People ex rel. Stead v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Edgar Cnty.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1906 |
| Citation | 79 N.E. 123,223 Ill. 187 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. STEAD, Atty. Gen., v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF EDGAR COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Proceeding by the People, upon the relation of W. H. Stead, Attorney General, against the board of supervisors of Edgar county and others, to compel the board to appoint judges of election. Mandamus awarded.W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
This is an original proceeding, commenced in this court in the name of the people, upon the relation of the Attorney General, against the board of supervisors of Edgar county, to coerce said board of supervisors to appoint judges of election in the several election districts in said county, in accordance with the provisions of an act of the General Assembly approved May 18, 1905, in force July 1, 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 202) entitled, ‘An act to amend sections 32, 33 and 37 of an act entitled ‘An act in regard to elections, and to provide for filling vacancies in elective offices,’ approved April 3, 1872, in force July 1, 1872, as amended by act approved June 3, 1897, in force July 1, 1897, and an act approved June 22, 1885, in force July 1, 1885, respectively.' The petition avers that Edgar county is under township organization; that there are 15 townships in the said county, and that each of said townships has one supervisor, and that the township of Paris has two assistant supervisors, and that the board of supervisors of said county, as organized, consists of 17 members; that at the general election in November, 1904, there were, and now are, 20 election districts in said county; that the township of Embarrass contains 2 election districts, numbered 1 and 2, the township of Young America 2 election districts, numbered 1 and 2, and the township of Paris 4 election districts, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, and that each of the other townships in said county contains one election district; that at the general election in November, 1904, Charles S. Deneen was the candidate of the Republican Party for Governor, and Lawrence B. Stringer was the candidate of the Democratic Party for Governor; that in the townships of Bruilletts Creek, Buck, Edgar. Grand View, Hunter, Shiloh, and Symmes, each having but one election district, said Lawrence B. Stringer, as the Democratic candidate for Gevernor, received the highest number of votes at the election for Governor in November, 1904, and in each of said townships Charles S. Deneen, as the Republican candidate for Governor, received the second highest number of votes for Governor at said election; that in the townships of Elbridge, Kansas, Prairie, Ross, and Stratton, each having but one election district, said Charles S. Deneen, as the Republican candidate for Governor, received the highest number of votes at the election for Governor in November, 1904, and in each of said townships Lawrence B. Stringer, as the Democratic candidate for Governor, received the second highest number of votes for Governor at said election; that in district No. 1 of the township of Embarrass Charles S. Deneen received 107 votes and Lawrence B. Stringer 169 votes for the office of Governor at said general election in November, 1904; that in district No. 2 Charles S. Deneen received 149 votes and Lawrence B. Stringer 128 votes for the office of Governor; that in district No. 1 of the township of Young America Charles S. Deneen received 148 votes and Lawrence B. Stringer 144 votes for the office of Governor at said general election in November, 1904; that in district No. 2 Charles S. Deneen received 98 votes and Lawrence B. Stringer 103 votes for the office of Governor; that in the township of Paris Charles S. Deneen received the highest number of votes cast for Governor in each election district at the general election for Governor in 1904, and Lawrence B. Stringer received the second highest number of votes cast for Governor in each election district in said township at said general election; that 11 of the members of said board of supervisors are members of and belong to the Democratic party, and 6 of the members of said board of supervisors are members of and belong to the Republican party; that the board of supervisors of Edgar county met in regular session on the 11th day of June, 1906, as required by law, 15 members of said board being present; that it was the duty of said board of supervisors at said meeting to appoint three judges of election in each election district in said county; that it was the duty of the members of the board of supervisors belonging to the political party having the second greatest number of votes upon said board of supervisors to select the majority of the judges of election in each election district in each township in said county in which said political party case the highest number of votes at the preceding general election for Governor, and it was the duty of the board of supervisors to appoint as judges of election for those election districts the persons so selected; that it was also the duty of the members of the board of supervisors belonging to the political party having the second highest number of votes upon the board of supervisors to select the minority judges of election in each election district in each township in said county in which said political party cast the second highest number of votes at the preceding general election for Governor, and it was the duty of the board of supervisors to appoint as judges of election for those districts the persons