Opinion ID: 2521576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: consideration of the petition for writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus is appropriate in this case

Text: The Secretary argues that the writs requested should not issue because the Petitioners seek action that the Secretary of State has no authority to take, that the Petitioners did not pursue an adequate remedy at law and that they delayed their petition to the detriment of others. Writs of prohibition are extraordinary and are issued with caution. Crane Creek Country Club v. City of Boise, 121 Idaho 485, 487, 826 P.2d 446, 448 (1990). The Secretary maintains that the writ should not issue because the Petitioners are asking the Court to expand the Secretary's duties. This is not correct. The Petitioners seek directions and instructions from the Secretary to the county clerks to comply with the term limits initiative, which the Secretary may do under I.C. § 34-202 and § 203. The Secretary also argues that under I.C. § 34-215, any person adversely affected by a county clerk's actions could sue in the district court in the county in which the alleged wrongful act occurred. In this situation this could result in suits in numerous counties, the potential of inconsistent results, and the possibility of actions in the district courts following the primary election. In fact, a suit has been filed in district court in Ada County prior to filing this action challenging the validity of the repeal on different grounds. Hearing in that case is scheduled too late for a decision that would allow an orderly primary election with certainty as to who could properly be on the ballot. The resolution of the issue before the primary is critical to the electoral process. It is appropriate for this Court to act. The Secretary also argues that the Petitioners delayed to the detriment of others, and that it is too late for the writs to issue. Particularly, the Secretary argues that the county clerks have already certified local candidates and that some clerks will have already begun mailing absentee ballots by the time of oral argument. The Secretary cites Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U.S. 1325, 97 S.Ct. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d 56 (1976) in which a writ was sought before an election. In his capacity as Circuit Justice, Justice Marshall stated, respondents strongly oppose the relief sought, claiming that an injunction at this time would have a chaotic and disruptive effect on the electoral process.... For these reasons, I conclude that the application should be denied. Fishman, 429 U.S. at 1330, 97 S.Ct. at 17, 50 L.Ed.2d at 61. Timing is clearly a critical concern in this case. This Court has expedited the case and renders its decision on the merits to allow the primary election to proceed with certainty as to the current state of the law.