Borton vs. Barton case axed

The case filed by citizen Garrett Borton against Weston County Commissioner Tony Barton, which questioned his ability to serve in the office due to his residency in Crook County, has been dismissed by Sixth Judicial District Court Judge James Michael Causey. 
Borton and Barton appeared in court on March 31 when Causey heard their position on the summary dismissal, after  a residency requirement dispute was filed by Borton on Oct. 26, 2021. 
The claim asserted that Barton was no longer eligible to serve as a Weston County commissioner after he moved to Crook County. 
Borton asked that the judge grant injunctive relief, prohibiting Barton from voting as a commissioner. The action also asked that “any and all financial compensation to Tony Barton that is provided to qualified and voting electors of Weston County be halted.” 
Borton acted as his own counsel throughout the case. 
Since his move to the neighboring county in October 2020, Barton has asserted that he has the right to remain on the commission until his term expires. 
Barton’s attorneys, Samuel R. Yemington and Kasey J. Benish, who are associated with the Cheyenne firm Holland and Hart, asked for a dismissal of the case filed by Borton in documents filed on Dec. 16. 
They argued that the phrase “qualified elector,” a term used throughout Borton’s case, is unambiguously defined by statute, asserting that Barton met the definition when elected, and that recent legislation to update residency requirements for elected officials supports the claim that Barton is eligible to fulfill
his term. 
They further contended that the relief requested by Borton is not permitted by Wyoming law because there is a “specific statutory method by which Plaintiff (Borton) should have sought to remove Defendant (Barton) as a commissioner,” court records say.
On June 1, Judge Causey filed documents supporting Barton’s claims and dismissing the case. According to court documents, the judge cited “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 
“The parties’ disagreement centers on the phrase ‘qualified elector’ as used in the statutes and how that phrase is to be interpreted pursuant to the relevant law,” the documents say. 
At the time of Barton’s election, according to the dismissal documents, the phrase “qualified elector” “includes every citizen of the United States who is a bona fide resident of Wyoming, has registered to vote and will be at least eighteen years of age on the day of the election.” It also states that “qualified elector” “does not include anyone who is currently adjudicated a mentally incompetent person, or who has been convicted of a felony and his civil or voting rights have not been restored.” 
Causey notes that while Borton is correct that statutes should be read together as a whole, his argument that residency requirements exist because of other statutes is incorrect. He stated that statutes setting forth the qualifications for county commissioners did not contain residency requirements until 2021, nor does the statute defining qualified electors contain residency requirements. 
“Because the court must follow, and not extend, statutory definitions, Plaintiff (Borton) can prove no set of facts that support his claim which would entitle him relief, and Defendant’s (Barton) motion for summary dismissal should be granted,” Causey says in the court records. 
Causey also dismissed the matter with prejudice meaning that the “court intends for that dismissal to be final in all courts, and that res judicata should bar that claim from being reasserted in another court,” according to law.cornell.edu.
Now in his second term, Barton’s seat is up for reelection in 2022, but because he is no longer a resident of Weston County, he is no longer eligible to run for office in the county. Borton has filed for election to the office of county commission, and his name will appear on the primary election ballot.