ST. CROIX — A mediated settlement agreement reached Thursday between the Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands and two elections officials is being challenged, after several members of the Virgin Islands Board of Elections raised questions about whether their chair had the authority to sign it, according to a court filing.
Attorney Peter Lynch, who represents the Democratic Party, filed an emergency motion Friday asking Chief Judge Robert Molloy for a telephonic status conference later the same day, citing emails he received that morning from individual board members suggesting the agreement was somehow invalid or illegal because Raymond Williams, board chair, had signed it without the board’s approval.
Lynch said the emails, which also copied Assistant Attorney General Ariel Smith-Francois, who represents Williams and Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes in the case, appeared to signal an anticipatory breach of the agreement.
“There’s talk of not honoring the agreement,” Lynch said. “We’re going to make sure that we can get everything nailed down and get everyone singing the same tune. Whether it be by phone conference or by a motion to enforce, it will go forward.”
Smith-Francois filed an opposition to Lynch’s motion Friday, arguing that no court intervention was necessary. She contended that the board was not a party to the litigation and that no board action was required to fulfill the settlement other than agreeing to the dismissal. She stated that the concerns raised by individual board members were communicated inappropriately directly to Lynch and amounted to an internal board matter that is not the subject of any case or controversy that would require court intervention. She added that all actionable items under the settlement had been approved by Fawkes in her capacity as supervisor of elections and representative of the Elections System, and that Fawkes had acted well within her authority.
Lynch said the urgency of his motion stems from the tight timeline built into the settlement agreement in advance of the primary election.
The Democratic Party sued Williams and Fawkes in their official capacities, as well as the Elections System, arguing that elections officials had moved forward with their own procedures for the 2026 primary without implementing a party-adopted plan that outlined how Democrats would vet and certify their own candidates. The party argued the certification process was protected by its First Amendment right of freedom of association.
A prehearing conference took place Tuesday ahead of a preliminary injunction hearing that was scheduled for Thursday. On Tuesday, Molloy suggested the conflict was less about legal disagreement and more about a lack of communication.
READ MORE: Judge orders mediation in Democratic Party lawsuit over 2026 primary election
Molloy ordered the parties into mediation on Thursday before the scheduled preliminary injunction hearing. The parties resolved the dispute by reaching an agreement over coordination of the party’s candidate certification process ahead of the August 1 primary election.
READ MORE: VI Democratic Party and Elections System reach agreement, resolving primary election lawsuit
Lynch said he remains confident the agreement will hold and that courts have clear authority to require parties to adhere to settlements they have signed.
“I think we can get the court to require the parties to adhere to a settlement agreement to which they signed,” he said. “I think it would be a simple process to make that happen.”
He indicated in his motion that the mediation order had been explicit that participants needed to attend with full decision-making authority. He stated that Williams had done so as the board’s authorized representative, noting any internal problems within the board should not be allowed to impact the need for the board to comply with the signed agreement.
Lynch said he also hoped the board would resolve its internal disagreement on its own, without requiring the court to intervene.
“Just like we have asked the government to steer clear of the Democratic Party’s internal processes, I want to give them the respect to which they’re entitled and allow them to deal with their internal processes,” he said. “I’m hopeful they will resolve them without coming to a motion to enforce.”
Lynch said the urgency of his motion stems from the tight timeline built into the settlement agreement in advance of the primary election. Under the terms reached Thursday, the Elections System is required to provide the Democratic Party with a list of candidates who submitted nomination petitions by May 19, notify the party of those who qualify by May 25, and receive the party’s certified slate by May 27.
Lynch said his next step would be to watch for any concrete action inconsistent with the agreement before deciding whether to file a motion to enforce.
“We’re hoping this will go forward and the agreement will be honored,” he said.
Molloy had not yet ruled on the motions as of publication time.
