Opinion ID: 1372923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scope of Mandamus

Text: The Court takes this occasion to once again broaden the scope of the remedy of mandamus. While I can become reconciled to the virtual death of quo warranto as a means of testing entitlement to office, we have gone beyond our legitimate authority in two respects. We have ordered a public officer to show cause why he should not perform an act prior to the earliest date which by the statute he can legally perform it. We thus consciously and directly suspend the statute. This Court has no such power without concluding the Act to be unconstitutional. Secondly, we ordered a respondent to show cause why he should not perform a duty he did not have. In so doing we corrupted a process to the point where lawyers may be excused for wondering whether W.Va.Code, 53-1-5, as amended, still requires a showing of a clear and nondiscretionary legal duty on the part of an officer. My only response is I hope so, but if you come forth advancing the glory of the Anglo-American common law relied upon by the majority, your noncompliance with the rules may be overlooked. I am grateful for the candor of the majority in acknowledging that they created a special rule. I likewise share their desire that the eligibility of candidates be determined so that a void or voidable election will not result. But there were no exigencies in this case which justified the premature and misdirected show cause orders. IV