Altman v. Cooper

• Decision Date: 10 October 1956
• Docket Number: No. 19482,19482
• Citation: 212 Ga. 627,94 S.E.2d 685
• Parties: J. A. ALTMAN v. L. J. COOPER et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 685

94 S.E.2d 685

212 Ga. 627

J. A. ALTMAN v.L. J. COOPER et al.

No. 19482.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 10, 1956.

Syllabus by the Court.

1.'Elections belong to the political branch of the government, and courts of equity will not interfere to protect a purely political right.'

2.The petition, which sought to have a court of equity declare a primary election invalid, and to enjoin the Democratic Executive Committee from declaring the successful candidates the nominees of the party, failed to state a cause of action, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers thereto.

J. A. Altman, the present Sheriff of Ware County, Georgia, brought his equitable petition on July 6, 1956, against the members of the Ware County Democratic Executive Committee, in which petition as amended he alleges that he was a candidate for Sheriff of Ware County in a Democratic run-off primary held on November 2, 1955, and by which petition he seeks to enjoin the committee from declaring and recognizing the successful candidates in the primary, and from declaring and recognizing his opponent Robert Lee as the successful nominee for sheriff, and he prays that the primary be declared null and void; it being alleged that the election was illegally held and conducted, and is therefore void, in that the ballots to be used by the absentee voters were delivered by the defendant executive committee to the registrars of the county instead of being delivered to the registrars by the ordinary; that these ballots did not have printed thereon the words 'Absent Voter's Ballot'; that the defendants did not require that the registrars perform all of the acts and duties prescribed by Chapter 34-33 of the Code in the issuance, receipt, handling, and delivery of the absentee ballots, which rendered them illegal; and that they should not have been counted in ascertaining the result of the primary; but the petition does not allege that any of these ballots were not cast by regularly qualified voters, or that there was any tampering with them, although opportunity was afforded for such by the manner in which they were handled; that the election was fraudulently conducted, in that 'false ballots' were carried by unauthorized persons to three of the voting wards and counted by the managers, the exact number of which were unknown to the petitioner, but that they numbered in excess of 120 at each of the wards; and that petitioner's opponent received in excess of 100 votes from said 'false' absentee ballots at each of the wards; and that, had they been eliminated, petitioner would have been declared the nominee, but the petition fails to allege how or in what way these ballots were 'false.'The petition further alleges that petitioner's opponent hired and employed 'hoodlums and gangsters,' who were imported from without the State and who were unknown to the petitioner, for the purpose of terrorizing and intimidating the Negroes who planned to and tried to vote for the petitioner; that, because of the 'threats and intimidation' by these 'hoodlums and gangsters'(without any allegation as to the nature and character of such 'threats and intimidation'), 460 named Negroes who would have voted for petitioner were prevented from doing so, and frightened many Negroes into voting for his opponent when they had intended to vote for petitioner; that the defendants failed to comply with the secret-vote laws, in that booths and other arrangements to insure a secret vote were not supplied as required by Code, §§ 34-1902; that instruction cards were not supplied as required by Code, § 34-1908(which sections impose the duties there referred to upon the ordinary and the sheriff, and not upon the executive committee); and that the ballots did not contain a printed description and number on the reverse side thereof as required by Code§ 34-1903; and that petitioner's opponent had failed to file a statement of his campaign expenses as required by Code, § 34-2001.Petitioner's opponent, Robert Lee, was permitted by the trial court to intervene, and both he and the...