its course now of course without in the absence of this appeal the trial court's decision below would have been the course that the litigation ran for whatever reason mr archer gets has now appealed this action although he has abandoned his claim for injunctive relief requiring the legislature to do anything and is simply seeking a declaratory judgment on an issue for which there is no dispute you asked for us for a firm inch of the district court's opinion correct so what would happen then if the ball is back in the legislatures court then the legislature would make a decision with regard to the seating of kevin jenelle's sorrow all right now there's an injunction saying let's say hypothetically the legislature found mr rodriguez qualified and there's currently an injunction saying he can't take the oath does that mean in order for the legislature to be able to fall similarly exercise it authority you would want those injunctions dissolved so that you can not you personally but the legislature to take its action the legislature takes no position with regards to the injunctions we don't require we didn't ask for them to be dissolved and neither did mr rodriguez and if it were if they were dissolved what does i ask your adversary the same question legislature the engine junctions or dissolve we have had a special election not yet certified but we've had it tell us what happens if the injunctions are dissolved it really does not affect the action of the legislation the reason i say that is because the injunctions were never issued against the legislature they were issued against mr roger guys in the legislature were inclined to seat him on january ninth it could have seated him or taken whatever actions were necessary to see him and mr roger goes would have to make a decision as to whether he was going to violate the injunction is issued by both the superior court and the supreme court you see disregard the injunction they should well we wouldn't disregard legislation wouldn't disregard injunctions and in fact it didn't what i'm saying is that if it were so inclined it could've because injunctions technically were issued against the legislature with the ability to actualize his membership if you have chosen to to see  him would have been impeded you could have not taken the oath and i assume your position is an oath is a condition to be able to be a member is that correct correct and so with that in mind if these injunctions weren't in play one could say if you're a purist on you know the separation of powers one could still legislated say hey the federal court is interfering with our ability to decide who to see and how and how to ensure they get a chair at the table agreed the legislature could 've taken that position and it chose not to what the legislature decided to do was to respect the ongoing jurisdiction of the courts respect the fact that under its own rules the rules of the thirty second legislature which is consistent with the rules of the prior legislatures is that the very same justices and or a judge who issued injunctions would have been the very same individuals who would have administered the oath so what if i may continue although i'm out of time what mr ro z has never addressed either before the district court or before this court is that the legislature has its rules with regards to be zero through the timing of the oath and how it's administered to talk about those rules for second not made a part of the record of the lower courts the lower court proceedings were very expedited we had oral argument and we went straight into briefings i think the only the exhibit that was really website it may not be available as of yet and it is a public great interest did it exists at the time the lawsuits were filed it existed at the time that the lawsuit was filed against the legislature did not exist at the time that the lawsuit was filed by room barry so this is a new rule it's it's a rule that's repeated from legislature to legislature because the legislature is only add to your body each legislature when it convenes the first thing it does is it goes into session and passes its rules and those from the board of elections until it to the legislature up until the time the legislature convenes is it your position that from the time before the election to the legislature convenes it's the board of elections decision to adjudicate qualifications and they can be reviewed by a corps but once the legislature convenes the courts unable to adjudicate the qualifications because sixty said if the legislature is the sole judge that's not the position of the legislature and the legislature is position on the position the position depends on the circumstances now with regards to post certification court actions there is a brief window of time between post certification and when the new legislature convenes if there is a an issue or a challenge like the one raised by sorrow and barry the court certainly have jurisdiction to consider that issue we believe that the issue brought to the third circuit was misphrased the issue is not whether the court had jurisdiction the issue is whether the court jurisdiction continued after the legislature convened it's the position of the jurisdiction continued now had the legislature seated kevin martyring is and had he accepted the both despite the fact that those injunctions were pending i think one could that any court action would therefore be moot ordered or the jurisdiction of the court would be the vested because the legislature has now taken an action pursuant to sixty to determine the qualifications and to see this this individual and i believe you can go to the case cited by sorrow barry in its brief it's a case out of alabama so you show the court how would the court know that your position is the court has jurisdiction now we can decide who your members are  my my position is you have to look at the sprits the particular circumstances in this instance the legislature decided to not jump into the fray with regards to the seating of kevin roger because but to let the litigation take its course up to a final decision but what i'm also saying is that if the legislature had done the opposite if the legislature had actually ceded kevin roger you guys and taken the position that he was qualified to serve and take an action right because that would mean you have to two lawsuits filed the same day right between november twenty second and january ninth pick a day any day two lawsuits both challenging different seats right so as  lawsuit the legislature decides to act as the other the legislature says