ELECTIONS
Home »
ELECTIONS
2(1)—Generally
2(2)—Appeals
3.Issues – Candidates
3(2)—Challenging of Candidates
3(3)—Certification of Winning Candidate
3(4)—Appeal to High Court
4(1)—General Provisions
5(1)—Tie Vote
5(2)—Contests for Cause – Generally
5(3)—Contests for Cause – Filing Complaint
7(1)—Election Procedures
7(2)—Appeal to High Court
Election Commissioner appointed by Governor has power to establish procedures and make rulings necessary for orderly conduct of election. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Election Commissioner has power to issue hour for opening and closing of polls. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Election Commissioner has power to authorize electors to vote without surrendering registration receipts if identified as legal voters. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Election Commissioner may make ruling not invalidating vote where voter fails to sign role at time of voting. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Election Commissioner does not have power to call new election on own motion or at request of Election Board which would nullify results of election held in accordance with law and constitution which sets specific date for election. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Under statute providing that a person “does not gain residency in a district without the present intention of establishing his permanent dwelling place within that district,” voter who had moved from one district to another eight years earlier upon inheriting a house, but (1) whose family, church, and business were in the district of his former residence; (2) who had continued to serve matai title and participate actively in aumaga within district of former residence; (3) who had always voted in the former district and never in the district wherein his house was located; and (4) who in the two most recent elections had been a successful candidate for the legislature from the district of his former residence, had not established residency in the new district by mere physical presence. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212. Scanlan v. Reed, 9 A.S.R.2d 54.
A voter who is physically present in a new place of residence, but fails to gain legal residence in that district because he lacks the intention of establishing his permanent dwelling place there, retains his previous legal residence and may vote there. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212. Scanlan v. Reed, 9 A.S.R.2d 54.
One who votes in a foreign election, without having been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state or taking an oath of allegiance to such a state, does not thereby lose his status as a United States citizen or national. 8 U.S.C. § 1481. Tuika v. Chief Election Officer, 9 A.S.R.2d 57.
One who votes in a foreign election thereby loses his legal residence in American Samoa. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212(g). Tuika v. Chief Election Officer, 9 A.S.R.2d 57.
One who loses his legal residence in American Samoa by voting in a foreign election, but who returns to American Samoa with the intention to remain permanently, thereby reacquires his legal residence in American Samoa. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212(a). Tuika v. Chief Election Officer, 9 A.S.R.2d 57.
Residency is one of the criteria that determine the right to vote in American Samoa, not vice versa; hence, the fact that a person is registered to vote here does not prove that he is a resident of the territory. In re Matai Title Niuatoa, 16 A.S.R.2d 25.
When determining an individual’s residency for voting purposes, an individual’s immediate choice of living arrangements does not overcome the individual’s longstanding, permanent ties to a voting district. Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
Under Samoan law, the residency of a person is that place in which his habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention to return. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212(a). Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
Under Samoan law, a person does not gain or lose residency by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212(e). Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
Under Samoan law, the situs of a person’s primary matai obligations are a factor in determining district residency. However, matai obligations alone may not sustain a finding of district residency absent other evidence which, in connection with evidence of matai obligations, is sufficient to demonstrate intent to reside within a voting district. A.S.C.A. § 6.0212(f). Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
Election Board acts as board of appeals on matters referred to it by Election Commissioner or aggrieved person. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Statute empowering Election Board to hear appeals from Election Commissioner or aggrieved person is intended to take effect before election as in case where Election Commissioner refuses to certify person as candidate or refuses to give or sell candidate copy of rolls of voters. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Election Board, in conducting investigation, acted in careless and irresponsible manner failing to call pertinent witnesses, which resulted in improper and inconclusive findings. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Where statute provided for appeal to board of registration from a denial of voter registration by election officer, and for judicial review of an adverse decision of the board of registration, court would not issue writ of mandamus to election officer ordering him to register prospective voter who had not yet appealed to board of registration. A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0224, 6.0230. Siofele v. Shimasaki, 8 A.S.R.2d 81.
One who challenges the right of another person to be registered or to vote as a qualified elector must exhaust administrative remedies before submitting the matter to court. A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0230 et seq. Election Office v. Tuika, 9 A.S.R.2d 1.
