Opinion ID: 880245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: staiidard of review

Text: The Idatro Constitution and Idatro Code grant this Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Idaho Const. art.V, $ 9; I.C. $ 1-203. Under the Idaho Appellate Rules, [a]ny person may apply to the Supreme Court for the issuance of any extraordinary writ or other proceeding over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. I.A.R. 5(a). Such writs may be issued . . . to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and the enjoyment of a right or offrce to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person. I.C. $ 7-302. Further: This Court has held that mandamus is the proper remedy for one seeking to require a public officer to carry out a clearly mandated ministerial actwhich is not discretionary. However, the existence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, either legal or equitable in nature, will prevent the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The party seeking the writ of mandamus has the burden of proving the absence of an adequate, plain, or speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. ' There is a subtle difference in the positions of the parties. Leavitt's complaint focuses on the decision to deny a hearing on the petition for commutation. The Commission's response indicates that the Commission made a determination to recommend to the Governor denial of Leavitt's commutation petition. The record does not include the minutes of the Commission's meeting, if such have been prepared. (Idatro Code $ 67-2344(l) provides that [a]ll minutes shall be available to the public within a reasonable time after the meeting.... Idaho Code g 672344(2) provides that minutes from an executive session identifo the statutory authority for convening an executive session and identifr the purpose and topic of the executive session.) Because we agree with Leavitt's contention, in his brief in support of the petition, that denial of a commutation hearing is a fde factol final decision denying the commutation petition, this opinion will focus on the fact that the Commission decided, in executive session, to deny Leavitt's request for a public hearing on his petition following notice and publication as provided by IDAPA 50.01.01 .450 .02.qb. Edwards v. Indus. Comm'n, l3}Idatro 457, 459-60,943 P.zd 47, 49-50 (1997) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Because constitutional questions and questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, this Court exercises free review over both. Stuart v. State, 149 Idaho 35, 40,232 P.3d 813, 818 (2010) (citing Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Idaho Bus. Rev., Inc., 146Idaho 207,210,192 P.3d 1031, 1034 (2008)). Further, in cases involving the constitutionality of a statute: There is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the challenged statute or regulation, and the burden of establishing that the statute or regulation is unconstitutional rests upon the challengers. An appellate court is obligated to seek an interpretation of a statute that upholds it [sic] constitutionality. The judicial power to declare legislative action unconstitutional should be exercised only in clear cases. Stuart v. State, 149 Idaho at 40,232 P.3d at 818 (citations omitted).