{ "id": 3490536, "name": "Gary ZOLLIECOFFER v. Virginia POST", "name_abbreviation": "Zolliecoffer v. Post", "decision_date": "2007-10-11", "docket_number": "07-194", "first_page": "263", "last_page": "266", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "371 Ark. 263" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "265 S.W.3d 114" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "367 Ark. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3696023 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/367/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 Ark. 716", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 36037 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "719" }, { "page": "820" }, { "page": "718" }, { "page": "819" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/354/0716-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ark. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1700064 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/230/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 Ark. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1898870 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "454" }, { "page": "467" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/310/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.W.3d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 1111325, 1111405 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "184" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/346/0383-01", "/ark/346/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 Ark. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1111405 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349-50" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/346/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 Ark. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3798485 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10-11" }, { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/368/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3798215 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" }, { "page": "612" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/368/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-801", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-207", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" }, { "page": "(b)" }, { "page": "(b)" }, { "page": "412" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 Ark. 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1886860 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "411" }, { "page": "172" }, { "page": "173" }, { "page": "411" }, { "page": "172" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/300/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 Ark. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1447496 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/322/0153-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 412, "char_count": 7465, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0443607212980382e-07, "percentile": 0.7481038469810402 }, "sha256": "385cb540ffa2d4d414a99d4ac4945d2e1385e69ce68caec5e47c9e333c47019e", "simhash": "1:cb5454d7b06b1384", "word_count": 1211 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:16.265391+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Imber, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Gary ZOLLIECOFFER v. Virginia POST" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jim Hannah, Chief Justice.\nAltus mayoral candidate Gary stice. November 15, 2006 order of the Franklin County Circuit Court granting relief in a pre-election challenge filed post election by opponent candidate Veronica Post. In the circuit court\u2019s order, Zolliecoffer was declared ineligible to run as a candidate in the Altus mayoral race, and the Franklin County Election Commission was prohibited from certifying any votes cast for Zolliecoffer. Zolliecoffer attempts to appeal only the circuit court\u2019s order prohibiting the Election Commission from certifying votes cast in his favor. We hold that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a pre-election challenge filed post election and reverse and dismiss the case. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(a)(4).\nOn November 7, 2006, an election was held for the office of mayor of Altus. The parties have stipulated that Zolliecoffer received 136 votes and Post received 126 votes in the election. The votes, however, have not yet been certified. On November 9, 2006, Post filed a petition for writ of mandamus, a petition for a writ of prohibition, and a declaratory judgment action. She asserted that Zolliecoffer was a convicted felon and ineligible to run for public office. She specifically asked that he \u201cbe declared ineligible for the election by the \u2018Commissioners\u2019 and removed as a candidate from the ballot.\u201d As legal authority, Post cited Tittle v. Woodruff, 322 Ark. 153, 907 S.W.2d 734 (1995); State v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Comm\u2019rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989); and Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-207(b) (Repl. 2000). She also asserted that if she did not prevail under the above authority, she would prevail under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-801 (Repl. 2000), because this is a post-election contest based on Zolliecoffer\u2019s ineligibility.\n\u201c[Ejection cases are governed entirely by statute.\u201d Simes v. Crumbly, 368 Ark. 1, 4, 242 S.W.3d 610, 612 (2006). There are \u201ctwo types of election cases provided for by statute: pre-election, eligibility challenges and post-election, election contests.