Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. entered the increasingly contentious debate over ballot access Thursday night, arguing in a wide-ranging opinion piece that Virgin Islands voters — not restrictive laws, administrative decisions or prolonged legal challenges — should determine who is qualified to represent them.
The governor did not identify Brett “Mac” McClafferty, Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes or any other candidate or election official by name, though Bryan’s commentary arrived hours after McClafferty asked the District Court of the Virgin Islands for an emergency order restoring him to the ballot, and two days after the Justice Department apparently declined the governor’s request to consider issuing a formal legal opinion on whether the Elections System followed the law in disqualifying him.
“We should make it as easy as possible, within reason, for qualified individuals to get on the ballot and seek public office,” Bryan wrote, arguing that access to money, attorneys or other resources should not determine who can become a candidate. He later added that the territory is spending more money, time and legal resources keeping people off ballots than it would cost to let voters decide.
The governor also criticized laws he said protect those already positioned within government while creating additional barriers for first-time, working-class and political outsider candidates.
“You see the pattern here,” Bryan wrote. “Laws are being created or maintained in ways that give an unfair advantage to people who are already elected or already positioned within the system. That protects the status quo.”
He closed with a direct appeal: “Let the people decide.”
From an Appeal to a Federal Lawsuit
This dispute began after Fawkes disqualified McClafferty from the delegate race on June 15, following an Elections System investigation into complaints about the collection of signatures on his St. Croix nominating petitions.
McClafferty had initially fallen short of the required 100 valid signatures in each election district and was given time to cure the deficiencies. His court filings state that he eventually submitted approximately 521 signatures and received written confirmation from deputy supervisors in both districts that his deficiencies had been cured.
Fawkes later postponed certification while investigating six complaints from people who said they had been misled about the candidate or purpose of the petition they signed. In her disqualification letter, she said the investigation found multiple petition sheets had been obtained through false or misleading representations, some petitions had been circulated with the candidate’s name incomplete or blank, and the person identified as the St. Croix circulator had not been present for every signature.
She concluded that the integrity of McClafferty’s petitions had been compromised and rejected them.
McClafferty has denied those allegations. He argues that his authorized St. Croix circulator, Jonathan James, was present when the petitions were signed and that campaign coordinator David Greaux did not independently circulate them. Affidavits from both men were included with his appeal.
In a June 30 brief to the Board of Elections, McClafferty also raised a separate legal question: whether Fawkes had the independent authority to investigate alleged election irregularities and disqualify him after deputy supervisors had already said he cured his deficiencies.
McClafferty pointed to Title 18, Section 47(8) of the Virgin Islands Code, which assigns the Board of Elections the authority to investigate election fraud, irregularities and violations for possible referral to the Justice Department. He argues that the statute does not grant the supervisor the same independent investigative authority.
At a tense July 1 special meeting, the Board of Elections voted 7-2, with one abstention, to uphold his disqualification. Board members Cleopatra Peter and Barbara LaRonde challenged aspects of the process, with Peter arguing that the investigative authority rested with the board rather than the supervisor.
During the same meeting, the board rejected delegate aspirant Ida Smith’s appeal after Fawkes disqualified her over questions about whether she had established the required Virgin Islands residency. The board had overturned a similar disqualification involving Smith during the 2024 election cycle but declined to do so this year.
The two cases were among several eligibility disputes that delayed publication of the Elections System’s final candidate list. Earlier challenges included legislative aspirant Jimmy Weber’s filing in a district where election officials determined he was not eligible to run. Weber appealed his disqualification, contributing to the uncertainty surrounding the final ballot, before the matter was resolved against his candidacy.
Bryan Sought an Opinion, But Justice Declined
After the Board of Elections denied his appeal, McClafferty wrote to Bryan asking the governor to seek a legal opinion from Attorney General Gordon Rhea.
