Stephens v. Mitchell

### Full Name

*William D. Stephens and Jacob A. Falconer v. James W. Mitchell and Martin F. McDonald, et al.*

### Decision

Further recounts passing the "safe harbour" deadline, an extension, unconstitutional - 1918 presidential election certified.

## Court Membership

### A. Justices

Norman F. NewtonPhilip G. Baines

Edward T. Young

W. Brian Michaels

Andrew H. Nicholls

Leonard E. Owens

Victor A. Adams

Francis F. Oliver

## Case Opinions

### Concurred

Foster, joined by Baines, Owens, Nicholls, Adams

### Dissented

Young, joined by Michaels, Oliver, Newton

***Stephens v. Mitchell*** (1918), full title ***William Dennison Stephens and Jacob Alexander Falconer v. James William Mitchell and Martin Francis McDonald, et al.*** was a landmark case of the Pacific States Supreme Court which settled a recount dispute in the 1918 Pacific States presidential election between James W. Mitchell and William D. Stephens. The second round of the election had produced an extraordinarily close result, which led to petitions to the Superior Courts of each state by surrogates of the Stephens campaign to allow for several hand recounts in each state in a bid to ascertain the final result of the election.

After three recounts in two key states, California and Washington, with the final result fluctuating back and forth, the Mitchell campaign took further legal action in protest of the multiple recounts, and launched a legal defence team against the several lawsuits filed by Stephens. After the California Supreme Court ordered a halt to recount efforts there due to the approaching safe harbour deadline, the Stephens campaign appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking an extension past the safe harbour deadline for the certification of the presidential election results by each state. Formally, congress was to certify the presidential election results on December 27th, and Stephens sought a stay on this process as well as any other certification for as long as another full, nationwide hand-recount took. The Mitchell campaign, meanwhile, argued that extending the recounts beyond the safe harbour deadline would create a constitutional crisis, as President Johnson's term ended on January 3rd, 1919 whether a new president was due to be sworn in or not. The lack of a new president, it was argued, would create a leadership crisis and a power vaccuum over appointing an Acting President to serve until the election was certified.

The Mitchell campaign further argued that an extension beyond safe harbour was unprecedented, and that several recounts in the most contested states still confirmed Mitchell's victory in the election. The Stephens campaign countered that a full nationwide recount was necessary to fully ascertain the result, which was hit back at by several as unprecedented and an unacceptable interference by the federal government into state counting and certification of election results.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on December 24th that an extension of the safe harbour deadline to allow for further recounts was unconstitutional, siding with Mitchell, and effectively certifying the election. The election was formally certified on December 27th by congress, and Mitchell was sworn in on January 3rd. Further examination of the ballots by independent sources concluded that Mitchell would still have won the election if a full, nationwide recount had been authorised - though by a still remarkably small margin of just a few hundred votes. To date, this case was the largest and most consequential election-related case in Pacific States history, and became a campaign issue in 1922 when Mitchell and Stephens faced each other again.