Court would not exercise its power to render a declaratory judgment where the party seeking the judgment had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Election Office v. Tuika, 9 A.S.R.2d 1.
Court would not exercise its power to render a declaratory judgment where the only relief it could grant would require the court to assume a supervisory role over administrative processes. Election Office v. Tuika, 9 A.S.R.2d 1.
§ 3(1) ¾Nomination of Candidates
Territorial election statutes provide no right of appeal to board of registration from chief election officer’s determination that a person is ineligible to run for elective office. A.S.C.A. §§ 4.0101 et seq., 6.0101 et seq. Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.
Under statute providing that blank forms for petitions required of candidates for elective office should be distributed by election officer, and also providing that eligibility of candidates should be determined after they had filed the required petitions, election officer had no authority to withhold blank forms from a prospective candidate whom he did not did not believe to be eligible for election. A.S.C.A. §§ 6.0301(b),(d). Siofele v. Shimasaki, 8 A.S.R.2d 81.
Chief election officer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying petitioner’s eligibility for election where, although petitioner supplied all the information requested on candidacy forms, he refused reasonable requests by the chief election officer for further information relevant to his eligibility. Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.
Court would not compel chief election officer to find the petitioner a bona fide resident where petitioner was not on the current voter registration lists, was not present in the territory during the period at issue, refused to supply additional information requested by the chief election officer, and was identified as a registered voter in another jurisdiction during the period at issue. Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.
To be eligible for election to the territorial legislature, one must have lived in the territory for a total of at least five years and have been a bona fide resident of the district from which he is elected for at least one year immediately preceding his election. Rev’d Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 3(c). Tuika v. Chief Election Officer, 9 A.S.R.2d 57.
Under A.S.C.A. § 6.0301(a) and (f), candidates for the office of Delegate to the United States House of Representatives must be nominated by petitions signed by at least 300 registered voters, and all candidates for the office of Delegate to the United States House of Representatives are entitled to a list of all qualified electors in the Territory within 10 days after the close of registration for the Territory, which is the 30th day prior to each election, and it is within the discretion of the Chief Election Officer to withhold the list of qualified electors until it is required to be provided by law. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
Although not provided with the most current list of qualified electors, and although not having the prior list which other candidates have, a candidate is not unduly prejudiced where it appears that the candidate could have taken reasonable action to ensure that the candidate’s petition contained a sufficient number of signatures of qualified electors. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
Where a candidate asserts that her petition was subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny than were those of her competitors, she must demonstrate that the Chief Election Officer acted in an unlawful, arbitrary or capricious manner with respect to her petition. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
Where the Chief Election Officer (CEO) invited but then refused to consider the testimony of witnesses to verify their signatures on a candidate’s petition, but where the candidate failed to take an opportunity to present such testimony directly to the Court, it will not be held that the CEO’s action rose to the level of arbitrary and capricious behavior. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
§ 3(2) ¾Challenging of Candidates
A.S.C.A. § 6.0301(d), providing for the Chief Election Officer to determine candidate eligibility, does not provide for appeals from such determinations. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
§ 3(3) —Certification of Winning Candidate
Election Board certifies election of winning candidates if satisfied election has been conducted in accordance with law and established procedure of Election Commissioner. Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Election Board is not established to decide winner of election but to certify winning candidate submitted to it by Election Commissioner, which is ministerial function. (CAS 2.0510.) Tuia v. Yandall, 4 A.S.R. 559.
Court could grant review by mandamus of chief election officer’s determination that petitioner was ineligible to run for elective office, where statutory scheme was silent as to appeals procedure and circumstances appeared to render any alternative review procedures inadequate. T.C.R.C.P. Rules 87, 88. Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.
One month delay in seeking judicial review of denial of the right to run for elective office was unreasonable where (1) the election was to be held two weeks after petitioners first sought judicial relief and (2) one of the petitioners, although absent from the territory, could have secured counsel or instructed his co-petitioner to assert their rights. Siofele v. Shimasaki, 9 A.S.R.2d 3.
