The V.I. Supreme Court killed what fragment of hope remained for Sen. Alicia "Chucky" Hansen to force the Board of Elections to recount her write-in ballots, in a unanimous per curiam opinion issued Jan. 8. [Supreme Court Hansen Opinion]

Hansen, who ran a strong write-in campaign after being removed from the ballot by court order, received 2,089 write-in votes — well below seventh-place held by St. Croix Sen. Nereida "Nellie" Rivera-O’Reilly, who received 4,313 votes. (See related links below)

Hansen asked for a recount, although there was nothing to suggest a second hand-count of the write-in votes would improve her showing. To hold onto her seat, Hansen would have needed to double the votes she received and surpass five other candidates.

O’Reilly filed for a writ of mandamus to stop the recount, arguing Hansen had no automatic right to a recount because she was not legally a candidate, in the statutory meaning of the word, due to her being removed from the ballot. O’Reilly also argued the deadline to approve a recount passed without the Board of Elections acting on the petition.

Hansen filed a petition to move the case to federal court in December. After that, the V.I. Superior Court determined the case did not need to be remanded and ordered the recount stopped, largely agreeing with O’Reilly’s objections. The federal court subsequently referred the case back to the local courts.

The Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court’s ruling stopping the recount, while rejecting some of its reasoning.

While the Supreme Court agreed with Hansen, the Superior Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it disregarded the notice of removal filed in federal court, stating, "the error is harmless because the District Court remanded the matter to the Superior Court while acknowledging that proceedings in the Superior Court were ongoing," according to the unanimous opinion, unsigned by the justices. "While we also agree with Hansen that the Superior Court erred when it held that she lacked standing to file a recount petition with the Board of Elections, we also agree with O’Reilly that the Superior Court erred when it implicitly held that the Board of Elections had granted Hansen’s petition even though the Board’s official records all indicated that it had not done so, and when it explicitly held that the board could waive the statutory deadlines," the justices continued.

While "the reasoning of the Superior Court‟s . . . opinion was in error, we nevertheless affirm its ultimate decision to grant O’Reilly’s petition for a writ of mandamus," they conclude.