Barton wants Borton case dismissed

Alexis Barker
NLJ News Editor
 
Commissioner Tony Barton continues to stand his ground, asserting his legal right to remain on the Board of Weston County Commissioners until the end of his term, and has asked the District Court for the Sixth Judicial District to dismiss the case for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Barton’s attorneys, Samuel R. Yemington and Kasey J. Benish, who are associated with the Cheyenne firm Holland and Hart, again requested that the case filed by Garrett Borton be dismissed in documents filed on Dec. 16. 
The suit against Barton was filed by Borton on Oct. 26. Since that time, both parties have submitted several responses to the allegations and requested relief to the issue presented. 
According to court documents, Borton is seeking an injunctive and declaratory relief concerning Barton’s qualification to function in the office of county commissioner that he is currently holding. 
As previously reported by the News Letter Journal, Borton did not ask that Barton be removed from his seat on the commission. He asked the judge for a temporary injunction, which per statute would be “a command to refrain from a particular act.” 
In Barton’s case, this would mean that Barton would have to refrain from voting as an elected official and that he no longer would receive financial compensation from the county. The petition further asks for a permanent injunction in which the court grants the requested relief. 
According to the documents filed on Nov. 18, Barton was elected on Nov. 6, 2018, by the voters of Weston County to serve a four-year term as commissioner and that the time to contest these results has lapsed. It further states that Barton took residency in Crook County on or about Oct. 29, 2020, and has continued to serve on the commission. His term ends on Jan. 2, 2023. 
In the newest set of documents filed on Dec. 16, Barton’s lawyers argue that the commissioner is a “qualified elector,” despite Borton’s claims that he is no longer an elector in Weston County. 
“Plaintiff Garrett Borton claims that Barton is not a Qualified Elector of Weston County, but rather, a Qualified Elector of Crook County, and therefore, ineligible to serve as a County Commissioner on the Weston County Board of County Commissioners,” the documents state. 
But, the documents continue, because the statutory definition of qualified electors does not implicate county residency, the claim has no basis in law or fact. It further notes that Borton’s preferred interpretation of qualified elector violates the most basic rules of statutory construction. 
“Plaintiff’s preferred interpretation of Qualified Elector is further compromised by the fact that the Wyoming Legislature recently amended Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-501(a) to expressly require County Commissioners elected or appointed after July 1, 2021 to be residents of the counties in which they serve,” the document continues. “Courts are instructed to interpret statutes in ways that do not render any portion of the statutory language meaningless or absurd, and courts have long endeavored, by tracing the history of legislation on the subject, to ascertain the uniform and consistent purpose of the legislature, or to discover how the policy of the legislature with reference to the subject matter has been changed or modified from time to time.” 
It notes that if Borton’s preferred interpretation of qualified elector status was accepted, the court would be rendering entirely meaningless a recent amendment by the Wyoming Legislature that requires elected officials, including county commissioners, to reside in the county they represent. 
In addition to challenging Borton’s definitions, Barton’s lawyers also reiterate their argument that the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Borton is not authorized, stating that the court’s jurisdiction is constrained by the statutory procedures and remedies prescribed by Wyoming election law. 
In response to the most recent filing, Borton said he was glad to see that Barton and his lawyers seem to be taking the case seriously. 
“Our angle of approach as concerned citizens is focused on accountability for decisions made by officeholders, and their commitment made to the ones they represent,” Borton told the News Letter Journal. “Yes, it’s true that the winning of this case is less important than presenting the facts and decisions made to the public, but the facts that we have pointed out about there being qualifications required of individuals sitting in a commissioner seat prior to House Bill 187 are very real and important.” 
He noted that both taking the issue to court and the attempts to win the case are very real for him. 
“By being voted into an office seat by the majority of the county is a huge responsibility, and as concerned citizens, we appreciate the representation,” he continued. “If the citizens feel that the decision made is based off of a personal endeavor and not for the benefit of the county, we will hold them personally responsible. We are not expecting perfection from county officeholders, we are expecting dedication to their county, and for them to uphold their constitutional oath as such.”