Callaghan v. Voorhis
| Decision Date | 22 October 1929 |
| Citation | 168 N.E. 447,252 N.Y. 14 |
| Parties | CALLAGHAN v. VOORHIS et al., Board of Elections, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Special Term.
Application by Stephen Callaghan for mandamus or other relief against John R. Voorhis and others, constituting the Board of Elections of New York City. From an order of the Special Term granting a motion for peremptory mandamus, defendants appeal. The appeal is direct to this court, as a constitutional question is involved.
Modified and affirmed.
Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Joseph P. Reilly, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellants.
Meier Steinbrink, of Brooklyn, George Z. Medalie, of New York City, and William B. Herlands and Harold M. Kennedy, both of Brooklyn, for respondent.
Albert Conway and Edward McLoughlin, both of Brooklyn, for intervener.
We held in Haskell v. Voorhis, 246 N. Y. 256, 158 N. E. 613, that, where a nominee of the Republican Party for County Court judge was also the sole nominee of an independent body, designated the Anti-Dry League, he was not entitled to have his name appear upon a separate line provided for that independent body; that section 249 of the Election Law (Consol. Laws, c. 17), was not unconstitutional in its application to such an instance. There was nothing unfair, prejudicial, or unreasonable in having the name and emblem of the Anti-Dry League appear in connection with the candidate's name on the Republican Party line. The voter who desired to vote for Mr. Haskell could do so in one place upon the machine as well as another, as in voting the Anti-Dry League ticket, he could and would vote solely for County Judge.
We specifically reserved the question of the effect of other nominations made by an independent body, when the line provided for that body would then have a fairly full and complete ticket for the offices to be filled at the election.
Section 249 reads: ‘When a person has been nominated for an office by one political party and has also been nominated for that office by one or more independent bodies, his name shall appear only in the row or column containing generally the names of candidates for other offices nominated by such party, and the name and emblem of such party and of each of such independent bodies shall appear in connection with his name.’
A political party is one which polled 25,000 votes for Governor at the preceding election.
This appeal presents to us this reserved question: Mr. Justice Callaghan has been nominated for the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial District by the Republican Party. He has also been nominated by an independent body, known as the Square Deal Party, which has nominated a full and complete ticket for nearly all, if not all, the offices to be filled at the coming election in the counties embraced within the city of New York. This includes nominees for the respective offices of mayor, comptroller, president of the board of aldermen throughout these counties, and for surrogates, sheriffs, district attorney, and City Court judges, and others in the appropriate counties. So far as we can tell from the record, it appears that these nominees are nearly all, if not all, independent nominees, in that their names do not and will not appear as candidates of the party organizations recognized as such under the Election Law; to be specific, the Democratic and Republican Parties.
The Square Deal Party, by appropriate petitions, has nominated or indorsed Mr. Justice Callaghan for the Supreme Court, and, on the line which will be assigned to this independent body or organization, the board of elections has signified its intention of leaving a blank, stating that this is the requirement of section 249 of the Election Law, which the board must follow until ordered otherwise. The voter, therefore, who intends to vote the Square Deal ticket, and for the nominees of that body, will find on this line which will be assigned to this party irrespective of Callaghan's nomination, a full list of names for the respective offices. When he comes to the Justice of the Supreme Court, however, there will be a blank.
The point of the unfairness or prejudice to the voter in such a case lies in the fact that, if there be a rather full and complete ticket of independent nominees by an independent body and a separate line is assigned for these candidates, the voter is very apt to be deceived, misled, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golden v. Clark
...law provides, have equal, easy and unrestricted opportunities to declare their choice for each office' "]; Matter of Callaghan v. Voorhis, 252 N.Y. 14, 17-18, 168 N.E. 447 [1929] [the same]; see also, Green v. Shumway, 39 N.Y. 418, 426-427 [1868]. In sum the undeniable effect of section 260......
-
Morrison v. Mccarthy
...citizens to vote, or unnecessarily to impede its exercise; if they do, they must be declared void.’ In Matter of Callaghan v. Voorhis, 252 N.Y. 14, at page 17, 168 N.E. 447, at page 448, where a question involving voting machines was at issue, the court said: ‘The whole purpose of the Elect......
-
Fisher v. Masters, 6630
...or inconvenience shall be imposed on one more than on another. (9 R. C. L., pp. 983-985; 20 Cor. Jur., pp. 62, 63; Callaghan v. Vooris, 252 N.Y. 14, 168 N.E. 447; McAlpine v. Dimick, 326 Ill. 240, 157 N.E. De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. 529, 24 A. 185, 28 Am. St. 814, 15 L. R. A. 771; Ex parte......
-
Cahill v. Kellner
...N.Y. 176, 180–181, 51 N.E.2d 695 [1943] ; Matter of Crane v. Voorhis, 257 N.Y. at 301–304, 178 N.E. 169 ; Matter of Callaghan v. Voorhis, 252 N.Y. 14, 16–18, 168 N.E. 447 [1929] ). Particularly where a line for an independent body was required to be on the ballot, the Court of Appeals found......