The State ex rel. Hollman v. McElhinney
Decision Date | 13 September 1926 |
Docket Number | 27535 |
Parties | The State ex rel. Louis H. Hollman v. Robert W. McElhinney and J. C. A. Hiller, Election Commissioners of St. Louis County |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Peremptory writ ordered.
Henry Kortjohn for relator.
Jos C. McAtee and Julian C. Holster, Jr. for respondents.
Atwood J. All concur, except Walker and Graves JJ., absent.
The application and return filed herein show that at the regular primary election held in August, 1926, for the purpose of choosing nominees for office, relator and one Frank G. Weiss each sought the Republican nomination for the office of Constable of Bonhomme Township in St. Louis County Missouri. At said nominating election relator was declared nominated by a majority of five votes and this result was certified by respondents, constituting the Board of Election Commissioners of said county, on August 11, 1926, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4844, Revised Statutes 1919. On the following day Weiss, who was the only other candidate for said nomination, filed in the office of said Board of Election Commissioners a petition charging fraud, misconduct and irregularities in the count of the ballots and in the returns thereof, and asking for a recount of the ballots cast in all fifteen precincts in said township, said petition being duly verified by the said Weiss and copy thereof being served upon relator herein. On September 2, 1926, respondents met, heard objections urged by relator herein, who appeared in person and by attorney, against the opening and recount of ballots as prayed in said petition, overruled said objections and set September 9, 1926, as the date upon which they would open and commence a recount of said primary ballots. Relator asks us to prohibit said Board of Election Commissioners from opening and recounting said ballots.
Respondents say they are authorized to proceed by an act of the General Assembly found on pages 329, 330, Laws 1921, which provides: The act further provides that four disinterested electors be appointed to assist in the opening and recounting of said ballots, that each candidate for the nomination may be present in person or by representative to witness the recount, that all present shall preserve the secrecy of the ballot, that the canvassing board's certificate of returns on such recount be taken and accepted as the official certificate of said returns, superseding the results included in the previous count and canvass, and that any evidence obtained of fraud or violations of criminal laws shall be presented to the proper authorities in charge of the prosecution thereof.
From respondents' return and the copy of the affidavit and petition thereto attached seeking a recount of the ballots, it appears that the charge of fraud, misconduct and irregularities consists mainly of allegations that the judges and clerks of election in each of said fifteen precincts counted legal and regular ballots against affiant and for his opponent which were cast for affiant; counted irregular and illegal ballots as legal and regular ballots for affiant's opponent; did not count for affiant legal and regular ballots cast for him and omitted same in the return of votes to the Board of Election Commissioners; rejected legal and regular ballots for affiant without any legal reason and excluded them in the returns; and made errors, mistakes and inaccurate returns, and permitted the attendance and participation in the count of unauthorized persons. Presumably the judges and clerks of election upon completing the count and before making their return to the Board of Election Commissioners, closed and sealed the ballots as provided by statute. Manifestly this proceeding contemplates that these seals be broken and the ballots cast in these fifteen precincts "be opened, examined, counted, compared with the list of voters" -- which the Constitution permits to be done only in certain specified instances, as we shall presently see.
Relator affirms that this act is unconstitutional. The first ground of unconstitutionality urged is that Section 3, Article 8, of Constitutional Amendment number 9, adopted February 26, 1924, prohibits the opening of ballot boxes except as therein provided, and that the terms of this 1921 statute do not come within these constitutional provisions. The section reads:
Prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Springfield City Water Co. v. City of Springfield
... ... of which are as follows: Ex parte Arnold, 128 Mo. 256; ... State ex rel. v. Taylor, 220 Mo. 618, 119 S.W. 373; ... In re Oppenstein, ... Hill, 277 Mo. 239, 210 S.W. 67; ... State ex rel. v. McElhinney, 315 Mo. 731, 286 S.W ... 951; State ex rel. v. Seibert, 123 Mo. 424, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Miller v. O'Malley
... ... public officers. [ State ex rel. Ewing v. Francis, 88 ... Mo. 557, 561; State ex rel. Hollman v. McElhinney, ... 315 Mo. 731, 735, 286 S.W. 951, 952.] But this McElhinney ... case ruled the amended proviso protects primary elections ... ...
-
State ex rel. Arena v. Barrett
... ... 3, 8; ... Mo. Const., Art. II, Sec. 9; State ex rel. Goldman v ... Hiller, 278 S.W. 708; Laws 1921, pp. 329-30; State ... ex rel. Hollman v. McElhinney, 315 Mo. 731, 286 S.W ... 951; Laws 1929, pp. 194-96; R. S. 1929, secs. 10293-97; ... State ex rel. Dorsey v. Sprague, 326 Mo. 654, ... ...
-
State ex inf. McKittrick v. Bode
... ... should be issued. Mo. Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 10; State ... ex rel. v. Valle, 41 Mo. 29. (2) In construing the ... Constitution effect should be given to every part ... 12 C. J. 707; State ... ex rel. Goldman v. Hiller, 278 S.W. 709; State ex ... rel. Hollman v. McElhinney, 315 Mo. 731, 286 S.W. 952; ... State ex rel. v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. 546, 224 S.W ... ...