COLLINS v. CHAMBERS (2024)

Writ application denied.

It is a universal tenet that candidacies for elected office are favored, except in some countries like Russia and Iran where the field of candidates is restricted to assure a certain outcome (China doesn't even pretend).

The issue before the court is whether the two challenged candidates “falsely certified” concerning their taxes. The relevant inquiry is the state of mind of the candidates when the certification is made. The issue is not, in hindsight, whether taxes have been filed, mailed, transmitted, received, and/or rejected. There is an obvious difference between a candidate who has done nothing, and knows it, and one who in good faith believes his taxes have been filed when he or she so certifies. In this case during a six-hour trial, the two challenged candidates provided sworn testimony and objective evidence accepted by the trial court, which ruled in their favor. Judge Hunter was told by his CPA that his taxes had been filed. Ms. Chambers was told by TurboTax that she had a refund coming. It is the task of the trial court to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses. Without showing any error on the part of the trial court, this court merely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court, in contravention of established law.

Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., would grant the writ application.