Action seeking removal of a candidate from the list of those eligible to run in an election, filed less than two business days prior to the election, would not be set for hearing prior to the election. Scanlan v. Reed, 9 A.S.R.2d 15.
Review of candidate eligibility determinations is appropriate in the Trial Division for the limited purposes of determining whether the decision was reached as a result of fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion or unauthorized action so as to constitute a denial of due process of law or as a result of a clear disregard of statutes or court determinations. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
The Appellate Division may construe an action as a petition for judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, A.S.C.A. §§ 4.1001 et seq., under which a prospective candidate may petition directly with the Appellate Division for review of a determination of the Chief Election Officer as an official government agency decision. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
Under A.S.C.A. § 4.1044, the standard of review in the Appellate Division of a determination by the Chief Election Officer under these circumstances is similar to that employed by the Trial Division. Coleman v. Fuimaono, 2 A.S.R.3d 44 (App. Div. 1998).
Statutory provision requiring that the polls shall be kept open no later than 6:00 p.m. invalidates all ballots marked after 6:00 p.m. on election day, unless that individual was in line at the polling station prior to 6:00 p.m. A.S.C.A. § 6.0701. Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
Under Samoan law, voters need only present identification upon request of a district official. A.S.C.A. § 6.0706. Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
The Legislature has not enacted any statute, and the Chief Election Officer has not promulgated any administrative rule, requiring voters to mark their ballots in any particular manner. Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
In the absence of prescribed marking standards, election officials cannot properly invalidate a ballot for peculiar markings when the voter’s intention is unambiguously expressed. Mulitauaopele v. CEO, 27 A.S.R.2d 56.
A.S.C.A. § 6.1106(b) strictly prohibits the opening of the absentee ballot container before Election Day and administrative rules which allow discretion in this improperly contravene the statute. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App Div. 2000).
A.S.C.A. § 6.0802 primarily requires that a central polling station be designated to count all ballots and, although this provision is violated when absentee ballots are counted at satellite stations, such actions of convenience, though improper, are not cause to void ballots where there is no evidence of tampering or fraud or laxity to call into question the validity or security of the actual ballots counted. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Although electors are mandated to sign the poll book under A.S.C.A. § 6.0706, the failure of voters to sign the poll book does not render their votes illegal. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Although the early closing of polling stations is improper, such does not render the election result uncertain where there is evidence that all of the registered voters have voted, and where there is no showing that the early closing affected the election result. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
When partisan poll watchers are not afforded the opportunity to physically examine the ballots, a public recount of such ballots should be undertaken. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Under A.S.C.A. § 6.0402 a list of district election officials must be made, but it is not required to be published. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Where election officials fail to follow the statutory procedure for handling challenges to the qualifications of electors, such non-compliance does render an election result uncertain when challenges are permitted, or when such challenges are viewed most favorably to the challenger and the election result is not rendered uncertain. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
§ 4(2) ¾Illiterate & Disabled Voters
Assisting individuals with physical handicaps in marking ballots does not invalidate the individual’s vote. A.S.C.A. § 6.1101(b). Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
Statutory provision permitting individuals with physical handicaps to receive assistance in marking ballots does not place limitations on who may assist the disabled voter. A.S.C.A. § 6.1101(b). Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
Statutory provision stating that an election tie “shall be decided by lot” is a mandatory, rather than optional mechanism for breaking the tie. A.S.C.A. § 6.0901. In re the Election for Representative from District No. 3, 27 A.S.R.2d 28.
Statutory provision requiring election ties to be decided by lot does not invalidate any votes of the qualified electors, nor does it taint the requirement that representatives be elected by secret ballot, since the lot comes into play as a result of the balloting process. A.S.C.A. § 6.0901. In re the Election for Representative from District No. 3, 27 A.S.R.2d 28.
Statutory provision requiring election ties to be decided by lot is not inconsistent with the Revised Constitution of American Samoa. A.S.C.A. § 6.0901. In re the Election for Representative from District No. 3, 27 A.S.R.2d 28.