oh let's see how it plays out so that would mean that means your position would be on january tenth as t the any court action right and any court making a determination as to what you did or didn't do would not have the ability to works but essentially that that's what would happen and you have conflicting state court actions that have come up in this case and been cited as research for instance you have a case that was cited by the supreme court in its opinion when it issued the injunction and found stoppel and that was the case out of kentucky where that state senate had actually see that the member and the court took the position that yes you seated him but this issue is not moot so now you've got an ongoing court litigation and you've got the legislature who does the senate in that state that has ceded this particular member and then you have the case out of alabama where that state court took the position that this issue is now moot because they see that this member who was in controversy a fortunate process by which the senate will determine which of those two which would be so that's something that's a decision that the legislature will have to make but i think it's important to note that the specially lection could not have occurred without the legislature's involvement the special election had to be funded and the legislature funded the special election in order over the dam now there was a special mission you have a candidate exactly so what i'm saying is that all through this litigation what mr rodriguez is arguing is that the legislature hasn't taken any action when in fact it has because the legislature funded the special election special action could not have moved forward without the involvement of the legislature now i'm not saying that as i assume you don't know how seat as i understand your position that the court can can have jurisdiction after legislature convenes in circumstances in which the legislature has decided to step back right that that's so every case will be the court's authority is going to be contingent on a specific legislature's determination on a particular elected person as opposed to the clean line that exists now that says it's the legislature's responsibility and i think it's written that way in part to make clear which branch of government is responsible for which decisions yours your scenario basically says when the when the legislature decides we don't care it's really a political question go ahead court you can decide it's going to be very sui generous and they'll be no real predictability and justice should belittle doc issues and that's just the position of the legislature and the reason i say that is because there are conflicting state opinions when these similar issues have arisen you have the state quoting kentucky treating it one w and in addition to that when you and if i may just step back and look and point the judges to just the circumstances of this particular case and the timing of this are all very action now the star of barry action was initiated before the thirty second legislature came into existence as it stands before as in the virgin islands and in the third circuit because i couldn't find a an opinion that squarely addressed this issue as to if the legislature had acted or not acted what i'm saying is that because there are conflicting opinions and based on the legislature's reading of section sixty and the sole authority as well as aversion alan supreme court cases such as fox and earlier decisions by the district court in this court with regards to map versus the legislature map versus the last part of the determination to be made is based on what action the legislature takes or doesn't take now in the instance of mr rodriguez had the legislature seated him on january ninth or any time shortly thereafter i think there could be an argument made for  course that would raise additional issues because the seating of kevin rodriguez under these circumstances where there's been a valid challenge to his diet has standing qualifications to serve what have invited other litigation and these the authority that's granted to the legislature under sixty is not entirely as exclusive as mr ridgeway goes would describe sole judge how much more exclusive could you get but then i also look at th of course opinion in the map versus what's litigation and there's language in that opinion that states that if you see a member who is not qualified and that would be qualified under the revised organic act then the legislature and of course that member is subject to litigation it will have members those have to expulsion is subject to exposure i was to exclude and which is what theoretically at issue here is mr rodriguez being excluded prior to the do you reconcile brian with what yours just that's not what i'm saying at all what i'm with regards to brian when you have that window between post certification and the convening of the legislature if someone were to file an action just like sorrell barry did the court's jurisdiction is clear and undeniable now when you depending on the circumstances of a particular case  if you had the legislature convened and then sorrow berry filed an action afterwards then the court's jurisdiction is not clear and probably non existent because of course retrogress would have already have been seated now let's let's see if we look at circumstances for instance if course indulgence if you have a circumstance under which you have before us today where the action was initiated post certification but prior to the thirty second legislature convening what i'm saying is that the issue is not whether the court has jurisdiction the issue is whether the court's jurisdiction is ongoing whether the course restriction is automatically divested when a thirty second legislature c es and the legislature position is it's not it's ongoing and the legislature position is consistent with the holding in the kentucky case now had the legislature seated kevin rodriguez you basically have two branches of government addressing the same issue and probably battling for authority over the same issue because you could have the courts taking the position that the jurisdiction is ongoing and despite the fact that you've ceded have a right to have as we're going to continue to consider this issue or you could have the court's taken the position that this matter is moot we no longer have jurisdiction because you see to kevin rodriguez i can't tell you what would have happened because we don't have precedent for it  decision as to whether to get into a battle or get into a situation where to