FSMC, TITLE 9. NATIONAL ELECTIONS
§ 901. Petition for recount. § 902. Filing time frames. § 903. Denial of petition -- Appeal to Supreme Court. § 904. Approval of
petition -- Notice of recount. § 905. Recount by counting and tabulating committee. § 906. Irregularities
not correctable by recount. § 901. Petition for
recount. (1) A
petition for recount may be filed by any candidate in an election who
believes that there was fraud or error committed in the casting,
canvassing, or return of the votes cast at said election. The petition shall be filed with
the National Election Director.
Such petition
shall contain a statement that the petitioner has reason to believe and
does believe that the records or copies of records made by the board of
election of such district are erroneous, specifying wherein he or she
deems such records or copies thereof to be in error, or that votes were
cast by persons not entitled to vote therein, and that he or she believes
that a recount of the ballots cast in the district will affect the
election of one or more candidates voted for at such election. (2) A
petition for a recount must be granted if the difference between the
number of votes cast for the winning candidate and the next highest
candidate is one-half of one percent or less of the total votes cast for
all of the candidates for that particular seat. Source:
PL 2-73 § 901; amended by PL 5-70 § 16; PL 8-97 § 25.
Case annotations
:
A decision whether to grant or deny a recount is not an everyday
decision, but a large question affecting the public interest profoundly
and involving fundamental policy considerations. Olter v. National Election
Comm'r, 3 FSM
Intrm. 123, 133 (App. 1987). The
statutory scheme of the National Election Code reflects far greater
concern that appropriate recounts be provided than that inappropriate
recounts be prevented. If a
recount is denied when it should have been granted, a grave risk is
presented to constitutional government. Olter v. National Election
Comm'r, 3 FSM
Intrm. 123, 138-39 (App. 1987). § 902. Filing time frames. A petition for a
recount must be filed within one week of certification of the results of
the election. Any other
petition challenging the acceptability of a vote or votes must be filed
prior to certification of the results of the election or within one week
of the election, whichever occurs first. The winning candidate shall have
one week to respond to the petition.
The National Election Director shall then have 10 days to decide
whether to approve the petition.
If the National Election Director
decides not to approve the petition, he shall record the reasons for such
decision. Source: PL 2-73 § 902; amended by PL 5-70 § 17; PL 8-97
§ 26.
Case
annotations
:
When an appellant seeks to have an election set aside and done over
due to irregularities not correctable by a recount the appeal is timely
filed if it is filed within one week of the certification of the results
of the election. This is the same filing time frame as for a recount. Aten v. National Election Comm'r
(I), 6 FSM Intrm. 38, 39 (App. 1993). By
statute, petitions to the National Election Director challenging the
acceptability of a vote or votes must be filed prior to certification of
the results of the election or within one week of the election, whichever
occurs first. Wiliander v. Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 156 (App.
1995). Where,
because election officials had not processed the absentee ballots until
nine and ten days after the election thus making it impossible to file a
petition concerning the acceptability of those ballots within the
statutory time frame of prior to certification of the results of the
election or within one week of the election, whichever occurs first, the
petition will still be considered timely if it is filed before
certification. Wiliander v. Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 157 (App. 1995). The
time frames established by statute for election petitions to the National
Election Director are short.
A candidate must be vigilant in asserting his rights to
petition. Wiliander v. Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 157
(App. 1995). Where
no action, or words, or silence of the National Election Director prior to
the appellant's initial petition misled the appellant into untimely filing
his petition after certification it does not give rise to an
estoppel. The Director's
later failure to raise the issue of untimeliness until his denial of the
petition was appealed to the Supreme Court does not give rise to an
estoppel. Wiliander v.
Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 157-58 (App. 1995). Deadlines
set by statute are generally jurisdictional. If the deadline has not been
strictly complied with the adjudicator is without jurisdiction over the
matter once the deadline has passed.
This applies equally to the National Election Director as a member
of an administrative agency (executive branch) hearing an appeal as it
does to a court hearing an appeal from an administrative agency. Thus the Director cannot extend
statutory time frames set by Congress. When the Director had not rendered
his decision within the statutorily-prescribed time limit it must be
considered a denial of the petition, and the petitioner could then have
filed his appeal in the Supreme Court. Wiliander v. Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 158 (App. 1995). § 903. Denial of petition -- Appeal to
Supreme Court. (1) The
aggrieved candidate may, within five days after receipt of the decision of
the National Election Director, appeal his case to the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court shall review the appeal to determine if the decision by the National
Election Director was: (a)
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law; (b) In excess
of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or a denial of legal
rights; (c)
Without substantial compliance with the procedures required by law;
or (d)
Unwarranted by the facts. If the decision is in favor of a recount, the
National Election Director shall be so notified and shall proceed as
provided in sections 904 and 905 of this title. (2)
Appeals may be had in the manner prescribed in section 902 and
subsection (1) of this section from any decision of the National Election
Director with respect to a challenge affecting the acceptability of a vote
or votes. A petition under
this section for appeal shall contain the information specified in section
901 of this title for a petition for a recount. A decision of
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner may
have the effect of disallowing the challenged votes but shall not halt or
delay balloting or counting and tabulating. Source: PL 2-73 § 903; amended by PL 5-70 § 18; PL 8-97 § 27. Case
annotations:
By
statute an aggrieved candidate in an election contest can only appeal to
the FSM Supreme Court after his petition to the National Election
Commissioner has been denied.
