Opinion ID: 2545099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Quo Warranto is Appropriate Remedy

Text: Young claims quo warranto is only appropriate to determine an office holder's legal right to hold office, not his qualifications for candidacy or his legal right to run for office. Since the circuit court relied upon section 115.350, which only speaks to Young's qualifications to run for office, he contends its judgment ousting him from office by way of a quo warranto proceeding was improper. Section 531.010 permits the attorney general or the prosecuting attorney of a particular county to institute quo warranto proceedings in cases when any person shall usurp, intrude into or unlawfully hold or execute any office or franchise.... Quo warranto is a writ of very ancient origin, dating back to the earliest days of the common law. Its original purpose was to inquire into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise a particular office granted by the Crown. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 457 (Mo. banc 2002). The sole purpose of a quo warranto proceeding is to prevent an officer or a corporation or persons purporting to act as such from usurping a power which they do not have. Id. (quoting State ex inf. McKittrick v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484, 148 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1941)). Missouri caselaw dating back to 1895 has addressed this issue. In State ex rel. Weed v. Meek, 129 Mo. 431, 31 S.W. 913 (Mo.1895), this Court affirmed the judgment of ouster in a quo warranto proceeding finding the candidate had no lawful right to hold office when he did not obtain a teaching certificate as required to be eligible for election as a school commissioner. The Court found the candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications to be elected, and to hold the office by virtue thereof. Id. at 915. In State ex rel. Thomas v. Williams, 99 Mo. 291, 12 S.W. 905 (Mo. 1889), this Court found the legislature could prescribe the conditions that shall be performed or exist by a certain time for a candidate to qualify for office, and in the absence of meeting these conditions or requirements, the candidate shall not possess the attributes of eligibility on the day of the election. Id. at 911. The Court determined that if candidates do not meet the requirements imposed by statute to run for office, they shall not be deemed qualified at all. Id. In State ex rel. Crow v. Page, 140 Mo. 501, 41 S.W. 963 (Mo. 1897), this Court affirmed the judgment of ouster in a quo warranto action in which the candidate elected failed to pay his taxes prior to the election. Since the law required the candidate to do so as a condition of eligibility to run for the office, this Court found ouster was proper. Id. In State on inf. of McKittrick v. Wiley, 349 Mo. 239, 160 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.1942), this Court affirmed the order of ouster in a quo warranto proceeding in which the elected candidate did not meet the pre-election residency requirements to run for prosecuting attorney. The candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications to be elected or hold office and, therefore, had no legal right to said office. Id. at 687. Young attempts to distinguish all of these cases by arguing they did not state the ousted officials were not qualified to have their names placed on the ballot for the election, but instead merely found the ousted officials were not qualified to hold office at the conclusion of the election. It is axiomatic that one of the requisites to being qualified to hold office is that the person seeking office be a valid candidate and comply with statutory provisions regarding candidacy. Moreover, in Kasten v. Guth, 395 S.W.2d 433, 437-38 (Mo.1965), this Court held, The general rule is that the eligibility of candidates is not a competent issue in an election contest.... An inquiry into [the candidate's] eligibility for office would properly be by quo warranto.