look to co equal branches of government are considering the same issue the legislature declined to do so and i had asked you and your cocoa party about the sequence in my right how the sequence would go under normal circumstances a person would present themselves demonstrate their three qualifications are satisfied they would make a decision if that person were qualified and then the oath would be administered is that correct correct but again it would still be up to the legislature to determine how would do that that that decision still sits with the legislature so the legislature could very well review the qualifications and then make a determination difficulty with exercising the second option is that due process rights attach after you've ceded this member whereas when the individual is still a member of the legs and have not been seated and have not been  then they don't have the same due process requirements that a member would have but ultimately would be up to the legislature some thank you very much we'd like to respond to some of the points made specifically we do not think the legislature has the the authority not to assume the power that is given under sixty they cannot abrogate that authority to the courts they have it they can't abrogate it that's that's not allowed we would submit under sixteen so the legislature just can't sit back and let the courts decide and then after they decide then we'll make a determination we submit first as i said that the court had no jurisdiction on underlying matter but even if they did have jurisdiction excuse me they lost that january ninth two thousand seventeen when the legislature took its seat the legislature was bound to then administer the oath to a member and thereafter if there was a challenge which the role could have done she could have taken her challenge with respect to rodriguez's qualifications to the legislature once rodrigues was in mr the oath and see that and then the legislature could have had a hearing due process hearing and made a determination on that issue if the court lost  then as a part of that it would have dissolved the injunctions in this and so the legislature can have it this way as as the course of indicate you have to be able to know with certainty what's going to happen and it's not depending on the circumstances the kentucky case that was cited by counsel in that particular case there was a statute that specifically said the kentucky court by statute kentucky legislature by statute allowed the kentucky courts to continue their jurisdiction on by way of statute if the issue was race if where there is no statute we say they cannot just continue their jurisdiction with respect to the rules of the legislature by definition rules of the legislature are only a political to members so once you start referring to the rules of the thirty second legislature those rules are only apply couple to members and by definition you are then saying that mr rodriguez is a member subject to these rules if he is not a member then he certainly can't be subject to the rules of the legislature he has to be a member to be subject to those rules and we agree once the subject of those rules those rules will stay and they do say time and manner of taking the oath the legislature the legislature always has that responsibility the court cannot assume that respect each subclass ability where the legislature has failed to establish a statute that would that determines the time and matter in the federal system of course that was a problem under the united states constitution what is what is the specific outcome that you are requesting in this case what we're specifically asking as that this court the clear the rights of the parties post election post certification and that was that the exclusive our body to determine the qualifications of the members was the legislature that the court had no jurisdiction to go to to delve into that particular issue goal is the legislature that it still is the legislature we have we always say it's too late usually or continue to go back and have your qualifications determined by the thirty second largest of course that's where we say they should be determined once which given you two scenarios and to determine whether surround should be seated if if you first addressed the question of rodriguez and we submit if you determine that he's qualified you see that then the special election that was subsequent to that was no one boy you don't even you know that's that's what happens to sort of how this is just this is basically affirming a district court now because the district court would not allow the oath to be taken and therefore right regas was never able to become what while he was a member of the thirty second legislature druthers you would go back to the thirty second legislature which can determine that you are qui and then they will administer the or of the legislation to say no you may not be seated because you feel the residency requirement and therefore the special election will be held ballot and we say no they could not have they can not refuse to see them the board of election determines the qualifications once the educator legislators turn but you know if they determine the qualifications my in my scenario they need and determined that rodriguez is not scenarios would appear to leave it leave the entire determination of who is qualified who's not qualified in the hands of the legislature but seems when i hear you respond to his question that you want something a little more you you don't want us for instance to say it's moved and and therefore it goes back to the legislature to determine because if that happened then it's entirely up to them as to who would be seated and we you know this this opinion and that this this determination by the court would  a centrally and not a nobody but we'd be stepping aside letting the legislature make the determination is that what you're really asking for it so that in essence you're willing to go toe to  to speak with miss sorrow before the legislature to see who is the correct person to be seated we certainly believe that the legislature has the body to make that determination we we believe that the court this court should determine that the district court had no jurisdiction it had jurisdiction for the removal but once it looked at the underlying action it would look at sixty revise again it act and say to the parties in declaring their rights this court has no authority to determine the qualifications of its members therefore we refused to be don't want us to affirm the district court's opinion no no