City of Tecumseh v. City of Shawnee

• Decision Date: 17 March 1931
• Docket Number: Case Number: 22001
• Citation: 297 P. 285,1931 OK 81,148 Okla. 128
• Parties: CITY OF TECUMSEH v. CITY OF SHAWNEE et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1931 OK 81

297 P. 285

148 Okla. 128

CITY OF TECUMSEH v. CITY OF SHAWNEE et al.

Case Number: 22001

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 17, 1931

Syllabus

¶0 1. Counties--County Seat Elections--Validity--Immaterial Errors.

Error in the conduct of county seat elections must materially affect the result thereof before it will defeat the result thereof.

2. Elections--Rigid Conformity to Technical Directions not Required.

It is the duty of courts to sustain elections where it can be done by liberal construction of the laws relating thereto, rather than to defeat them by requiring a rigid conformity to technical directions which do not affect the substantial rights of the electors.

3. Same--Presumptions as to Regularity.

All reasonable presumptions as to the regularity of elections will be indulged, and the penalty of disfranchisement will not be visited upon a qualified voter where he is not at fault, unless the irregularities shown to have occurred are sufficient to cast a substantial doubt as to the result of the election.

4. Counties--Votes not Invalidated by Mere Intent of Partisan to Exert Unlawful Influence in County Seat Election.

Mere intent by a partisan to unlawfully influence voters at an election cannot operate to render void the votes of the electors who were not influenced and affected by such intent.

5. Same--Effect of Bribery Influencing Votes.

Bribery will void the votes influenced by the offers made, but it will not void the election unless the influence thereof was so extensive and general throughout the county that it is impracticable, if not impossible, to ascertain the effect of the bribery.

6. Same--Constitutional Provision as to Bribery Construed.

"Influencing," as used in section 7, art. 17, of the Constitution, does not include persuasion by argument or presentation of contentions or facts. The payment of money or the delivery of property, either directly or indirectly, to a voter in order to induce him to vote for or against a competing town is bribery under the terms of the section, but the payment of money or the delivery of property to a voter for his services, his time, and his expenses in presenting the merits of a competing town to a voter, thereby inducing the voter to vote for or against the town, is not within the provisions of the section.

7. Same -- Amount of Expenditures not Limited by Public Policy.

Since there is no limitation on the amount of funds that may be expended in a general election, there is no public policy of the state limiting the amount of funds that may be expended in a county seat election governed by the general election laws.

8. Same--Effect of Expenditures not Authorized by Statutes--Various Campaign Expenditures Held not Unlawful.

Expenditures of funds in a county seat election, where the purpose is not authorized by the statutes, voids the votes influenced thereby, but does not void the result of the election, in the absence of a statute providing that such expenditure of funds will void the result of the election. The expenditure of funds for the payment of voters for polling the votes, postage, stenographic help, pamphlets, circulars, newspaper advertising, billboard advertising, registration of voters, precinct maps, office rent, pictures, labor, attorney fees, court costs, miscellaneous expenses, and for services and expenses in working for the interest of one of the contesting cities, attendance upon farm sales and other public meetings, distribution of literature, the making of arguments in favor of the removal, hauling voters to the polls, and influencing the voters other than by bribery of the voters, does not constitute unlawful expenditures of funds in such an election.

9. Same--Election Changing County Seat of Pottawatomie County Held Valid.

The record shows that this election was regularly held and legally conducted; that there was no such expenditure of funds, bribery, or fraud as to make it impracticable to determine the result; that the result of the election is determined by the recount of the ballots had in this court; that more than two-thirds of the qualified voters of Pottawatomie county voting at the election voted in favor of Shawnee, and that the Governor of the state of Oklahoma has issued a proclamation declaring Shawnee to be the county seat of Pottawatomie county, Okla.

Original proceeding in Supreme Court by the City of Tecumseh against the City of Shawnee et al. to determine the validity of a county seat election. Judgment for defendants.

Maxey, Holden & Holleman and J. B. Dudley, for plaintiff.