§ 5(2) ¾Contests for Cause – Generally
Court may invalidate an election based on provable fraud by candidates or electors that could cause a difference in the election result, as well as any other illegality which would make the election result uncertain. A.S.C.A. § 6.0902. Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
Fraud and other illegalities may invalidate an individual ballot, but not an entire election. Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
Under A.S.C.A. § 6.0903(c), which sets out the standard of review for invalidating a general election, challengers must prove that the election result has been made uncertain due to mistake or fraud or the indeterminacy of the leading candidates’ majority margin according to the valid votes cast; an election will be invalidated only if the number of ineligible ballots cast is equal to or greater than the winning margin. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Where Petitioners are candidates for governor and lieutenant governor of American Samoa and challenge a critical number of excluded votes such that the alleged exclusion could very well cause a difference in the election result, the Petitioners have standing to assert such claim under A.S.C.A. § 6.0902. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Although A.S.C.A. § 6.0902 intimates that the Appellate Division of the High Court may hear virtually any cause of action, and although the Court has broad powers to review any cause that could cause a difference in an election result, such is the case only insofar as the cause is treatable by reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of district or election officials. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Where Petitioners challenge the legality of Election Rules themselves, such challenge does not qualify the case under the subject matter jurisdiction provided for by A.S.C.A. § 6.0902 because the enactment of an administrative rule involves more than the mere decision of an election official for purposes of the statutes concerning election contests and review of administrative rules is outside the scope of the Court’s review. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
The Court is allowed to void elections based on the uncertainty of valid votes cast—not on votes that might have been cast. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
A.S.C.A. § 6.0902 establishes two requirements for an election complaint: that it shall set forth any cause or causes that could cause a difference in the election result, and that it set forth any reasons for reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the district or election officials; all causes of action in an election contest must claim to make a difference in the election result, and must pertain to a decision of a district or election official. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Although A.S.C.A. § 6.0233(a) requires that challenges contesting the qualifications of electors be decided as soon as possible, where challenges are brought the day before the election but not decided before election day, the challenger is not prejudiced since he may raise the challenges on the day of the election. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
Under A.S.C.A. § 6.0903(c), the Court may rule that the cumulative effect of any number of claims can change an election result even if any of the individual claims is incapable of doing so on its own, but the burden is to demonstrate specifically, clearly, and convincingly that the irregularities affected the vote. Reid v. Tuipine, 4 A.S.R.3d 9 (App. Div. 2000).
§ 5(3) ¾Contests for Cause – Filing Complaint
Under statute requiring election appeals to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on the seventh calendar day following the election, court had no jurisdiction over an appeal filed at 8:00 p.m. on the seventh day. A.S.C.A. § 6.0903(a). Tuika v. Chief Election Officer, 9 A.S.R.2d 57.
An election is to be invalidated only if it cannot be determined that a candidate polled a majority or plurality of the valid votes cast on Election Day. A.S.C.A. § 6.0903. Faga v. Malepeai, 23 A.S.R.2d 48.
Where an individual challenges vote after the election, individual must prove that the facts alleged in support of the complaint were not known to the individual, and could not with due diligence have been discovered, prior to the challenged elector casting his ballot. A.S.C.A. § 6.0223(d)(3). Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
To establish that a payment to a voter constituted election fraud so as to invalidate a voter’s ballot, a challenger must show that the money or other consideration was given to induce the voter to cast a ballot for a particular person. A.S.C.A. § 6.1203. Mau v. Fuimaono, 27 A.S.R.2d 44.
A.S. Const. Art. II, § 4 mandates that senators “be elected” by county councils, not appointed by any individual. Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773.
Constitution requires that senators be chosen by county council and court cannot submit two names to senate for election. A.S. Const. Art. II, § 4, Art. II, 22. Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773.
Court will appoint neutral official to supervise senatorial election if evidence shows this is only way to insure compliance with constitutional mandate that county council elect senator. A.S. Const. Art. II, § 4. Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773.
County chief may not submit names of two senatorial candidates to senate for election by that body. A.S. Const. Art. II, § 4. Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773.
Court will not prescribe specific procedure by which County Council must choose Senator in accord with Samoan custom and tradition. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa, Art. II, Sec. 4. Faiivae v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 834.
County Chief has mere ministerial duty to certify senatorial choice of County Council and may not otherwise interfere in selection process. Faiivae v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 834.
