{ "id": 4168690, "name": "ANN MARIE CALABRIA, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, LARRY LEAKE, GENEVIEVE SIMS, LORRAINE SHINN, CHARLES WINFREE, and ROBERT CORDLE, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Calabria v. North Carolina State Board of Elections", "decision_date": "2009-08-04", "docket_number": "No. COA08-1269", "first_page": "550", "last_page": "559", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "198 N.C. App. 550" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "628 S.E.2d 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635607 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "756" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/628/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 1622", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 185", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "186", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491051 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "701", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3796047 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "634" }, { "page": "634" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558987 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694" }, { "page": "694" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 S.E.2d 912", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914", "parenthetical": "second and third alterations in original" }, { "page": "914", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. App. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11438328 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436", "parenthetical": "second and third alterations in original" }, { "page": "436" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/145/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 1620", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 1621", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.67", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)(2)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "(a)(2)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483650, 2488397, 2482318, 2484176, 2481778 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0543-03", "/nc/324/0543-01", "/nc/324/0543-04", "/nc/324/0543-02", "/nc/324/0543-05" ] }, { "cite": "375 S.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711" }, { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527584 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723" }, { "page": "723" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.66", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)", "parenthetical": "\"A certified candidate who ceases to be certified or ceases to be a candidate or who loses an election shall . . . return any unspent revenues received from the Fund.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.64", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(d)(7)", "parenthetical": "\"A candidate shall return to the [Public Campaign] Fund any amount distributed for an election that is unspent and uncommitted at the date of the election, or at the time the individual ceases to be a certified candidate, whichever occurs first.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 S.E.2d 110", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602589 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 S.E.2d 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629449 ], "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4744225, 4749332, 4742493 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0678-01", "/nc/319/0678-02", "/nc/319/0678-03" ] }, { "cite": "61 L. Ed. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "442 U.S. 929", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1531938, 1532133, 1531912, 1532170, 1532010, 1532202, 1532021, 1531990, 1532122, 1532092, 1531806 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/442/0929-02", "/us/442/0929-01", "/us/442/0929-10", "/us/442/0929-08", "/us/442/0929-11", "/us/442/0929-03", "/us/442/0929-04", "/us/442/0929-09", "/us/442/0929-05", "/us/442/0929-06", "/us/442/0929-07" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 890", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "912" }, { "page": "912" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565310 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147-48" }, { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "355 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "497" }, { "page": "498" }, { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4740986 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "130", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511484 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E.2d 404", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" }, { "page": "409", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628623 ], "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0111-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1002, "char_count": 25100, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08, "percentile": 0.3398003126823224 }, "sha256": "e13458e9e639dba958b04fcd1a109b1680805f52b03a2192409fd03fb0521f2b", "simhash": "1:4a89d4186758cfda", "word_count": 3908 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:23.100841+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and WALKER concur." ], "parties": [ "ANN MARIE