Bostwick v. Harris
| Decision Date | 27 October 1982 |
| Citation | 421 So.2d 492 |
| Parties | Betty BOSTWICK, et al. v. William D. HARRIS, etc., et al. 82-38. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Walter Byars and Wanda D. Devereaux, Montgomery, and Edward Still, Birmingham, for appellants.
Edwin A. Strickland, and James O. Spencer, Jr., Birmingham, for appellees.
The facts are simple and undisputed.
Thomas J. Hayden filed his declaration of candidacy with the Republican Party on July 8, 1982, for Associate Justice, Place 2, Alabama Supreme Court. Several days after the statutory deadline of 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 1982, at Hayden's request, this declaration was somehow changed to show that he declared his candidacy for Associate Justice, Place 3, Alabama Supreme Court.
Hayden is not a candidate for Place 2, because (1) his declaration was changed to Place 3, and (2) he was not certified as a candidate for Place 2 by the Republican Party as required by § 17-7-1, Ala.Code 1975. Hayden does not contend that he is a candidate for Place 2. He does contend that he is a candidate for Place 3. In this he is in error.
Hayden is not a candidate for Place 3, because his declaration of candidacy was not filed with the Republican Party before the statutory deadline, which was 5:00 p.m., July 9, 1982.
The following statutes are controlling and compel this result:
Ala.Code 1975, § 17-16-11(a), provides:
"All candidates for nomination to public office ... shall file their declaration of candidacy with the state party chairman ... not later than 5:00 P.M. 60 days before the date of such primary." (July 9, 1982)
This statute is mandatory and political parties have no power to alter the time fixed by the legislature. This Court so held in Foster v. Dickinson, 293 Ala. 298, 302 So.2d 111 (1974), but the appellants concede that they did not call this case to the attention of the trial court.
Section 17-16-21 provides:
(Emphasis added.)
The appellants Bostwick and Bolin, as representative registered voters, electors, and taxpayers, adherents of the Alabama Republican Party and Alabama Democratic Party, respectively, properly raised these issues in the trial court by their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying the name of Hayden as a candidate for the Alabama Supreme Court, Associate Justice, Place 3. By an amended complaint, these appellants sought a declaratory judgment or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus, and injunctive relief directed to the Secretary of State to prevent him from certifying, or ordering him to withdraw or rescind his certification of, the name of Hayden as candidate for Place 3; and directed to all probate judges in the state (represented by appellee O.H. Florence, as probate judge of Jefferson County, as their class representative) to prevent the probate judges from preparing or causing to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roper v. Rhodes
...at the time of, and that govern, the acts and omissions at issue in this case. See note 2 in the main opinion. 13. In Bostwick v. Harris, 421 So.2d 492 (Ala. 1982), for example, the issue presented on appeal was whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over an action seeking a declaratory......
-
Hayden v. Harris
...a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying Hayden's candidacy. See Bostwick v. Harris, 421 So.2d 492 (Ala.1982), wherein this Court held that Hayden's candidacy for Associate Justice, Place 3, Alabama Supreme Court, was invalid. William D. Har......
-
Bell v. Eagerton
...So.2d 876 (Ala.1984), and Jones v. Phillips, 279 Ala. 354, 185 So.2d 378 (1966); the justiciability of her complaint, see Bostwick v. Harris, 421 So.2d 492 (Ala.1982), and City of Adamsville v. City of Birmingham, 495 So.2d 642 (Ala.1986); and the consequent subject-matter jurisdiction of t......
-
Bell v. Eagteron
...2d 876 (Ala. 1984), and Jones v. Phillips, 279 Ala. 354, 185 So. 2d 378 (1966); the justiciability of her complaint, see Bostwick v. Harris, 421 So. 2d 492 (Ala. 1982), and City of Adamsville v. City of Birmingham, 495 So. 2d 642 (Ala. 1986); and the consequent subject-matter jurisdiction o......