‘ee In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE DAVID, ROLAND, ) No. EDI06192 ) Respondens/Crose-Appellat, _-)-—_ Appeal om the Circuit Cout of } the City of St Louis vs. ) 1622-CC09861, } St.Louis crry Honorable Jason M. Sengheiser BOARD OF ELECTION ) COMMISSIONERS, JERRY HUNTER, — PAUL MALONEY, BENIAMIN ) PHILLIPS, JOSEPH BARBAGLIA, MARILYN JOBE, LEO.G, STOFF, and) MARY WHEELER-JONES, ) ) Appellants ) Filed: February 5, 2019 OPINION ‘The St. Louis City Board of Election Commissioners, Jetry Hunter, Paul Maloney, Benjamin Phillips, Joseph Basbaglia, Marilyn Jobe, Leo G. Stoff, and Mary Wheeler-Jones ollectively, the Board) appeal the patil judgment issued by the Honorable Julian Bush of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis that ordered the Board to produce certain absentee ballot related documents pursuant 19 a Sunshine Law request made by attomey David B. Roland. Rotand’s cross-appeal challenges the order requiting him to pay court costs incurred in eonnestion “withthe second stage ofthe bifurcated tral held in this ease. We reverse and remand in part and firm in partBackground Inthe course of his representation ofa candidate taking part in the August 2016 primary lection nthe City of St, Louis, Roland requested from the Board, pursuant to Missouri's Sunshine Law (§§ 610.010-610.225) and § 115.289,! the absentee ballot applications and absentee ballot ‘envelopes generated in connection with the elections held in the City of St. Louis from 2012 ‘through 2016, As the ferm “absentee” suggests, a voter who is unable to be present on eletion day due fo one ofthe justifications enumerated in § 115.277, wy request an absentee ballot by ‘written application tothe election authorities, The application requires the voter tose forth certain personal information such as the applicant's name, address, and the season absentee voting is necessary, § 115.279, ‘The Board denied Roland's Sunshine request fr the ballot applications and envelopes* and Roland filed suit. Judge Bush held the fist phase of «bifurcated tril, and on August 23, 2016 {sued a partial judgment in favor of Roland holding that the absentee ballot applications and ‘envelopes were not shielded from disclosure and that the Board, pursuant to the Sunshine Lav, ‘must deliver those materials to Roland, which the Board eventually did Inthe second phase ofthe tial, the Honorable Jason Sengheiser considered Roland's claim made pursuant to § 610.027, for atfomey's fees and costs alleging thatthe Board knowingly or _purposefilly violated the Sunshine Law when itrefused to produce the absente ballot applications All statatory references are to RSMo 2016 unless otherwise indicated. 2'Thowgh it denied the request for the applications and envelopes, the Boaxd, pursuant to § 115.2894, produced the specific Fat of absentee ballot applications which the statute requires the Board to cteate and maintain, for the August 2016 election because Roland had the waiten authorization from a candidate 1 receive the list, ns required by statute. However, the Board ‘denied Roland's request forall the absentee ballot application ists generated in extlier elections, ‘presumably because he did not have the written authorization from a candidate in those elections 2an envelopes. Ins Octobe 16,2017 judgment, the court found thatthe Board didnot knowingly ‘or puposeflly violate the Swnshine Law and therefore denied Roland's claim fr stom ees and costs, But costs inthe amount of $1,084.50 were taxed by the clerk aginst Rolnd, presumably because he dd nt previ on is counterelsim. The Boar's appet of Judge Bush's Angst 23, 2016 patil judgment and Roland's cross-appeal of Judge Sengcse's October 16, 2017 partial judgment are now before this Co Standard of Review Inreviewing a court-tred case, we will reverse the judgment only ino substantial evidence supports it the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, oF iterroncously declares or applies the law, Chasnoffv. Mokwa, 466 8.W.34 571, $76-77 (Mo.AppE.D. 2015). Issues of statutory 1epretation are questions of law which we review de novo. Laut v. City of Arnold, 491 S.WV-3d 191, 196 (Mo.bane 2016); Finmegan v, Old Republic Ttle Co, of St. Louis, ne, 246 S.W.3d 928, {930 (Mo,bane 2008). Discussion The Issues presented here, though likely moo, fell within the public imerest exception to ‘ur general prohibition against ruling on moo issues. ne ofthe threshold issues governing appellate review is whether the conttoversy before the court is moot. State ex vel, Reed». Reardon 41 SW.34 470, 473 (Mosbane 2001). cas is ‘moot if the cous judgment would have no practical effet upon an existing controversy. 7CF, LC City of St. Loni, 402 S34 196,181 (Mo. AppED. 2013), When an event acs that makes decision on appeal unnecessary or makes it imposible fr the appellate court to grant fetal tle, the apenl is moot. An exception to the mootness doctrine arses when the issue raised is of general pubic interest and importance, wil kely reoccur, and wil likely evade appellate review in future controversies. Id.