Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of American Samoa

Bartley v Fuimaono [2012] ASHC 54; AP 14-12 (12 December 2012)

OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2012)

LUCIA BARTLEY and ESTHER WALL,
Petitioners,

v.

SOLIAI TUIPINE FUIMAONO and FLORENCE VAILI SAULO,
Respondents.

High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

AP No. 14-12

December 12, 2012

[1] Election contest actions filed under A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0902 et seq. are precisely that: contests over the results of balloting on election-day. Only in those cases where petitioners clearly demonstrate some fraud or mistake resulting in ballot count underages or overages, or some other act or omission concerning the election that could have caused a different result in its outcome, is the Court then authorized to overturn the official election results and order a new election. Other matters, such as candidate eligibility, ballot forms, access to voter registration lists, and certain election campaign restrictions, although related to elections, are addressed by other statutory provisions that generally required the complaining party to seek administrative or judicial relief prior to the election.

[2] Separate and apart from the Court’s narrowly confined powers to address candidate, campaign, and election contest issues as civil actions, the Court also has jurisdiction to hear and decide criminal cases brought by American Samoa Government against individuals who have violated perjury, election fraud, and related misdemeanors set forth in A.S.C.A. §§ 6.1201 et seq.

[3] A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0302 and 6.0303 set forth the necessary procedures for a registered, qualified elector to challenge the eligibility of candidates for office.

[4] The Court’s jurisdiction to grant relief to qualified persons timely bringing election contest actions under A.S.C.A. § 6.0902 is limited in scope to correcting mistakes or misconduct occurring on election day that could have caused a different result in the outcome of that election. Other, separate and specific judicial relief is also statutorily provided for campaigns, ballot language, candidate qualifications, and related issues under separate statutes for qualified persons to timely petition the Court. The Court’s powers over elections and campaigns are, for the most part, limited, leaving to the qualified electors of this Territory their fundamental constitutional right to select by secret ballot their candidate of choice.

[5] Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, not the Court, to determine whether an elected candidate is seated in that bode.

Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice; WARD, Associate Justice; LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge; and FA’AMAUSILI, Associate Judge.