6 NICS App. 45, IN RE THE ELECTION OF 2000 (May 2001)
IN THE SAUK-SUIATTLE TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN RESERVATION
DARRINGTON, WASHINGTON
In re the Election of 2000
No. SAU-Ci-12/00-009 (May 18, 2001)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court ordered certification of election results. Appellants claimed trial court erred in failing to recognize certain ballots and in allowing an ex parte contact. Court of Appeals holds that tribal Election Ordinance provision that the “decision of the [trial] court shall be final” deprives the Court of Appeals of subject matter jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed and trial court order reinstated.
Before: Elizabeth Fry, Chief Justice; Yvonne Leveque Kobluk, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.
Appearances: Nancy A. DeCoteau, James L. Joseph, Norma A. Joseph, Eveline Matory, Appellants.
OPINION
This matter came before the Sauk Suiattle Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Appellants Nancy A. DeCoteau, James L. Joseph, Norma A. Joseph, and Eveline Matory on December 27, 2000.
BACKGROUND
Appellants appeal from the trial court Order on Election Protests dated December 21, 2000. The Order directed the Election Board to certify the election which was held December 9, 2000. The notice of appeal addressed two errors: (1) the failure to recognize thirteen votes as votes cast as a “special election poll’ versus votes cast as absentee ballots, and (2) ex parte contact by the trial court judge with an individual not a party to the action.
After reviewing the appellants’ brief the appellate court heard oral arguments on January 26, 2001. On February 7, 2001, Chief Justice Elizabeth Fry issued this Court’s decision in a Minute Order which stated that this Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction and,
6 NICS App. 45, IN RE THE ELECTION OF 2000 (May 2001) p. 46
accordingly, reinstated the trial court order of December 21, 2000. The Minute Order also noted that a Memorandum Opinion would be filed at a later date. This Court’s final Opinion and Order follows.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement which must be met before any court may review a matter before it. If a court determines it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction, it does not have the authority to address the merits of the case. Neither the Sauk Suiattle Law & Order Code nor the Sauk Suiattle Election Ordinance grants this Appellate Court authority to hear appeals from the trial court’s decision regarding election protests.
The Law & Order Code is silent with regard to the Appellate Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals arising under the Election Ordinance. The Sauk Suiattle Election Ordinance, however, contains clear provisions governing the resolution of election disputes:
The Chief Judge of Sauk-Suiattle Trial Court or his or her appointee shall have authority to decide the issues presented, in keeping with this ordinance. The Court shall take every reasonable measure within its power to resolve the dispute, including ordering a new election if necessary, prior to the first Friday in January.
. . .
The court shall order a new election only if the weight of the evidence shows that a violation of the laws of Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe has occurred and the violation is likely to affect the outcome of the election. The decision of the court shall be final. Election Ordinance, §35. [Emphasis added].
The intent of §35 is clear. In order to avoid prolonging election results, it provides for a quick resolution of election protests, including the ordering of a new election, when necessary, “prior to the first Friday in January.” As a further safeguard against protracted election proceedings, §35 intends the trial court to be the court of final resort, and the trial court decision to be the final decision. The clear and express language of §35 precludes further review by an appellate body.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, this Court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, this Court cannot address the merits of this case. Thus, as previously ordered in this Court’s February 7, 2001 Minute Order, it is hereby ordered that the trial court decision of December 21, 2000 is reinstated as though there were no appeal filed.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.