CALABRIA, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, LARRY LEAKE, GENEVIEVE SIMS, LORRAINE SHINN, CHARLES WINFREE, and ROBERT CORDLE, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nIn North Carolina\u2019s 2006 General Election, two judges of this Court \u2014 Robin Hudson (\u201cHudson\u201d) and Ann Marie Calabria (\u201cplaintiff\u201d) \u2014 were candidates for Associate Justice (the \u201cWainwright\u201d seat) of the North Carolina Supreme Court. After reviewing their respective applications to become certified as North Carolina Judicial Public Financing candidates, the State Board of Elections (\u201cState Board\u201d) so certified both candidates and disbursed $211,050.00 from the North Carolina Public Campaign Fund to both Hudson and plaintiff. Seven days before the election, FairJudges.Net, a North Carolina non-profit corporation, reported to the State Board that it had disbursed $204,225.00 to run a television advertisement in markets across the State, including Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro, Charlotte, High Point, and Winston-Salem. The advertisement\u2019s audio track stated:\nFairness. It\u2019s the most important quality a judge can have. Sarah Parker, Mark Martin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson, and Robin Hudson. Fair, unbiased judges. That\u2019s what we need in our North Carolina courts. Sarah Parker, Mark Martin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson, and Robin Hudson. Judges who will treat all people fairly.\nThis advertisement was re-broadcast numerous times in selected markets throughout the State between 31 October 2006 and 7 November 2006.\nOn 31 October 2006, plaintiff sent a letter to Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board, seeking \u201crescue funds\u201d in \u201can amount equal to the reported excess\u201d \u201cfunneled\u201d to Hudson\u2019s campaign by FairJudges.Net. Plaintiff asserted that FairJudges.Net was a \u201cpartisan group of Democratic [political action committees], candidates, unions, trial lawyers and wealthy Democratic Party activists [that] has inserted itself and huge amounts of cash into this campaign in an effort to defeat [plaintiff] and to elect [Hudson] to the North Carolina Supreme Court\u201d in contravention' of \u201cwhat had been a nonpartisan, publicly financed election organized under a new statute the legislature intended to eliminate partisan politics and private interest money from the process of electing judges.\u201d On 1 November 2006, Executive Director Bartlett denied plaintiff\u2019s request for rescue funds for two stated reasons: (1) FairJudges.Net\u2019s communications were not \u201cindependent expenditures,\u201d but rather \u201celectioneering communications,\u201d which \u201cwould not count toward [plaintiff\u2019s] trigger for rescue funds\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 163-278.66 and 163-278.67 as written in 2006; and (2) \u201c[e]ven if the funds spent for the advertisement by FairJudges.net did count toward [plaintiff\u2019s] trigger for rescue funds, only the amount of $51,056.25 would be counted because it would be divided among the four candidates named in the advertisement,\u201d and this amount \u201ccombined with the independent expenditures totaling $23,759.00 [attributed to Hudson\u2019s campaign to date] would only total $74,815.25, not enough to exceed the trigger for rescue funds.\u201d Executive Director Bartlett further informed plaintiff that she was entitled to appeal his decision to the State Board within three business days pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163-278.68(c).\nOn 3 November 2006, plaintiffs counsel sent a letter to Executive Director Bartlett appealing to the State Board from his decision \u201cdenying [plaintiffs] request for [rescue] funds and the reasons in support of that denial.\u201d After considering the matter on that same day, the State Board, by an evenly-divided vote, denied plaintiffs request to overturn Executive Director Bartlett\u2019s decision in an order entered on 20 November 2006. The State Board also ordered that \u201c[t]he staff shall make appropriate inquiries into the allegations of coordinated activities by FairJudges.Net and the North Carolina Democratic Party, including their officers, agents, and employees, and report the results of their investigation to the State Board as expeditiously as possible.\u201d On 7 November 2006, Hudson defeated plaintiff in the election by 20,551 votes out of 1,593,171 votes cast.\nOn 20 November 2006, plaintiff filed an election protest with the State Board alleging that the State Board\u2019s \u201cfailure\u201d to \u201crelease rescue funds coupled with the coordinated expenditures of a State political party in amounts of funds which are nearly equal to the total amount of funds received by [plaintiff] from the Public Campaign Finance Fund\u201d are \u201cirregularities and improprieties which occurred in this election to such an extent that they taint the results of the entire election and cast doubt on its fairness.\u201d Plaintiff requested that the State Board \u201cwithhold certification of this election until it completes its administrative investigation of this matter and the impact of any such findings on this election contest\u201d and, in the alternative, requested that the State Board conduct a hearing on this matter at which plaintiff could \u201cexamine witnesses to determine the extent to which the election communications were []coordinated between fairjudges.net and the N.C. Democratic party.