This case involves a dispute over the requirements for a candidate's name to properly appear on a primary election ballet. The Supreme Court held "the unambiguous language and expression of legislative intent of " 8-13-1356(B) and (E) require an individual to file a Statement of Economic Interest at the same time and with the same official with whom a Statement of Intention of Candidacy is filed, and prohibit political party officials from accepting a SIC which is not accompanied by a SEI." The Court demanded that the names of any non-exempt individuals who did not file with the appropriate political party a SEI simultaneously with a SIC be removed.
Section 8-13-1356 (B) (Supp. 2011) states that "[a] candidate must file a statement of economic interests for the preceding calendar year at the same time and with the same official with whom the candidate files a declaration of candidacy or petition for nomination." The Court interpreted the statute according to its literal meaning finding "the statute means what it says." In addition, the Court cites - 8-13-1356 (E) which prohibits political parties from accepting a SIC unless it is accompanied by a SEI. The Court recognized the consequences of the decision but states that "the conduct of the political parties in their failure to follow the clear and unmistakable directives of the General Assembly has brought us to this point."