‘Short time limit to file election protest was to avoid confusion’

Any adjustment to the time period given candidates to contest an election is vested solely with the Legislature, according to Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo.

“Although there might be some contrary authority, special state statutes of limitation for election contests are applied strictly,” said Govendo in a written order he issued on Wednesday dismissing the election challenge of defeated Rota mayor candidate, Vicente Manglona Atalig.

“A short time period for bringing an action contesting an election reflects the legislature’s strong desire to avoid election uncertainty and the confusion and prejudice which can come in its wake,” he said.

The judge pointed out that the CNMI election contest provisions are designed to resolve election disputes as quickly as possible.

“One of the rationales behind these provisions is to fill the contested elective office at the earliest opportunity, which maintains the public’s confidence in the elective process,” he said.

Govendo added that it is paramount not to bring the workings of the government to a screeching halt while election results are picked over by attorneys and litigants.

“The statute governing this proceeding is very explicit, seven days to file a complaint means just that, seven days,” he said.

Govendo said Atalig has failed to bring his contest within the required time limits.

The Commonwealth Election Commission counted and certified the absentee ballots for the election on Nov. 19, 2005 or 14 days after the general election.

Atalig’s lawsuit sought a court action to count the 72 unopened ballot envelopes. He sued CEC and its commissioners.

Atalig, of the Republican Party, also named as a real party in interest co-defendant Joseph Inos of the Covenant Party who got 11 more votes than him.

CEC, the commissioners, and Inos argued that Atalig’s claim should be time barred because the complaint was filed outside the seven-day time limit set forth in the statute.

They contended that Atalig knew all facts necessary to bring an action on Nov. 19, 2005 and at the very latest, Nov. 21, 2005.

Atalig, through counsel Stephen C. Woodruff, argued that he filed well within the time limits proscribed because the clock did not start to run until Nov. 28, 2005.

Woodruff also asserted that even if he was outside of the seven-day limitation, he was well within the 15 days contemplated by the statute.

Govendo disagreed with Atalig and issued on the bench an order dismissing the case.

On Monday, Atalig appealed to the CNMI Supreme Court.

Govendo issued the written order on Wednesday.

In his order, Govendo said the question of whether the court has jurisdiction arises from a statutory limitation on the right to file an election contest.

The Legislature, the judge said, in creating a statutory right to contest an election specifically provided a time limitation for the filing of that contest.

“Since the common law has made no provision for election contests, courts must follow the mandates carved out by statute, and the statutes permitting such election contests provide special statutory proceedings,” he said.

Govendo cited that the CNMI Supreme Court has held that “statutes governing election contests are to be strictly construed.”

Several courts have addressed the issue of timely filing and an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have held that the right to contest an election is purely statutory and the time limits in the statute must be strictly enforced, he said.

By waiting until Dec. 2, 2005 to file his compliant, Atalig surpassed the seven-day limit set forth in the statute, the judge noted.

“Because Atalig’s complaint was untimely, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter,” he said.