\u201d After hearing the matter on 28 November 2006, the State Board dismissed plaintiff\u2019s election protest, determining \u201cthere is not probable cause to believe that a violation of election law or irregularity or misconduct has occurred in the conduct of this election.\u201d The State Board also determined that the dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s election protest \u201cin no way alters the order entered on November 20, 2006, directing the staff to make \u2018appropriate inquiries into the allegations of coordinated activities by FairJudges.net and the North Carolina Democratic Party.\u2019 \u201d\nPlaintiff filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment; Petition for Judicial Review of an Agency Decision and Appeal from Decision of the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Request for Injunctive Relief (\u201cComplaint\u201d) against defendants \u2014 the State Board; Larry Leake, in his official capacity as. Chairman of the State Board; and Genevieve Sims, Lorraine Shinn, Charles Winfree, and Robert Cordle, each in his or her official capacity as members of the State Board \u2014 in which she sought: (I) an appeal from the State Board\u2019s decision to deny her \u201crescue funds\u201d; (II) a declaratory judgment; (III) an appeal from the State Board\u2019s decision to deny her election protest; and (IV) an injunctive remedy due to an alleged violation of her civil rights. After the State Board issued the certificate of election to Hudson, who took office on 4 January 2007, plaintiff \u201cacknowledge^] that Counts I, III, and IV of her Complaint ha[d] been fully adjudicated or [we]re moot and that therefore only Count II for a Declaratory Judgment\u201d of her Complaint remained before the trial court. Additionally, although plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment as to several issues in her Complaint, according to plaintiff\u2019s brief before this Court, \u201c[t]he parties later agreed that the Legislature amended the Campaign Finance Act, which resolved future application of the statute as to\u201d all but the following issue: \u201c[W]ere the expenditures by \u2018Fairjudges.net\u2019 campaign contributions in excess of the limits allowed or in violation of the Campaign Finance Act?\u201d\nOn 26 January 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants subsequently filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss, moving to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s claims on the additional grounds that the North Carolina General Assembly\u2019s enactment of Session Law 2007-510 rewrote N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 163-278.66 and 163-278.67, \u201cfurther renderfed] the claims asserted by [plaintiff] in this action subject to dismissal based on the doctrine of mootness since [plaintiff\u2019s] claims were filed prior to the enactment of S.L. 2007-510 and were, therefore, based entirely on the prior wording of those statutes.\u201d On 21 May 2008, the superior court granted defendants\u2019 motion and dismissed plaintiff\u2019s Complaint with prejudice after concluding that \u201cCount II of Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint is moot and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\u201d Plaintiff appealed to this Court from the trial court\u2019s 21 May 2008 Order.\n\u201cThe Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act does not license litigants to fish in judicial ponds for legal advice.\u201d Lide v. Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 117, 56 S.E.2d 404, 409 (1949). \u201c[I]t does not undertake to convert judicial tribunals into counsellors [sic] and impose upon them the duty of giving advisory opinions to any parties who may come into court and ask for either academic enlightenment or practical guidance concerning their legal affairs.\u201d Id. Instead, \u201c[t]he Act recognizes the need of society for officially stabilizing legal relations by adjudicating disputes before they have ripened into violence and destruction of the status quo.\u201d Id. at 117-18, 56 S.E.2d at 409 (internal quotation marks omitted).\n[The Declaratory Judgment Act] satisfies this social want by conferring on courts of record authority to enter judgments declaring and establishing the respective rights and obligations of adversary parties in cases of actual controversies without either of the litigants being first compelled to assume the hazard of acting upon his own view of the matter by violating what may after-wards be held to be the other party\u2019s rights or by repudiating what may be subsequently adjudged to be his own obligations.\nId. at 118, 56 S.E.2d at 409. \u201cThis being so, an action for a declaratory judgment will lie only in a case in which there is an actual or real existing controversy between parties having adverse interests in the matter in dispute.\u201d Id. Thus, \u201ca declaratory judgment should issue (1) when [it] will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations at issue, and (2) when it will terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.\u201d Augur v. Augur, 356 N.C. 582, 588, 573 S.E.2d 125, 130 (2002) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). \u201cWhen these criteria are not met, no declaratory judgment should issue.