Kony v. Mori, 6 FSM
Intrm. 28, 30 (Chk. 1993). If
the possibility of double voting is alleged the burden is on the appellant
to show that it occurred. Aten v. National Election Comm'r
(II), 6 FSM
Intrm. 74, 78 (App. 1993). Deadlines
set by statute are generally jurisdictional. If the deadline has not been
strictly complied with the adjudicator is without jurisdiction over the
matter once the deadline has passed.
This applies equally to the National Election Director as a member
of an administrative agency (executive branch) hearing an appeal as it
does to a court hearing an appeal from an administrative agency. Thus the Director cannot extend
statutory time frames set by Congress. When the Director had not rendered
his decision within the statutorily-prescribed time limit it must be
considered a denial of the petition, and the petitioner could then have
filed his appeal in the Supreme Court. Wiliander v. Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 158 (App. 1995). Generally
speaking, elections are conducted and carried out and administered by the
executive and legislative branches.
Courts do not have a primary position in that traditional
scheme. The election law
states the time at which the court has the right of entertaining an appeal
from the final action of the National Election Director. Wiliander v. Siales,
7 FSM Intrm. 77, 79 (Chk. 1995). Congress's
intended that the election appeal process be timely and expeditious. This is especially important in a
year in which the newly elected Congress selects the President and Vice
President of the nation from among its members. Wiliander v. Mallarme, 7 FSM Intrm. 152, 161
(App. 1995). § 904. Approval of petition -- Notice of recount. If the National Election Director determines that there is a
substantial question of fraud or error and that there is a substantial
possibility that the outcome of the election would be affected by a
recount, he or she shall cause notice of the recount to be given in an
appropriate manner. Source: PL 2-73 §
904; amended by PL 5-70 § 19;
PL 8-97 § 28. Case
annotations
:
To interpret 9 FSMC 904, the FSM Supreme Court should apply a
two-prong test. The first
prong is whether there is a "substantial question or fraud or error" and
the second prong is whether there is "substantial possibility that the
outcome would be affected by a recount." Olter v. National Election
Comm'r, 3 FSM
Intrm. 123, 136-37 (App. 1987). The
statutory scheme of the National Election Code strongly suggests that
Congress intended the word "substantial" in 9 FSMC 904 to be applied
liberally, so that in the event of doubt, a recount would be
available. Olter v. National Election Comm'r, 3 FSM Intrm. 123,
138 (App. 1987). § 905. Recount by counting and tabulating committee. The recount shall be
held by the counting and tabulating committee within ten days after the
decision of the National Election Director. The counting and tabulating
committee shall make certificates of such determination under oath showing
the result of the election and what persons were declared elected to fill
office, one of which shall be filed with the National Election Director,
one with each board of election concerned, and one with the person filing
the petition for recount. The person
receiving the greatest number of votes shall be deemed to have been
elected, but if two or more candidates shall receive an equal number of
votes for the office, the tie vote shall be resolved in accordance with
section 811 of this title. Source: PL 2-73 § 905; amended by PL 8-97 §
29. § 906. Irregularities not correctable by recount. In the event of
election irregularities which cannot be corrected by recount, a candidate
may petition for an election to be set aside and done over, either in a
district as a whole or in the portion thereof where the irregularities
took place. The procedures
for the filing of such petition, action thereon, and appeal of its denial
shall be the same as such procedures for a petition for recount. A petition made pursuant to this
section shall not be granted unless the petitioner proves it is more
likely than not that the irregularities complained of could have resulted
in the election of a candidate who would not have won had the
irregularities not occurred. Source: PL
5-70 §
20. Case
annotations
:
That the results of the election would have
been changed but for the alleged irregularities is not the correct
formulation of the ground for a revote. Aten v. National Election Comm'r (II), 6 FSM Intrm. 74, 79 (App. 1993). When
the National Election Commissioner's decision concerning election
irregularities is appealed to the FSM Supreme Court the Appellate Division
must decide whether the National Election Commissioner's decision is
proper, and if not, whether the irregularities complained of could have
resulted in the election of a candidate who would not have won had the
irregularities not occurred.
Aten v. National Election
Comm'r (II), 6 FSM
Intrm. 74, 81 (App. 1993). Where election irregularities cannot be corrected by a recount the election, in whole or in part, can be set aside and done over only if it is more likely than not that the irregularities complained of could have, not necessarily would have, resulted in the election of a candidate who would not have won had the irregularities not occurred. Aten v. National Election Comm'r (II), 6 FSM Intrm. 74, 82 (App. 1993).
|
||