Bryan did so on July 2, forwarding McClafferty’s correspondence and brief to the attorney general. In his letter, the governor said the issues involved questions of statutory interpretation affecting election administration and matters of significant public interest.
Bryan was careful not to endorse McClafferty’s legal position or criticize Fawkes, the Board of Elections or another official. Instead, he asked Justice to determine whether a formal opinion was appropriate and acknowledged that the department might decline because of pending proceedings, jurisdictional issues, ethical considerations or other legal constraints.
The Justice Department subsequently declined to issue an opinion. Government House spokesperson Richard Motta confirmed the decision, but neither the department’s written response nor its reasoning has been made public. Bryan’s referral had expressly acknowledged that DOJ might decline because of pending proceedings, jurisdictional questions or other legal or ethical constraints.
DOJ’s own budget testimony says its Civil Division advises the Board of Elections and represents government boards, commissions and officials. That relationship could present legal or ethical considerations when the department is asked to assess a challenge to the board’s action, though DOJ has not said whether that fact influenced its decision.
Court Challenge Expands the Dispute
McClafferty filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against Fawkes and Board Chairman Raymond Williams, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and immediate restoration to the ballot.
The complaint repeats his argument that his petitions became valid after the Elections System’s district offices confirmed that he had cured the deficiencies. He contends that any subsequent challenge to those petitions had to be brought through the judicial process established in Virgin Islands law rather than through a post-cure administrative investigation.
He also argues that the supervisor imposed an additional qualification for delegate to Congress by investigating the intent and understanding of petition signers after the numerical signature requirements had been met. Fawkes and the board have not yet filed their responses to those allegations.
McClafferty’s complaint includes constitutional claims, claims under territorial election law and a civil racketeering allegation. The inclusion of those claims does not mean the court has found them valid; they remain allegations made by McClafferty, who is representing himself.
On Thursday, he followed the complaint with an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He is asking the court to suspend the disqualification, order the Elections System to certify his candidacy and keep his name on official candidate lists and election materials while the lawsuit proceeds.
McClafferty said emergency intervention is needed because of approaching campaign finance deadlines, the Aug. 1 primary and the subsequent printing of ballots for the general election.
Although delegate to Congress candidates do not participate in the partisan gubernatorial primary in the same way as party nominees, the Elections System must settle candidate certifications and prepare materials on a fixed election calendar, giving the court dispute an increasingly narrow timeline.
No ruling on McClafferty’s emergency request had been issued as of publication.
A Broader Argument About Access
Bryan’s opinion piece reaches beyond McClafferty’s case. He said his views on ballot access have changed over time, including his earlier support for requiring gubernatorial candidates to gather more signatures.
“We can clearly see that this strategy is not working,” he wrote.
The governor also pointed to his recent veto of legislation that could have barred a person from seeking office because of mental illness and renewed his objection to laws preventing some government employees from remaining on the job while campaigning.
His central argument was that the Elections System should establish reasonable qualifications, but not become an obstacle course that favors candidates with greater wealth, legal assistance or connections.
“We should do more to ensure that we are not erecting unnecessary barriers to representation and choice,” Bryan wrote. “We must stop personalizing every policy decision and start looking at policymaking objectively.”
That question now sits at the center of McClafferty’s lawsuit: whether election officials properly enforced rules designed to protect the integrity of the ballot, or crossed the line from validating petitions into imposing a process not authorized by law.
Fawkes has said her investigation found that the petitions themselves were compromised. McClafferty contends the allegations were unsupported and that the Elections System exceeded its authority by conducting a post-certification investigation rather than referring the matter through the process outlined in Virgin Islands law. The Board of Elections upheld Fawkes’ decision in a 7-2 vote.
As McClafferty’s challenge moves through federal court, Bryan said the broader conversation should focus on ensuring voters have the widest possible choice at the ballot box.
“At the end of the day, and certainly at the end of Election Day,” he wrote, “the voters will choose the representation they deserve.”
