Opinion ID: 2586441
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged violations in the election

Text: Mullins's initial pleading in her administrative appeal of the LBC's approval decision included allegations of wrongdoing by the Division of Elections in structuring the incorporation election. Mullins later attempted to amend her pleading to add a complaint against the Director of Elections as a defendant and request changes to the upcoming election as relief, titling her amended pleadings an Amended Notice of Appeal & Complaint. The superior court never accepted Mullins's addition of a complaint against the Director of Elections  its final Order of Clarification continued to list the LBC as the only party adverse to Mullins and noted that Mullins's appeal was not the place to consider complaints. A party may not unilaterally add a complaint against a third party to a pending administrative appeal by amending the pleadings, as Mullins attempted to do in this case. The superior court is operating under the authority of different statutory provisions when it acts as an appellate court [32] and a trial court of general jurisdiction [33] and these roles are not generally combined in the same lawsuit. [34] The superior court, acting in its capacity as an intermediate court of appeal to review an administrative decision, [35] properly declined to review Mullins's claims against the Division of Elections regarding the incorporation election, as they were unrelated to the LBC's decision that was under review. Because the claims regarding the incorporation election were not properly before the superior court, they are not properly before us; the only claims properly before us on appeal are those relating to the LBC's decision to approve the petition. If Mullins wished to sue the Division of Elections, she should have filed an independent lawsuit. Now that the election has passed, it is highly likely that such a lawsuit would be moot. [36] A superior court can no longer direct the Division of Elections to change the format and procedures of the incorporation election, as requested by Mullins in her improper amended pleadings. Nor does Mullins seek to void the results of the election. The only relief available to Mullins for alleged errors in the election would be a declaratory judgment  there are no live issues. Moreover, these alleged errors are unlikely to evade judicial review. There is no reason to assume that courts cannot decide challenges related to an election before election day. [37] Even where final judgment is not rendered prior to the election, election procedures can still be challenged by anyone opposing the outcome. [38] In this case, Mullins does not oppose the election results and her challenges to the incorporation election, even if filed as an independent lawsuit, would almost certainly be moot. [39]