\u201d Id.\nMoreover, when, during the course of litigation, \u201c \u2018it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law.\u2019 \u201d Pearson v. Martin, 319 N.C. 449, 451, 355 S.E.2d 496, 497 (quoting In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147-48, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979)), reh\u2019g denied, 319 N.C. 678, 356 S.E.2d 789 (1987). \u201cThat [an] action was brought as a declaratory judgment action does not alter this result. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, jurisdiction does not extend to questions that are altogether moot.\u201d Id. at 451, 355 S.E.2d at 498. \u201c \u2018The statute does not require the court to give a purely advisory opinion which the parties might, so to speak, put on ice to be used if and when occasion might arise.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 451-52, 355 S.E.2d at 498 (quoting Tryon v. Duke Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 204, 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942)). Thus, \u201c[i]f the issues before a court or administrative body become moot at any time during the course of the proceedings, the usual response should be to dismiss the action,\u201d In re Peoples, 296 N.C. at 148, 250 S.E.2d at 912, because \u201ca moot question is not within the scope of our Declaratory Judgment Act.\u201d Morris v. Morris, 245 N.C. 30, 36, 95 S.E.2d 110, 114 (1956).\nIn the present case, plaintiff asked the trial court to declare, with respect to \u201cher rights, status, and other legal relations\u201d only, whether the expenditures by FairJudges.Net were contributions \u201cin violation of the Campaign Finance Act\u201d which \u201cultimately should have resulted in the [State Board\u2019s] grant of rescue funds to [plaintiff].\u201d However, plaintiff has since \u201cconceded the election of [Hudson],\u201d as \u201cthe election has already occurred and the winner has been certified,\u201d and does not dispute that she is no longer entitled to receive the rescue funds she was seeking from the State Board. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.64(d)(7) (2007) (\u201cA candidate shall return to the [Public Campaign] Fund any amount distributed for an election that is unspent and uncommitted at the date of the election, or at the time the individual ceases to be a certified candidate, whichever occurs first.\u201d); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.66(b) (2007) (\u201cA certified candidate who ceases to be certified or ceases to be a candidate or who loses an election shall . . . return any unspent revenues received from the Fund.\u201d). In fact, plaintiff does not dispute that her claim is subject to the mootness doctrine, but contends her claim was properly before the trial court because it meets the following three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (A) the \u201ccapable of repetition, yet evading review\u201d exception; (B) the \u201ccollateral legal consequences of an adverse nature\u201d exception; and (C) the \u201cpublic interest\u201d exception.\nA.\nPlaintiff first contends the remaining issue in Count II of her Complaint is excepted from the mootness doctrine because it is \u201ccapable of repetition yet evadfed] review.\u201d Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff\u2019s Complaint alleged a proper claim, we disagree that it is excepted from the mootness doctrine under this exception.\nTwo elements are required for the \u201ccapable of repetition, yet evading review\u201d exception to the mootness doctrine to apply: \u201c(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.\u201d Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C. App. 719, 723, 375 S.E.2d 708, 711 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543, 380 S.E.2d 770 (1989). Since the parties do not dispute that plaintiffs claim satisfied the first element of this exception, we address only the second element.\nAt the time of the November 2006 General Election, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163-278.67(a) provided that, when \u201cfunds in opposition to a certified candidate or in support of an opponent to that candidate\u201d are reported to \u201cexceed the trigger for rescue funds [,] ... the Board shall issue immediately to that certified candidate an additional amount equal to the reported excess within the limits set forth in this section.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.67(a) (2005). In 2006, \u201cfunds in opposition to a certified candidate or in support of an opponent to that candidate\u201d were based upon a calculation which included \u201c[t]he sum of all expenditures reported ... of entities making independent expenditures in opposition to the certified candidate or in support of any opponent of that certified candidate.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.67(a)(2) (2005) (emphasis added). However, since the 2007 amendments to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163-278.67(a), see 2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 1621-22, ch. 510, \u00a7 1(b), \u201cfunds in opposition to a certified candidate or in support of an opponent to that candidate\u201d are now based upon a calculation which includes \u201c[t]he aggregate total of all expenditures and payments reported ... of entities making independent expenditures or electioneering communications in opposition to the certified candidate or in support of any opponent of that certified candidate.