Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Too Long a Litigation, Over Too Little:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_14-2008_12_20.shtml#1229749966
Six years ago, the Rhode Island Republican Party aired a campaign
commercial that the State Board of Elections claimed violated campaign
finance laws. The details of the alleged violation are in
[1]yesterday's Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion on the subject, but
what struck me as most interesting is the court did with it. Here's a
court's discussion of the remedies available at this date, after six
years of slow litigation, and what should be done as a result:
[I]f the board concludes that either party violated the state�s
election laws, the remaining remedies available to the board at
this late date are so insignificant and of such minimal import as
to warrant the dismissal of this case in its entirety....
With respect to alleged violations of the contribution and
expenditures provisions, § 17- 25-13(a) provides that �[a]ny
person who willfully and knowingly violates the provisions of this
chapter shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) per
violation.� General Laws 1956 § 12-12-17(c) sets the statute of
limitations for a misdemeanor at three years, a period that expired
long ago.
However, �[t]he fact that one remedy... may have been rendered moot
does not affect the viability of the case or the remaining
remedies.� Section 17-25-13(b) allows the board independently to
impose a fine of up to $100 for each violation of the provisions of
chapter 25 of title 17. Thus, whether the advertisement constitutes
a single offense or a separate violation for each of the few times
that it was aired, the available remedy is de minimis.
There is much wisdom in the ancient maxim, �de minimis non curat
lex.� (The law does not concern itself with trifles.). In view of
what little remains at stake in this case and the negligible impact
a decision would have on the parties, it would be jurisprudentially
unwise for us to venture into the thicket of constitutional
interpretation and statutory construction that surrounded this case
when it was in its infancy. The advertisement at issue was aired
for only six days, and the Republican Party immediately complied
with the cease-and-desist order, raising the question whether any
sanction is appropriate.
The board�s remaining remedy ... permits referral of alleged
violations to the Attorney General for civil enforcement. It has
been six years since the advertisement aired and the board has not
referred this matter to the Attorney General for any type of
action, civil or criminal. The board failed to act on the special
counsel�s recommendation to refer to the Attorney General the
alleged campaign contribution violation, notwithstanding the fact
that the trial justice�s order specifically permitted the board to
transfer any documents or information in its possession to the
Attorney General.
In light of this exceptional context and the painful travel of this
controversy, this case no longer presents a sufficiently genuine
case or controversy to warrant further review, and it is our
judgment that it should therefore be dismissed. To remand this aged
case to the board for further proceedings would require this Court
to decide the constitutional issues raised by the parties. We would
have to wade into an ocean of First Amendment law that has become
even more voluminous and complex since the events that gave rise to
this case first occurred. In light of the little that remains at
stake in this case and the negligible impact (if any) that a
decision would have on the parties, we decline to embark on such a
journey of constitutional adjudication....
The advertisement that is at the heart of this dispute was aired
for several days in October 2002. Six years later, the potential
for a satisfactory resolution has long since passed; the stake that
each party has in the dispute has declined to virtual
insignificance -- leading us to wonder, what is left? The answer is
nothing. Accordingly, �we invoke our inherent power to �fashion an
appropriate remedy that would serve the ends of justice.�� In light
of the record before us, justice requires that we dismiss this
unending saga and assign this election to its place in history.
References
1. http://www.courts.ri.gov/supreme/pdf-files/07-220.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