so selected; that the members of the board of supervisors belonging to the political party having the second greatest number of votes upon the said board of supervisors did select two persons, who possessed all the qualifications of judges of election specified in the statute, to be appointed judges of election in each of the election districts in each township in which said political party cast the highest number of votes for Governor at the preceding general election for Governor, and one person to be appointed judge of election in each election district in each township in said county in which said political party to which said minority members belonged cast the second highest number of votes at the preceding general election for Governor; that the said minority members of said board of supervisors presented to said board of supervisors at its said meeting, in open session, a list of the names of the persons so selected as judges of election in the said several districts in the several townships of said county, and demanded of said board of supervisors that the persons so selected be appointed by the board of supervisors as judges of election in the several districts for which they were selected; that said list and demand were in writing, and were accompanied by a certificate of the county clerk of Edgar county showing the vote for Governor in each election district in said county cast at the last preceding general election for Governor, being the general election held in November, 1904; that a motion was made, seconded, and voted upon by the members of the board of supervisors, that the board of supervisors appoint the persons so selected as judges of election in the several election districts of Edgar county in and for which they had been selected; that the majority members upon the board of supervisors voted against said motion and the minority members upon said board of supervisors voted for said motion, and the majority vote upon said motion being against the proposition to appoint said persons as judges of election in said several districts, the motion was declared by the chairman of said board to have been lost; that the board of supervisors of said county have failed and refused to perform their duty, as provided by law, by declining to appoint as judges of election in said several election districts the persons selected as judges of election by the minority members of said board, and the petition prays that the writ of mandamus issue to compel them to so perform their duty. A general demurrer was filed by the respondents to the petition.
HAND, J. (after stating the facts).
The first question presented for decision upon this record is, is the provision of section 33 of the statute as amended (Laws 1905, p. 203), which provides the county board shall appoint as judges of election in the several election districts or precincts of the county the persons selected by the membersof the county board belonging to the political party having the greatest number of votes upon said board, and by the members of the county board belonging to the political party having the second greatest number of votes upon said board, mandatory, or only directory?
The statute provides that in counties under township organization the county board, at its regular or at a special meeting, in the month of June in each year, except where judges are appointed by election commissioners, shall appoint in each election precinct or district in the county three judges of election, who shall be capable and discreet electors, and possess the qualifications required by law of judges of election; that no more than two persons of the same political party shall be appointed judges in the same election district or undivided precinct, but that the supervisor shall be appointed as one of the judges of election in the district or precinct in which he resides, and that the remaining judges of election in the various election precincts and districts of the county shall be made in the following manner: First, that the members of the county board belonging to the political party having the greatest number of votes upon the board shall select the majority of the election judges in each election district or precinct in each township in which said political party cast the highest number of votes at the preceding general election for Governor, and shall also select the minority judge of election in each election district or precinct in each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leek v. Theis
...is recognized. The People, ex rel., v. Hoffman et al., 116 Ill. 587, 5 N.E. 596, 8 N.E. 788, 56 Am.Rep. 793; The People v. Board of Supervisors, 223 Ill. 187, 79 N.E. 123; The People v. Evans, 247 Ill. 547, 93 N.E. 388; City of Indianapolis v. State, ex rel., 172 Ind. 472, 88 N.E. 687; In r......
-
Sedlak v. Dick, 70,792
...of courts is recognized. (The People, ex rel., v. Hoffman et al., 116 Ill. 587, 5 N.E. 596, 56 Am.Rep. 793; The People v. Board of Supervisors, 223 Ill. 187, 79 N.E. 123; The People v. Evans, 247 Ill. 547, 93 N.E. 388; City of Indianapolis v. State, ex rel., 172 Ind. 472, 88 N.E. 687; In re......
-
People v. Chicago Transit Auth.
...other than of constitutional officers, is solely within the discretion of the legislative branch. See People ex rel Stead v. Board of Supervisors, 223 Ill. 187, 79 N.E. 123, and People ex rel. Gullett v. McCullough, 254 Ill. 9, 98 N.E. 156, Ann.Cas.1913B, 995. Other objections are raised, b......
-
Smith v. State
... ... taxable value of the city or the number of people that live within it, and the mere fact that they ... Steed v. Edgar County, 223 Ill. 187, 79 N. E. 123. In Meyer v ... Silkman, 113 Pa. 191, 6 Atl. 146; State ex rel. West v. Des Moines, 96 Iowa, 521, 65 N. W. 818, ... ...