ST. CROIX — A federal judge has dismissed Brett “Mac” McClafferty’s lawsuit challenging his disqualification as an independent candidate for delegate to Congress, ruling that his constitutional claims fail as a matter of law while declining to resolve key questions of Virgin Islands election law.
District Judge Evan Rikhye issued the ruling Tuesday, granting a motion to dismiss filed by Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes and Board of Elections Chairman Raymond Williams.
McClafferty filed the lawsuit July 8 after the Board voted 7-2, with one abstention, to uphold Fawkes’ June 15 decision disqualifying him from the November ballot.
READ MORE: Board of Elections upholds Brett McClafferty, Ida Smith disqualifications during contentious meeting
McClafferty argued that Fawkes exceeded her authority by investigating complaints about his nomination petitions after election officials had determined he had cured deficiencies in his initial submission. He also argued that the investigation and his subsequent disqualification violated his constitutional rights.
Rikhye dismissed McClafferty’s first two claims, involving Virgin Islands election law, without prejudice. The judge said they raise a novel question of local law: whether the supervisor of elections can reopen a completed petition examination after the cure period has expired and disqualify a candidate based on citizen complaints.
Rather than decide that issue, Rikhye declined to exercise federal jurisdiction over the claims, saying they are better addressed by the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.
Rikhye pointed to 18 V.I.C. § 411(a), which provides that when the identity or capacity of a petition signer appears doubtful or is challenged by a citizen, the supervisor or deputy supervisor must hold a public hearing within three days after the close of the nomination period.
The judge said the statute gives the supervisor investigative authority but also establishes a procedure and deadline that the defendants had not adequately explained.
“Defendants have not explained why the continuing authority recognized under § 411(b) permits an examination under § 411(a) conducted months later and without the hearing the subsection prescribes,” Rikhye wrote.
But Rikhye declined to decide the issue, saying it presents a question of Virgin Islands law that is better addressed by the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.
Rikhye dismissed with prejudice McClafferty’s constitutional claim that his disqualification imposed an additional qualification for the congressional office.
The judge said Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes qualifications for members of the House of Representatives, does not apply to the Virgin Islands delegate position because the delegate is a statutory office created by Congress.
Rikhye also rejected the argument that the signature requirement itself constituted an unconstitutional qualification, saying signature verification is a condition for ballot placement rather than a substantive qualification for office.
The judge dismissed McClafferty’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice. Rikhye rejected McClafferty’s challenge to the territory’s requirement that independent candidates obtain at least 100 signatures from each election district, calling it a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction on ballot access.
The judge also said McClafferty had not identified another candidate who was treated differently or alleged intentional discrimination.
However, Rikhye said he was “concerned about the lack of transparency” in Fawkes’ investigation and the Board’s proceedings.
McClafferty alleged that his petitions had already been examined and accepted before Fawkes reopened the matter based on complaints, that the certification deadline was postponed twice, and that he was not given an opportunity to confront the complainants before the Board upheld his disqualification.
“By contrast, the defendants characterize this as routine election administration, and perhaps it was,” Rikhye wrote. “But the court need not resolve that factual dispute because even accepting every factual allegation McClafferty makes, his claim does not survive legal scrutiny.”
Rikhye also considered an August 24 advisory opinion from Attorney General Gordon Rhea concerning election law and candidate certification. The judge said the opinion was issued after the events surrounding McClafferty’s disqualification and therefore should not be used to judge the actions of Fawkes and the Board based on guidance that did not exist at the time.
Rikhye's ruling also makes clear that he did not rely on testimony presented during an August 26 evidentiary hearing when deciding the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That hearing included testimony from Williams, Board member Barbara LaRonde, Fawkes and two of McClafferty’s petition circulators.
READ MORE: McClafferty’s petition circulators give murky testimony, as judge orders both sides to file briefs
McClafferty’s civil RICO claim had already been voluntarily dismissed. Rikhye also denied McClafferty’s request for a preliminary injunction as moot because the dismissal terminated the federal case.
McClafferty said Tuesday he does not plan to appeal the decision.
“This is the end of the road for us at this time, we will respect the federal court’s decision to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over local Virgin Islands law,” McClafferty said in a statement. “I have no plans to appeal. We fought the good fight, and in the process, we got the attorney general of the Virgin Islands to issue a legal opinion that brings clarity to a very murky area of local law. That same legal opinion establishes a right to due process for all candidates, and if my lawsuit accomplished that — then that’s a victory for the people of the Virgin Islands. I wish all of the candidates well in upcoming general election.”
