John Plunk, etc. v. Reed, [Ms. SC-2024-0021, Jan. 17, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur; Mitchell, J., concurs specially; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) dismisses as moot Irva Reed’s appeal from the Alabama Ethics Commission’s (“the Commission”) denial of her request for a 5-day extension to submit a Statement of Economic Interest (“SEI”) in connection with Reed’s request to appear on the Democratic Primary ballot for a seat on the Montgomery County Commission. In her qualifying papers, Reed represented she would submit an SEI to the Commission within five days as mandated by § 36-25-15(a), Ala. Code 1975. She did not “file her SEI until 41 days after submitting her qualifying papers” and argued her delay in filing was due to illness.
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the Commission and the Democratic Party to certify Reed as a candidate. The Court stayed the injunction pending defendant’s appeal. Ms. *3. The court holds because the election has already occurred, her claim is moot. “[A] judgment in Reed’s favor at this point would not ‘affect the rights of the parties.’ See Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972, 983-84 (Ala. 2007) (citation omitted) (explaining that, even if an action arose from a justiciable controversy, it cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions raised have been mooted by later events).” Ms. **3-4.
The Court rejects Reed’s effort to invoke the three exceptions to the Court’s mootness doctrine “(a) capable of repetition but evading review; (b) public interest; and (c) collateral rights.” Ms. *4.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Mitchell argues the Court should apply the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception “only when there is a demonstrable likelihood that the challenged action will injure the plaintiff again. Narrowing the exception in this way would align our mootness doctrine with the original meaning of the judicial power, the separation-of-powers structure of our State Constitution, see Ala. Const. 2022, art. III, § 42, and art. VI, § 139, and our precedent, see, e.g., State ex rel. Eagerton v. Corwin, 359 So. 2d 767, 769 (Ala. 1977).” Ms. *10.