Opinion ID: 2514024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: threshold constitutional issues

Text: {16} In fact, however, the problem survives whoever is responsible for it. Discarding the votes in Precinct 31 has no effect on the election only if it is assumed that the sixty-six commingled votes were cast as they would have been cast had the correct ballot face been available to those voters. Sixty-six votes must be subtracted from the winner's total and added to the loser's, and the winner's total must still be greater, before it is known what the effect of the voting irregularity was on the election. The common law rule to be applied in such cases was stated in Creamer v. City of Anderson, 240 S.C. 118, 124 S.E.2d 788, 791 (1962): But it seems to us, apart from the matter of precedent, that the rule that has been followed by this court for more than a century and a half in cases involving election to public office ... is better calculated to safeguard the purity of elections by sending the matter back to the people whenever so many illegal votes have been cast that their deduction from the winning side would affect the result, so that upon a new election it may be determined with certainty which candidate ... has received the greatest number of unquestionable votes. See also Forbes v. Bell, 816 S.W.2d 716, 720 (Tenn.1991) (internal quotation marks omitted); McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters, 385 Mass. 833, 434 N.E.2d 620, 631 (1982); Akizaki v. Fong, 51 Haw. 354, 461 P.2d 221, 222 (1969); Santucci v. Power, 33 A.D.2d 517, 304 N.Y.S.2d 926, 927 (1969). Contestants claim, essentially, that this rule has been strictly carried over by article II, § 8, and that it provides a remedy. {17} Contestees agree that the propulsive force of contestants' argument is that the Constitution requires a new election when the number of miscast votes is greater than the initial margin of victory. This being so, it must be asked at the outset whether contestants have standing to assert the rights of third party voters. {18} Contestants claim the direct benefit of art. II, § 8, asserting in their complaints that voters were denied their basic and fundamental rights ... to vote and that the right of qualified candidates to have all qualified citizens desiring to vote be allowed to vote is constitutionally protected. But it is not clear that that section was intended for the benefit of political candidates, rather than to preserve to the elector the right to vote. It was said in Valdez v. Herrera, 48 N.M. 45, 47, 145 P.2d 864, 870 (1944), which was an election contest: It is a rule well grounded in justice and reason, and well established by authority and precedent, that the voter shall not be deprived of his rights as an elector either by fraud or the mistake of the election officers if it is possible to prevent it ... We said in State ex rel. Read v. Crist [Christ], 25 N.M. 175, [199,] 179 P. 629, 637 [1919], the voter should not lightly be deprived of his right, nor should the successful candidate suffer, if by any reasonable interpretation of the laws governing elections it can be prevented. Valdez did not deal with art. II, § 8. Contestants do cite a case where the constitutional right to vote has been used by politicians who had been denied access to the ballot, McCarthy v. Slater, 553 P.2d 489, 490-91 (Okla.1976) (allowing non-partisan electors in presidential election on ballot). {19} The cases which have similar constitutional provisions to the one here are divided on this issue. The Missouri Supreme Court has taken a liberal view and extended the coverage of the constitutional protection to candidates for office. See Kasten v. Guth, 375 S.W.2d 110, 114 (Mo.1964) (holding provision protects the right of write-in candidates to be on the ballot); Preisler v. City of St. Louis, 322 S.W.2d 748, 753 (Mo.1959) (holding provision gives every eligible person the right to become a candidate for office). The Utah court has held that this provision does not work to the benefit of candidates. See Anderson v. Cook, 102 Utah 265, 130 P.2d 278, 285 (1942) (While this provision guarantees the qualified elector the free exercise of his right of suffrage, it does not guarantee any person the unqualified right to appear as a candidate upon the ticket of any political party.) We agree that art. II, § 8 protects the right of qualified electors to vote but that it does not by itself allow the present contestants to proceed in the name of the right to vote. As mere politicians or candidates for office, they have no constitutional right to be voted for. {20} It is inevitable, therefore, that we confront the problem of standing, the lack of which is a potential jurisdictional defect, Town of Mesilla v. City of Las Cruces, 120 N.M. 69, 70, 898 P.2d 121, 122 (Ct.App.1995), which may not be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even sua sponte by the appellate court. Alvarez v. State Taxation and Revenue Dep't, 1999-NMCA-006, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 490, 971 P.2d 1280 (internal citations omitted). See also Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-016, ¶ 8, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153. Generally, one may not assert the constitutional rights of another. See, e.g., Bell v. Planning and Zoning Comm'n, 174 Conn. 493, 391 A.2d 154, 157 (1978); In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, 660 (1976). It has been explained by the Supreme Court that this rule is not constitutionally required but is only a rule of practice, however weighty, United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960), which is subject to countervailing policies. For example, where, as a result of the very litigation in question, the constitutional rights of one not a party would be impaired, and where he has no effective way to preserve them himself, the Court may consider those rights as before it. Id. (citing NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 459-60, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958)). When a person or entity seeks standing to advance the constitutional rights of others, we ask two questions: first, has the litigant suffered some injury-in-fact, adequate to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement; and second, do prudential considerations ... point to permitting the litigant to advance the claim? Caplin and Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989). Two particular prudential concerns have been recognized: first that constitutional rights should not be litigated unnecessarily, and second, that the third party may not be able to advocate the right as effectively as its actual holder. Lewis v. Iowa Dist. Court, 555 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 1996). We think in an election contest such as this one that the requirements for asserting the standing of a third party are met. Contestants are after all working against the impairment of the rights of voters, whose organization into a body of plaintiffs would not be as feasible or effective as allowing their interests, or possible interests at least, to be represented by contestants. There is no doubt that contestants have suffered an injury in factthe emoluments of officeand similarly, constitutional rights are not being litigated unnecessarily. We therefore conclude that while contestants do not enjoy directly as political candidates the protection of art. II, § 8, they have standing to assert the rights of those voters whose votes were incorrectly tabulated.