Was Kirkwood shooting a “disaster”? (UPDATED)
A compelling read in today’s paper visits Kirkwood on the city’s first council meeting since the fatal Feb. 7 shooting.
The meeting was filled with tensions as residents decried the decision to continue with an election for mayor that will feature only one name on the ballot - Councilman Art McDonnell.
The name of slain Councilman Connie Karr was removed from the ballot for mayor by court order earlier this month.
A group calling itself Kirkwood Coming Together for a Brighter Future is irked by the decision to continue with the election, claiming the council is using the shooting to consolidate their political power.
But, according to today’s story, Steven Garrett, attorney for the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, said it appears the city has no choice but to press on with the scheduled election.
State law allows for an election to be postponed in the event of a “disaster,” Garrett said. A candidate’s death, no matter how tragic, does not meet the legal definition, he said.
But is that accurate?
The statute in question, state code section 115.024, allows a local election board to lobby a panel of appeals court judges to postpone an election. Here’s how the law defines disaster:
…any catastrophic or natural disaster, statewide or nationwide emergency, man-made disaster, civil disorder, insurgency, bioterrorism attack, terrorist attack, or enemy attack.
Would a deadly rampage fit that description?
UPDATE: Garrett called me this afternoon to clarify the Election Board’s stance. The law, as he sees it, does more than require simply the occurrence of a disaster to postpone an election.
The event, Garrett says, has to actually interfere with the ability to hold the election on the scheduled day — like a storm or terrorist attack that would keep voters from getting to the polls.
“It doesn’t matter how horrible it is,” Garrett says. “The question is does it preclude you from having election.”
I would argue that the “man-made disaster” provision is the one that does apply in this case - the deaths of the candidate plus 4 other senior city officials in a single incident would seem to be a “disaster” of the magnitude contemplated by the State statute, particularly where the “disaster” has the effect of rendering an election a meaningless, noncontested event. That would seem to be exactly the result the legislature had in mind when it drafted the law. Its not the same as if a candidate had simply died of natural causes as he suggests - the loss of so many members of city government opens up a lot of issues and concerns that perhaps should result in a rescheduling of the election and the introduction of meaningful choices.
I am an attorney from Kansas City that has lobbied the legislature for many years. I know none of the parties involved in this matter unless you count Senator Gibbons or Representative Stream.
As difficult as I am certain it is for many to understand Mr. Garrett’s reading of the statute is likely the correct one. The statute is intended to address situations that effectively disenfranchise voters. In the past we have had candidates die. In no instance in Missouri that I can recall have we postponed an election because of it.
There is a way in my mind for the city to come together. Senator Gibbons and Representativde Stream could call all the interested parties together and explain that they want to move the city forward from this trajedy. They could defend the bravery of the city attorney for fighting off the assailent. They could defend Mr. Garrett’s reading of the statute which is correct. They could then ask all interested parties that in the interest of moving forward not backward that they support a bill that they will file in both houses of the legislature to amend the statute to allow for a later election at the August primary election. My bet is that the bill would sail through the legislature.
This is a classic example of the difference between law and justice. It is sad, but true, that in any tragic situation, there are those who stand ready to benefit through no unlawful action on their own part. Unless those who hold power in such situations act with altruistic, self-restraint and magnanimity, they will reap those benefits, but at the expense of community good-will. No matter what the law says, there is a choice to be made in this matter. I wouldn’t place a bet either way about how this will be resolved.