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 163-278.67(a)(2) (2007) (emphasis added).\nAs discussed above, the State Board\u2019s decision to deny plaintiff rescue funds was based upon a determination that (1) FairJudges.Net\u2019s communications were \u201celectioneering communications,\u201d, which did not count toward the trigger for rescue funds under the 2006 version of N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 163-278.66 and 163-278.67; and (2) even if the funds spent for the advertisements by FairJudges.Net did count toward plaintiff\u2019s trigger for rescue funds, only a portion of those funds would be counted, and that amount, when combined with the independent expenditures made in support of Hudson as of the date of plaintiff\u2019s request for rescue funds, would not have been enough to exceed the trigger for rescue funds as determined by statute. Plaintiff does not dispute that the 2007 amendments to N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 163-278.66 and 163-278.67 directly address these issues. See 2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 1620-22, ch. 510, \u00a7 1(a)-(b).\nHowever, plaintiff asserts that the amendments to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163-278.67 do not render her claim moot because \u201cthe issue of coordination of spending to influence elections, regardless of the expenditures\u2019 legal status as an \u2018electioneering communication\u2019 or an \u2018independent expenditure],\u2019] was not resolved by [the amendments].\u201d Accordingly, plaintiff \u201ccontends that Fairjudges.net\u2019s expenditures were coordinated with the Democratic Party, thereby rendering them contributions to [plaintiff\u2019s] opponent\u2019s campaign which ultimately should have resulted in the [State Board\u2019s] grant of rescue funds to [plaintiff].\u201d Consequently, plaintiff states that her Complaint \u201casks the Court to declare whether the expenditures by Fairjudges.net were either contributions in excess of the limits allowed by the Campaign Finance Act or contributions otherwise in violation of the Campaign Finance Act, which implicates the \u2018coordination\u2019 issue; if so[, plaintiff] should have been entitled to rescue funds.\u201d In other words, although it may be true that \u201c[t]he issue of what constitutes a \u2018coordinated\u2019 campaign will assuredly arise again in North Carolina elections,\u201d plaintiff\u2019s argument before this Court is that FairJudges.Net\u2019s alleged \u201ccoordination\u201d with the North Carolina Democratic Party frustrated her efforts to obtain rescue funds from the Public Campaign Fund. However, because the State Board is now statutorily required, as a result of the 2007 amendments to N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 163-278.66 and 163-278.67, to consider disbursements for \u201celectioneering communications,\u201d in addition to \u201cindependent expenditures,\u201d when determining whether to issue rescue funds to a certified candidate \u2014 without any exception for disbursements that are \u201ccoordinated\u201d with a political party \u2014 we conclude that there is no \u201creasonable expectation that [plaintiff] would be subjected to the same action again.\u201d See Crumpler, 92 N.C. App. at 723, 375 S.E.2d at 711 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we hold that this issue does not fall within the \u201ccapable of repetition, yet evading review\u201d exception to the mootness doctrine.\nB.\nPlaintiff next contends the remaining issue in Count II of her Complaint is excepted from the mootness doctrine because it would result in collateral legal consequences of an adverse nature. Again, we disagree.\nAs discussed above, \u201c[generally, an appeal should be dismissed as moot \u2018[w]hen events occur during the pendency of [the] appeal which cause the underlying controversy to cease to exist.\u2019 \u201d Smith ex rel. Smith v. Smith, 145 N.C. App. 434, 436, 549 S.E.2d 912, 914 (2001) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 694, 231 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1977)). \u201cNevertheless, \u2018even when the terms of the judgment below have been fully carried.out, if collateral legal consequences of an adverse nature can reasonably be expected to result therefrom, then the issue is not moot and the appeal has continued legal significance.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting In re Hatley, 291 N.C. at 694, 231 S.E.2d at 634). Moreover, \u201c[t]he continued justiciability of appeals involving collateral legal consequences is not limited to criminal cases. A civil appeal is not moot when the challenged judgment may cause collateral legal consequences for the appellant.\u201d In re A.K., 360 N.C. 449, 453, 628 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2006).\nIn the present case, plaintiff argues: \u201cHere, the conduct of the parties has not been ruled on at all. If the conduct is illegal, the litigants and the public are entitled to a final ruling, and the adverse legal consequence is to leave allegations of misconduct unresolved.\u201d (Emphasis added.) She continues: \u201cThis clarification is necessary and needed because the [State Board] has regretfully failed to follow the evidence it unearthed and has failed to make a determination as to the \u2018coordinated contribution\u2019 issue presented in this matter.