Opinion ID: 171206
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Election Loss

Text: Pignanelli alleges the Defendants violated the Constitution because they engaged in an effort to defeat her. Aplt. Br. 29. She complains that Superintendent Bales leaked information to The Pueblo Chieftain in a manner that suggested an improper, if not salacious, relationship between her and Deputy Superintendent Musser and destroyed Ms. Pignanelli's candidacy. Aplt. Br. 20, 8. [1] Because of Bales's opposition to her candidacy, Pignanelli argues, she did not have a fair chance of winning the election. A review of the three election cases Pignanelli cites reveals the obvious deficiency in her claim. In fact, the cases she relies upon Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944); Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir.1973) (per curiam); Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir.1970)are not even in the same factual universe. While each of those cases dealt with election irregularities perpetrated by state election officials, here we have a case dealing only with public school officials opposing Pignanelli's candidacy. In Snowden v. Hughes , for example, the facts painted a picture of violations of state election law by the officials charged with administering it. There, petitioner alleged members of the [Illinois] State Primary Canvassing Board, acting as such but in violation of state law, have . . . deprived petitioner of nomination and election as representative in the state assembly. 321 U.S. at 5, 64 S.Ct. 397. The petitioner argued the defendants, by failing to certify petitioner as a duly elected nominee, ha[d] denied to him a right conferred by state law and ha[d] thereby denied to him the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 8, 64 S.Ct. 397. The case was about access to the ballot, the right to a meaningful vote, and the legitimacy of an election that was administered by state election officials in violation of state law. The Seventh Circuit cases relied upon by Pignanelli were also based upon alleged misdeeds by state officials that called into question the legitimacy of an election. See Smith, 489 F.2d at 1102-03 (reversing grant of motion to dismiss where an alleged conspiracy by Illinois Democratic committeemen to run a sham candidate debased the rights of all voters in the election); Shakman, 435 F.2d at 268 (reversing grant of motion to dismiss where city and county officials allegedly require[d] city and county employees, as a condition of holding their jobs . . ., to furnish votes, campaign work, and money to elect candidates chosen by the regular democratic organization). The factual differences between the election cases cited by Pignanelli and her own case are vastand illustrate the weakness of her legal theory. First, the school district Defendants were not election officials in control of an election; they were public school employees. The Defendants had no control over who got on the ballot or who received votes in the election. Second, Pignanelli was not prevented from actually running for office or receiving votes in an election. She persevered during the campaign, remaining on the ballot and receiving some share of the votes at the polls. Third, Pignanelli makes no allegation of election irregularities or illegalities. The school board election, by all accounts, was fairly run, and voters had a real choice between real candidates. Cf. Smith, 489 F.2d at 1103 (reversing motion to dismiss because of a sham candidacy). Finally, any injury suffered by Pignanelli resulted from the voters not electing her rather than the Defendants' alleged misdeeds in trying to defeat her. The school district votersnot the Defendantsdirectly caused Pignanelli's election loss. Cf. Habecker v. Estes Park, 518 F.3d 1217, 1224 (10th Cir.2008) (concluding plaintiff-appellant Habecker lacked standing to sue public officials in Estes Park because he cannot show the existence of a case or controversy. His loss of elected office, although an injury in fact, was the result of an intervening causethe electorate and is not fairly traceable to the defendants.). Pignanelli argues for the adoption of a rule that would subject public employees to liability whenever they speak in favor of or against a candidate for office. But this rule has no basis in the Equal Protection Clause; and further, runs directly contrary to the intent of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. at 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (The First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Constitution cannot be used to completely muzzle public employees during elections, nor to entirely protect them, when they become candidates, from the rough-and-tumble of the political arena. See generally Ivan E. Bodensteiner and Rosalie Berger Levinson, 1 State and Local Gov't Civ. Rights Liab. § 1:10 (Apr. 2008) (collecting cases). After all, [p]olitics ain't bean bag. [2] Finally, it is worth noting all the information disclosed by the Defendants to The Pueblo Chieftain was public information. The only documents disclosed were Pignanelli's resume, job application, and a memorandum written by Musso calculating her salary. At oral argument, Pignanelli conceded that under Colorado law the school board was required to disclose these documents upon request. See Colorado Open Records Act, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 24-72-201, et seq. (2003). Board members were similarly free to give the newspaper certain information stemming from their executive session. Although Colorado law says the record of executive sessions is not open to public inspection, it goes no further than that. See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(I)(D) (2003). In short, Pignanelli has failed to show the Defendants acted in contravention of any state law when they released certain information to the Chieftain. Any alleged leak of sensitive information to the newspaper therefore provides no basis for her equal protection claim.