Provision of territorial constitution that the legislature shall judge elections of its members presumes that an election has been held, and therefore does not define the factual question whether the required election ever occurred give rise to as a political question preventing judicial intervention. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 22. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Provision of territorial constitution that county council elect senators to represent the county does not permit election of senators by village councils of certain villages within the county, or by a single member of the county council, or by the senate itself; these bodies may recommend or endorse a particular candidate, but the final decision must rest with the county council itself. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Provision of territorial constitution that county council elect senators in accordance with Samoan custom means that the council is to use the traditional Samoan manner of decision making as it existed at the time the provision was adopted. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Provision of territorial constitution that county council elect senators in accordance with Samoan custom does not include power to delegate the decision completely to a subdivision of the county, since this would allow a new custom, habit, or practice to repeal explicit and unambiguous constitutional provisions. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Cumulative effect of two territorial constitutional provisions, one requiring election of senators by county councils and the other providing that each senator shall hold office for four years, is to require that an election be held once every four years by the county council as it is then constituted; since the membership of the county council changes over time, no one particular council can be permitted to lock senatorial selection into the future by selecting any number of senators to serve during subsequent terms. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II §§ 4, 6. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Though Article II, Section 22 of the Revised Constitution grants the Senate exclusive authority to determine the results of an election, the court has jurisdiction to determine whether an election occurred according to constitutional requirements. Thus, the court examines the narrow questions of (1) whether an election of senators was held “by the county councils of the counties they are to represent,” and (2) “in accordance with Samoan custom.” Eseroma v. Faresa, 31 A.S.R.2d 169.
For anyone from the Island of Ta’u to have a rightful claim to a Senate seat, the individual must be able to show that the Fitiuta, Faleasao and Ta’u County Councils–the three county councils of the counties the individual is to represent–had an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the election process. Eseroma v. Faresa, 31 A.S.R.2d 169.
Permissible methods of electing Senators include, but are not limited to “voice vote, written ballot, computation of number of speakers for each candidate, and consensual agreement.” Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773, 781 (Trial Div. 1973). Impermissible methods of electing Senators include, but are not limited to appointment of the Senator by one powerful matai, and delegation of the decision to a subdivision of the deliberative body constitutionally assigned the responsibility of electing senators. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115, 120 (Trial Div. 1989). Eseroma v. Faresa, 31 A.S.R.2d 169.
Any lawful claim of right to a Senate seat from Sua County must stem from a final decision of the entire Sua County Council. Muliauaopele v. Mata`utia, 31 A.S.R.2d 175.
The requirement of Article II, § 4 of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa that senate elections must be “in accordance with Samoan custom” does not mean the counties must follow a particular Samoan custom of the county but, rather, indicates the Revised Constitution permits variation among the counties in the manner in which they conduct their Senate election meetings. Eseroma v. Feresa, 1 A.S.R.3d 78 (Trial Div. 1997).
The constitutional command that elections be “in accordance with Samoan custom” merely requires extensive sharing of ideas among county council members with regards to potential candidates, and a forging of a collective will as to who shall serve in the Senate. Eseroma v. Feresa, 1 A.S.R.3d 78 (Trial Div. 1997).
Just as an election is not tainted by consideration of extra nominees, the participation of non-council members is not a fatal flaw under Article II, § 4 of the Revised Constitution. Eseroma v. Feresa, 1 A.S.R.3d 78 (Trial Div. 1997).
Court will not lay down a rule prescribing the exact method or custom a county council must use to elect a senator in accordance with Samoan custom, especially as custom may vary in different counties. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II § 4. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that she had been duly elected to the senate about four years before the commencement of the term for which she claimed to have been elected. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa art. II §§ 4, 6. Mauga v. Lutu, 10 A.S.R.2d 115.
Under the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning the outcome of a Senate election conducted according to the law, nor does the Court possess the authority to determine which of many candidates is the most qualified to represent a county in the Senate. art. II, § 22. However, the court’s jurisdiction does extend to review the question of whether a county council followed proper election procedure when electing its Senator. Muliauaopele v. Mata`utia, 31 A.S.R.2d 175.