The Christian County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC) has brought a lawsuit against Paula Brumfield, the Christian County Clerk.
Filed on June 27, 2024, the Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus (case number 24CT-CC00197) asks that the Court prohibit “the Clerk of Christian County, Paula Brumfield, or anyone acting on her behalf or under her authority, from accepting the candidacy of or including on any official printed ballot the names of Susan Pathkiller and Brent Young as candidates for Christian County elective office and/or to the extent that the Clerk has already accepted such candidacy and/or printed such ballots, she must be mandated to reject such candidacy and remove such names from the ballot.”
The lawsuit is spurred by the newly implemented (late 2023) Republican Party vetting process.
“It all started back when we realized that people were running under our Republican name who weren’t Republicans,” said Don Carriker, Chairman of the Christian County Republican Central Committee. “At the 2022 Lincoln Days, the Central Committee Chairpeople got together to try to find a way to stop this from happening. We formed Republican Association of Central Committees (REPACCMO). Sheriffs have an association, county clerks have an association, we thought we needed one, too. After we had multiple meetings all over the state, we decided it was important that we start vetting our Republican candidates.
“We found out through the law that (Missouri State Statute) 115.357 says we have the ability to accept filing fees; we’re the ones who accept them, not the clerks,” Carriker added. “It says the clerks can collect them, but they collect them for us. We’re a private Party, we can reject anybody we want.”
The lawsuit against the Christian County Clerk follows an almost identical one filed against the Vernon County Clerk in May of this year.
“We ran a lawsuit through Vernon County for the same thing against their court for the clerk trying to decide who gets to run as Republican and who doesn’t, when it’s actually the Party’s private business,” Carriker said. “Vernon County went through the process. The first court case (decided) they needed to be taken off, the appeals court said they couldn’t be because it was too late. If it’s eight weeks prior to the election, you cannot remove or add anybody on that ballot.”
CCRCC is using RSMo. 115.357 to support its case. According to the statute (RSMo. 115.357.5), “no candidate’s name shall be printed on any official ballot until the required fee has been paid.” CCRCC is contending that the two particular candidates in question for Christian County (Pathkiller and Young) never paid their fees to the county committee, and therefore, should not be on the ballot representing the Republican Party.
Pathkiller and Young are running for Public Administrator and Western District Commissioner, respectively, and are not currently vetted Republicans, which is why the CCRCC exercised its right as a private Party to not accept their fees.
“The people who are voting need to know that this person is the best person we can have represent our party,” Carriker said. “If you are a Republican — people need to be proud to be able to say, ‘I’m a Republican; I believe in the Party platform, I know what it is, I want people to represent it fairly and equitably.’”
According to Carriker, Pathkiller has declined to be vetted and Young failed the vetting survey. Carriker noted that the CCRCC would love to be able to back both candidates.
“Brent is a good person,” Carriker said. “But, he failed the survey. He failed the vetting and he should not be running as a Republican. If he learns what a Republican is and wants to try again at another election, he can go for it. You’re not kicked out for life. You can learn what it means to be a Republican and be a good representative of the Party.”
Carriker also noted that the CCRCC is not trying to get candidates removed from the ballot completely — just removed from running as a Republican if they are not vetted Republicans.
“Nobody has the right to stop somebody from running for office,” Carriker said. “If you’re going to put a letter by your name, though, it has to mean something. It should mean that you’re a good representative — the best — of the party.
“The people who are involved (and interested) in politics and pay attention can learn whether somebody is a Republican or a Democrat by talking to them in person, going to events, or watching them in interviews and things like that. But the general public, they may spend five minutes before the election deciding who they want to vote for, and they may even vote based on how many signs they saw for one person or another,” Carriker added. “When you buy an Apple product, you know what to expect. When people vote for a Republican, they need to know that they’re going to get the party platform. You need to be able to trust what’s on the ballot. If it says R, you need to know it’s a Republican, not that it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The clerk doesn’t get to decide that. It’s not their job, it’s the party’s job.”
For Carriker, the whole lawsuit is “politics and laws,” and is not a personal attack.
“(Paula and I) agreed at the beginning, she and I both knew this was going to have to come to court. She’s being told by lawyers one thing, we’re being told by lawyers and law another,” he said. “It’s an interpretation of the law. Statute 115.357 is not clear, it’s not a well-written law. The party gets the money. If we don’t accept the money, they shouldn’t be running to represent us. Before people started filing, we told Paula that we will be having a vetting process and (candidates) must pass the vetting process; if they don’t, then we will not accept their filing fee and they cannot be on the ballot. We knew it was going to end up in court because of the way the law is written. And here we are.”
Brumfield filed a motion to dismiss on July 17, claiming the case as moot, wherein the CCRCC’s (Proposed Relator) position was said to present a “potential Pandora’s Box of issues for Clerks, political parties and candidates alike.”
The motion continued: “Regardless, however, the Court need not grapple with those issues at this juncture as the Western District has already determined that such a challenge at this stage in the process is moot and subject to dismissal.”
According to RSMo. 115.125.3, the Respondent also noted, no changes can be made to a ballot less than eight weeks out from the date of an election. The motion, additionally, questioned why the CCRCC waited so long to file a lawsuit when they expected the problem to come up at some point.
“If Proposed Relator claims, as Respondent suspects he will, that this case can continue by virtue of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, the Western District has already determined that the exception does not apply,” read the motion to dismiss. “While this may be an issue of general public interest, and it may potentially recur, it is not an issue that will evade review in future live controversies.”
Carriker realizes that since the election is just under two weeks away, it is not possible to make any changes to the ballot.
“It’s a moot point, at this point, but we’re looking for damages for the next election,” he said. “We want to have this go through to the Supreme Court of Missouri and have them make a judgment that states that the county clerk cannot decide for the party who is on the ballot as a party representative. They can run as an independent, that’s not a problem, anybody can do that. We just don’t want them representing us if they don’t meet the criteria high enough to be able to represent the party.”
