A federal judge has dismissed two legal challenges brought by a trio of candidates who claimed that local political parties have flouted campaign finance laws and that the rules governing ballot access and candidate certification unfairly burdened people running for office as independents.
Candidate for Delegate to Congress Shelley Moorhead, Republican Senate candidate Collister Fahie and Democratic Senate candidate Lorelai Monsanto filed the first challenge in March after making multiple public records requests related to the territory’s 2024 Democratic and Republican Party primaries. At the center of that complaint is a section of local elections law that requires committees to submit financial reports to the Elections System every six months. The plaintiffs said that hasn’t been happening.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Savage dismissed that case and another challenge brought by the candidates on May 1, citing lack of jurisdiction. The trio filed that lawsuit after the Elections System and V.I. Democratic Party reached a mediated settlement agreement, which clarified that while the Elections System will be responsible for determining candidates’ statutory qualifications, political parties will be responsible for certifying their party membership.
Moorhead, Fahie and Monsanto said that framework makes the process particularly difficult for independent candidates, who are required to collect 200 signatures from active voters across two districts. In practice, they argued, candidates have to over-collect signatures because signatures from “inactive” voters are rejected, even though inactive voters can still cast ballots after confirming their identity and residency.
Savage partially granted their request for a temporary restraining order two weeks ago, blocking the Elections System from excluding candidates from primary ballots if they fall short of the requirements outlined in the recent settlement agreement.
In dismissing that lawsuit, Savage said each of the plaintiffs claimed that the procedures could deprive them of a spot-on the ballot, but he described those claims as speculative rather than “actual or imminent.”
“For each, it is merely possible,” he wrote, adding that the candidates also failed to show that any potential injury would be the fault of the defendants. “Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, requiring us to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.”
Savage noted that the Elections System maintains a publicly available list of inactive voters, and he wrote that Moorhead never claimed that the alleged “structural disadvantage” faced by independent candidates renders it impossible to verify voter status or obtain the required number of signatures.
“He merely claims that obtaining signatures will be more difficult than it would be were he a party-affiliated candidate,” he wrote. “If his petition is rejected for containing ‘inactive’ voters’ signatures, it will be due to his own failure to ascertain which electors’ signatures are valid.”
Savage wrote that Monsanto, who claimed that she may be excluded from the ballot if the Democratic Party declines to certify her candidacy, failed to show any actual injury.
“She does not claim DPVI will decline to certify her candidacy,” Savage wrote. “She has alleged merely that it is capable of doing so. That is insufficient.”
Similarly, Savage wrote that Fahie “has alleged only possible harm, and he has not established a causal connection between the possible harm and the defendants’ conduct.”
A third challenge, filed by Moorhead, Monsanto and Fahie on May 13, remains active. In that case, the trio argued that political parties may effectively control ballot access based on internal certification decisions. The Democratic Party and its chair, Carol Burke, argued that the plaintiffs conflated ballot access with internal party affairs.
“The timing of their frivolous suit, filed as candidate primary packet submission deadlines approach, shows it is nothing more than a publicity stunt, calculated to sow doubt and confusion in the minds of voters, and disrupt the smooth progression of free democratic elections in the Virgin Islands in 2026,” attorney Peter Lynch wrote.
