ST. CROIX — A District Court judge has handed down a memorandum opinion dismissing a legal challenge by aspiring candidate for delegate to Congress Jed Johnhope, who sought a spot on the primary election ballot after falling short of the signature requirements.
Senior Judge Timothy Savage, in a memorandum opinion filed Monday, concluded that Virgin Islands election officials did not violate local law or the Constitution by refusing to place JohnHope on the ballot.
JohnHope, who began collecting signatures about six hours before the May 19 submission deadline and obtained 27 of the required 200, claimed election officials violated local and federal law by refusing to apply a Virgin Islands statutory provision that gives aspiring candidates three days to cure defects in their nomination petitions, according to the court’s background findings. Savage concluded the provision does not apply to JohnHope because his facially incomplete petition did not meet the baseline threshold for review and opportunity to cure.
Because his submission failed to meet the baseline statutory threshold, Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes sought legal advice from the Virgin Islands Attorney General’s Office. Acting on that advice, Fawkes notified JohnHope on May 20 that his application was rejected for failing to meet the minimum signature requirement.
READ MORE: Jed JohnHope disqualified from running for delegate to Congress; 97 signatures short on STX petition
When JohnHope attempted to submit additional signatures on May 29, the Election System of the Virgin Islands rejected them. JohnHope subsequently appealed his disqualification to the Board of Elections, which Board Chairman Raymond Williams upheld in a letter dated June 12. JohnHope filed a civil action against Fawkes and Williams on June 22.
READ MORE: Jed JohnHope alleges constitutional violations in federal lawsuit against election officials
JohnHope, who moved for summary judgment, argued that under the Virgin Islands Code, Title 18, Section 411(c), he should have been issued a Notice of Defect and given three days to collect the necessary signatures. He argued that election officials violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection as well as local law by failing to issue a Notice of Defect and granting him three days to secure remaining signatures.
The court rejected this interpretation, denying his motion and granting summary judgment for the defendants because JohnHope’s claim fails as a matter of law. The court found JohnHope did not submit a nomination petition for the purposes of 411(c) because his submission did not meet the baseline requirements for a nomination paper under Section 381(b), noting he needed 200 signatures and had 27. Savage wrote that a candidate cannot simply turn in a completely blank application and automatically trigger a three-day statutory extension to bypass deadlines.
Additionally, JohnHope argued the defendants violated his due process rights by failing to hold a hearing before stripping him of his “entitlement to ballot placement.” The court disagreed, noting JohnHope’s alleged deprivation of ballot access was caused by his failed eleventh-hour attempt to file a complete application rather than the defendants’ refusal to apply section 411(c) or a lack of due process in his appeal.
Finally, the court dismissed JohnHope’s equal protection argument, in which he claimed he received differential treatment compared to other aspirants he contended also lacked the required number of “qualified” voter signatures. The court found JohnHope did not identify similarly situated aspirants who received different treatment, noting those aspirants submitted timely nomination papers with over 100 signatures from each election district that included affidavits stating the signatures were of qualified electors.
