Opinion ID: 204011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The New Hampshire State Court Litigation

Text: In response, on March 3, 2005, just days before the election, Sutliffe and ERPG filed a pro se, ex parte petition for injunctive and declaratory relief against both boards and their respective chairpersons (collectively the state court defendants) in the Rockingham County Superior Court. The petition sought to enjoin the school board from sending any further mailings on issues -5- pertaining to the election without allowance for inclusion of a differing viewpoint and to grant ERPG a rebuttal mailing to be sent to all Epping residents prior to the March 8, 2005 election, at the School District's expense. It also requested that the court require the selectmen, before the March 8 election, to send an addendum to the 2004 annual report2 with ERPG's views, again at the Town's expense. Failing this, the petition asked the court to delay the election. The petition asserted that the state court defendants had violated the New Hampshire Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by expend[ing] public monies for purposes of promoting or advocating a particular position on an election measure or issue. In support of this claim, ERPG's petition cited the 2004 annual report, which included sections written by both the school board and the selectmen. ERPG claimed that both sections contained advocacy in favor of the passage of certain warrant articles that were up for consideration in 2004. ERPG pointed to two statements in the section prepared by the school board's chairperson: (1) We ask for your support of the three year paraprofessional contract and the warrant article general maintenance items. And (2) on another warrant article, As always, your affirmative vote on the school budget is vitally 2 The selectmen and the school board produce an annual report, which includes budget details, meeting minutes, and other information from committees, auditors, and department heads. -6- important. This appropriation is the money needed to effectively run our schools on a day to day basis. ERPG also objected to material in the selectmen's portion, which contained a report by the police chief on another warrant article that stated: I am not convinced that we can accomplish the mission of this department with the current staffing and ask the town to support our needs as we take on additional duties each year. Your support is vital and I am asking you again this year to vote favorably for the addition to our police force. Plaintiffs' objections went beyond the 2004 annual report. The petition also cited Sutliffe's January 29 and 31 letters. It alleged that, in spite of its requests, the school board sent three mailings in the month that followed, along with numerous flyers sent home with students, all without giving ERPG a chance to express its viewpoint. The petition did not explicitly reference the Cool News newsletter or any other specific materials. The superior court rejected plaintiffs' request for ex parte relief on March 3, 2005, the same day the petition was filed. Realizing that they would be unable to attain relief before the March 8 election, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the petition on March 4. In place of the relief requested in the ex parte petition, the amended petition requested that the court: (1) find that the 2003 and 2004 annual reports contained unwarranted advocacy and thus constituted invalid expenditures of public funds; (2) enjoin all Epping public officials in the future from their -7- continued use of unwarranted advocacy, as required by the New Hampshire and U.S. Constitutions; and (3) order that the 2005 and 2006 annual reports contain a statement advising citizens on the impermissibility of advocacy with the use of public funds. On June 1, 2005, the superior court conducted a bench trial on the relief requested in the amended petition. At the trial, the plaintiffs submitted a packet of materials labeled as Exhibit 1. These materials included copies of the Cool News school newsletter from February and March 2004; school mailers from March 9, 2004, and March 8, 2005; photographs showing blueprints and a model of a proposed school addition which had been placed at the polls in the March 8, 2005 election; statements detailing the cost of mailing certain school flyers in 2004; and a March 1, 1996, memorandum to the Epping School District prepared by its attorney regarding the use of public funds for advocacy.3 The superior court admitted these exhibits into evidence, but stated that it would limit its review to the Town and school board statements to which the plaintiffs had referred in their 3 The memorandum was prepared in response to a letter sent in 1996 to various school districts, including the Epping School District, on behalf of the Granite State Taxpayers Association. The Association's letter apparently asserted that it was illegal for the school boards to comment on an upcoming state senate bill. The memorandum, in response, recommended that school district refrain from expending public funds on campaign material but added that it was not impermissible for school boards to make recommendations regarding warrant articles or use public funds to educate the public about an election issue or for elected officials to express their views on issues confronting their community. -8- petition.4 Plaintiffs explained that the materials were intended to give . . . some background basically on what transpired because this all started in the year 2004. The evidence illustrated how the plaintiffs were denied . . . from all angles[,] from the selectmen, the school committee, from any other planning board or conservation commission. The court again clarified that it would only address the denials that are contained in [the] petition, and the plaintiffs agreed to this limitation. On June 15, 2005, the superior court issued a decision denying plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. It ruled that the statements in the 2004 annual report were made by elected public officials speaking on behalf of their respective public entities and in furtherance of a public purpose. Epping Residents for Principled Gov't, Inc. v. Epping Sch. Bd. (Sutliffe I), No. 05-E-0094, slip op. at 3 (N.H. Super. Ct. June 15, 2005). Thus, the statements cited in the plaintiffs' petition did not violate the New Hampshire Constitution. Id. The court also concluded that the statements did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the United States Supreme Court 4 At the hearing, in response to the plaintiffs' submission of the materials in Exhibit 1, the court told the plaintiffs: You have submitted a great deal of material. . . . I just can't have a declaratory judgment that is open-ended [such that] every time someone sends out a letter, I have to decide [whether it is legal]. In other words, the only thing I am going to decide is whether the material referenced in your original petition is legal . . . to send [out]. -9- has made it clear that the government may use public funds to endorse its own measures. Sutliffe I, slip op. at 4-5 (citing Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550, 553 (2005)). Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied by the superior court on July 19, 2005. The motion to reconsider asserted that the superior court's June 15 decision contained various legal and factual errors. It did not assert, however, that the superior court had erred in limiting its review to the statements in the 2004 annual report.5 The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 6, 2006, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision denying declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. On appeal, plaintiffs had urged the court to rule on numerous statements by the [school board and selectmen] upon which the trial court did not rule, including the 2004 Cool News newsletter, the school mailers, and the election photographs. Epping Residents for Principled Government, Inc. v. Epping Sch. Bd. (Sutliffe II), No. 2005-0600, slip op. at 3 (N.H. Oct. 6, 2006) (mem.). In accordance with longstanding principles of New Hampshire law, the court decline[d] to address the [plaintiffs'] assertions concerning any alleged 5 Plaintiffs did not argue to the superior court that it should have considered additional claims arising from the materials in Exhibit 1, such as the Cool News newsletter, the school mailers, or the events that transpired during the March 8 election, nor did they at any point seek to amend their petition to encompass such additional claims. -10- statement by the [state court defendants] other than those specifically addressed by the trial court. Id. If the plaintiffs believed the superior court erred in confining its review, their recourse under state law was to raise this argument before that court in a motion for reconsideration; they failed to do so, however, and they could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Their pro se status did not relieve them of their responsibility to comply with procedural rules. Id. at 3-4 (citing N.H. Dep't of Corr. v. Butland, 797 A.2d 860, 862 (N.H. 2002)). Finally, the court upheld the superior court's ruling that plaintiffs were not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of the statements in the 2004 annual report, noting that plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that these statements were lawful. Id. at 4.