\u201d However, plaintiff also asserts that she does not want this Court to \u201cmake a ruling that Fairjudges.net and the North.Carolina Democratic Party did something wrong so that they can be punished, but rather, is seeking a declaration to whether the coordination between the two entities constituted contributions to the Hudson campaign triggering [plaintiff\u2019s] right to rescue funds.\u201d (Emphasis added.) In other words, in support of plaintiff\u2019s contention that the issue before this Court is subject to the \u201ccollateral legal consequences of an adverse nature\u201d exception, plaintiff asserts that she is seeking a declaratory judgment regarding \u201cunresolved\u201d \u201callegations of misconduct\u201d \u201cof the parties,\u201d but alleges \u201cmisconduct\u201d and \u201cillegality]\u201d only on the part of FairJudges.Net and the North Carolina Democratic Party \u2014 neither of whom are parties to this action. Therefore, we are not persuaded by plaintiff\u2019s assertion that \u201cleav[ing] allegations of misconduct\u201d or alleged \u201cillegality]\u201d of non-parties \u201cunresolved\u201d requires a determination by this Court that the trial court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s remaining claim \u201ccan reasonably be expected to result\u201d in collateral legal consequences of an adverse nature in this matter. See Smith ex rel. Smith, 145 N.C. App. at 436, 549 S.E.2d at 914 (internal quotation marks omitted).\nC.\nFinally, plaintiff contends the remaining issue in Count II of her Complaint is excepted from the mootness doctrine because it falls within the \u201cpublic interest\u201d exception. Again, we disagree.\n\u201cEven if moot, . . . this Court may, if it chooses, consider a question that involves a matter of public interest, is of general importance, and deserves prompt resolution.\u201d N.C. State Bar v. Randolph, 325 N.C. 699, 701, 386 S.E.2d 185, 186 (1989) (per curiam). However, as discussed above, the relief plaintiff seeks in this case is an answer to the question of whether FairJudges.Net\u2019s alleged \u201ccoordination\u201d with the North Carolina Democratic Party frustrated her efforts to obtain rescue funds from the Public Campaign Fund in the 2006 General Election. Since N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 163-278.66 and 163-278.67 have since been amended and now require the State Board to consider disbursements for the type of communications which gave rise to the underlying action \u2014 making no exception from the issuance of rescue funds for those disbursements that are \u201ccoordinated\u201d with a political party\u2014 we conclude that the question presented by plaintiff to this Court is not of such public interest as to except this matter from the mootness doctrine. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err when it determined that the remaining issue in plaintiffs Complaint is moot, and further hold that the matter does not fall within any of the three exceptions to the mootness doctrine as asserted by plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s order is affirmed. Our disposition of this appeal renders it unnecessary to address plaintiff\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and WALKER concur.\n. The term \u201crescue funds\u201d is used throughout this opinion, since the term appeared in the text of the statutes at issue at the time this action began. However, the General Assembly has since amended Chapter 163 \u201cby deleting the term \u2018rescue\u2019 wherever it appears and substituting the term \u2018matching.\u2019 \u201d See 2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 1622, ch. 510, \u00a7 1(c).", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Shanahan Law Group, PLLC, by Rieran J. Shanahan and John E. Branch, III, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Mark A. Davis, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ANN MARIE CALABRIA, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, LARRY LEAKE, GENEVIEVE SIMS, LORRAINE SHINN, CHARLES WINFREE, and ROBERT CORDLE, Defendants\nNo. COA08-1269\n(Filed 4 August 2009)\nElections\u2014 rescue funds \u2014 changes in statutes \u2014 mootness\nThe trial court correctly dismissed a case in which plaintiff conceded an election, did not dispute that she is no longer entitled to receive rescue funds from the State Board, did not dispute that her claim was subject to the mootness doctrine, and none of the exceptions to that doctrine applied. Amendments to statutes have addressed the issues raised in plaintiff\u2019s complaint, so that the exceptions for repetition and public interest did not apply, and the adverse collateral consequences exception did not apply because the unresolved allegations of misconduct relied upon by plaintiff involved entities that were not parties to the action.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 21 May 2008 by Judge James C. Spencer, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 May 2009.\nShanahan Law Group, PLLC, by Rieran J. Shanahan and John E. Branch, III, for plaintiff-appellant.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Mark A. Davis, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0550-01", "first_page_order": 576, "last_page_order": 585 }