\u201d Willis v. Crumbly, 368 Ark. 5, 10-11, 242 S.W.3d 600, 604 (2006). In Helton v. Jacobs, 346 Ark. 344, 349-50, 57 S.W.3d 180, 184 (2001), we discussed the two types of election cases:\nThe procedure followed by Tyler for Jacobs\u2019s removal from the ballot was a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, which is the procedure this court endorsed in State v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Comm\u2019rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989), for pre-election attacks on a candidate\u2019s eligibility to stand for election and for removal of that ineligible candidate\u2019s name from the ballot. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-207(b) (Repl. 2000). See abo Tittle v. Woodruff, 322 Ark. 153, 907 S.W.2d 734 (1995). Upon removal, that person is no longer a candidate. An election contest, on the other hand, is a right of action \u201cconferred on any candidate to contest the certification of nomination or the certificate of vote as made by the appropriate officials in any election.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-801(a) (Repl. 2000) (emphasis added). It is a \u201cpost-election contest between two competing candidates.\u201d Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. at 250, 27 S.W.3d at 738. See also Rubens v. Hodges, 310 Ark. 451, 837 S.W.2d 465 (1992); McClendon v. McKeown, 230 Ark. 521, 323 S.W.2d 542 (1959).\nThus, a party who wishes to challenge a candidate\u2019s eligibility to stand for election must bring a pre-election challenge by way of a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment. Here Post filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, and she states plainly in her petition that she is seeking to have Zolliecoffer declared ineligible; however, she filed the petition post election rather than pre election. Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-207(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:\nNo person\u2019s name shall be printed upon the ballot as a candidate for any public office in this state at any election unless the person is qualified and eligible at the time of filing as a candidate for the office to hold the public office for which he is a candidate.\nIn Craighead County, this court stated that section 7-5-207(b) \u201ccreated a right in the people to the proper administration of election laws by prohibiting the inclusion of ineligible candidates on the ballot.\u201d 300 Ark. at 411, 779 S.W.2d at 172. This court further held that \u201can action for mandamus and declaratory relief is the proper method of enforcing the right set out in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-207(b), which prohibits the inclusion of an ineligible candidate on an election ballot.\u201d Id. at 412, 779 S.W.2d at 173. However, \u201cthis statutory procedure only allows pre-election challenges to a candidate\u2019s eligibility.\u201d Pederson v. Stracener, 354 Ark. 716, 719, 128 S.W.3d 818, 820 (2003). In Pederson, we further stated:\nBecause election contests are purely statutory, and the statutes do not provide for a post-election petition for a writ of mandamus and complaint for declaratory judgment to challenge a candidate\u2019s eligibility, the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter. Because this case is decided on jurisdiction, there is no need to consider the remaining issues. This case is reversed and dismissed.\nId. at 718, 128 S.W.3d at 819. Likewise, the circuit court in this case lacked jurisdiction to consider a pre-election challenge filed post election, and this case must be reversed and dismissed for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We note that neither party raised the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction; however, subject-matter jurisdiction is always open, cannot be waived, can be questioned for the first time on appeal, and can be raised by this court. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 367 Ark. 468, 241 S.W.3d 264 (2006).\nAs we already noted, Post attempted in her petition to additionally rely on Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 7-5-801, but she alleged a right to a post-election challenge of Zolliecoffer\u2019s eligibility. An election contest under section 7-5-801 \u201cis an adversarial proceeding between a successful and an unsuccessful candidate.\u201d Rubens v. Hodges, 310 Ark. 451, 454, 837 S.W.2d 465, 467 (1992). The parties stipulated that Zolliecoffer obtained the most votes. The petition filed by Post did not institute a post-election contest under section 7-5-801. As we noted in Pederson, supra, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear a post-election challenge to eligibility, and the remedy for usurpation of office lies with the state under quo warranto. See Pederson, supra.\nImber, J., not participating.\nPost sought and obtained a writ of prohibition to stop the election commission from certifying the votes. We note that \u201ca writ of prohibition may only be directed to a court or adjudicative committee that is proceeding wholly without jurisdiction; it cannot be directed, as a writ of mandamus can, to a ministerial officer.\u201d State v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Commr's, 300 Ark. 405, 411, 779 S.W.2d 169, 172 (1989).\nThe circuit court found that in pleading guilty to burglary and grand larceny in 1965, Gary Zolliecoffer was a convicted felon even though no formal judgment of conviction was entered.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jim Hannah, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Barham Law Office, P.A., by: R. Kevin Barham, for appellant.", "Craig L. Cook, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Gary ZOLLIECOFFER v. Virginia POST\n07-194\n265 S.W.3d 114\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 11, 2007\n[Rehearing denied November 8, 2007.]\nBarham Law Office, P.A., by: R. Kevin Barham, for appellant.\nCraig L. Cook, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0263-01", "first_page_order": 289, "last_page_order": 292 }