Huntington City Council rules Jason Arthur and Stacy Jo Holly eligible for office after filings

The City of Huntington held a Special Call City Council Meeting on December 16, 2024, primarily to address the eligibility of candidates Jason Arthur and Stacy Jo Holly following concerns regarding their campaign finance reporting. The meeting focused on the implications of West Virginia campaign finance laws and the procedural requirements for candidate disqualification.

The council began by reviewing the legal framework surrounding campaign finance reports, specifically West Virginia Code Section 3-8-5a, which mandates that candidates file timely financial reports and include sworn statements. The deadline for filing these reports was set for August 13, 2024, and both Arthur and Holly failed to meet this requirement. Under normal circumstances, this would have led to their disqualification from the general election ballot.

However, the discussion revealed that a legislative rule, West Virginia CSR 1-53-51, requires election officials to notify candidates of any delinquent reports 60 days after the primary election. This notice must be sent via certified mail and must inform candidates of the missing reports and the consequences of failing to file them. It was noted that no such notice was sent to Arthur and Holly, which raised significant concerns about due process.

The council emphasized that disqualifying candidates without providing the required notice would not only deny them the chance to rectify their reporting issues but would also hinder the Executive Committee Chair's ability to fill any resulting vacancies. The council referenced previous court rulings that support the right of citizens to hold office and the importance of ensuring that election outcomes reflect the will of the voters.

Ultimately, the Huntington City Council declared the results of the November election lawful, affirming that Jason Arthur and Stacy Jo Holly were not disqualified from their respective City Council seats. The meeting concluded with a reminder that the election challenge raised by other candidates was a legitimate exercise of their rights under the law, allowing for necessary scrutiny of the electoral process.