Reily & Reily, Goode, Dierker & Goode, Waldrep & Winterringer, Iris C. Saunders, A. B. Shuttee, and J. Knox Byrum, for defendants.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 A special election was held in Pottawatomie county, Okla., pursuant to the provisions of sections 6, 7, and 8, art. 17, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and sections 5704 to 5726, C. O. S. 1921, on the question of changing the county seat of Pottawatomie county as therein authorized. The contesting cities were Shawnee and Tecumseh. At the conclusion thereof the Governor of the state of Oklahoma issued a proclamation declaring Shawnee to be the county seat of Pottawatomie county, and this action was filed in this court by the city of Tecumseh for the purpose of determining the questions presented by it with regard to the legality of the election.

¶2 The testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses shows that a fund was raised to be used in the county seat campaign in the aggregate sum of $ 14,464. That fund was deposited in three banks temporarily and transferred by check to the Shawnee National Bank, on which bank all checks for disbursement for expenses of the campaign were drawn. Those checks aggregated $ 14,032.26. The checks are in evidence. When analyzed they disclose the following:

¶3 Twenty-nine checks were issued, aggregating $ 325.50, for polling; eight checks, aggregating $ 407.35, for postage; thirteen checks, aggregating $ 186.00, for stenographic help; twenty-one checks, aggregating $ 2,792.31, for pamphlets, circulars, newspaper advertising, and billboard advertising; sixteen checks, aggregating $ 349.05, for registration of voters; two checks, aggregating $ 117.25, for preparation of precinct maps; twelve checks, aggregating $ 306.93, for miscellaneous expense, including office rent, $ 7.5, pictures, $ 86, and other small items; five checks, aggregating $ 221.50, for labor; fifteen checks, aggregating $ 586.37, the purpose for which they were issued being undisclosed; four checks, aggregating $ 290, for automobile expense; and checks to members of the campaign committee, classified as follows: Two checks to Geo. N. Kerfoot, aggregating $ 450, one of which was a refund of $ 250, and the purpose of the other not disclosed by the check; one check to C. C. Hawk in the sum of $ 200; four checks to T. C. Waldrep aggregating $ 1,400; five checks to O. P. Ellis aggregating $ 1,250, and seventeen checks to J. A. Ingram aggregating $ 5,150.

¶4 Ingram's personal record shows that he received $ 6,150, and he testified that he paid $ 1,000 of it to Waldrep for an attorney's fee due to Waldrep in some litigation over the construction of a county jail. The method of handling that $ 1,000 accounts for the discrepancy. The bank account shows that Ingram received only $ 5,150, the other $ 1,000 having been paid by check to Waldrep.

¶5 Ingram's personal record shows disbursements to the amount of $ 6,139.85, included in which is the $ 1,000 paid to Waldrep and which has been heretofore accounted for. If Ingram is charged with $ 6,150, he is entitled to a credit for $ 6,139.85. If he is charged with only $ 5,150, then he should be credited with only $ 5,139.85. His disbursements show five payments to Waldrep aggregating $ 805, one payment to Ellis in the amount of $ 200, five payments to Hawk aggregating $ 425, one payment for advertising in the amount of $ 50, one payment for court costs in the amount of $ 35, three payments for postage aggregating $ 28, and 16 payments for office expense aggregating $ 108.75. The total of those payments is $ 1,651.75, leaving a balance of $ 3,488.10, which was paid out in 169 items to various persons. The account does not show the purpose of those payments, but Mr. Ingram testified, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the money was paid out to the individuals whose names appeared on his record for their services and expenses in working for the interest of Shawnee in the campaign, to attend farm sales and other public meetings, to distribute literature, to make arguments in favor of the removal of the county seat to Shawnee, to haul voters to the polls, and, so far as they were able, to influence the voters to vote for the removal of the county seat to Shawnee. There is nothing in the record to the contrary.

¶6 The record discloses no instance where any member of the campaign committee representing Shawnee employed or paid anyone to work for Shawnee, except where the person stated that he or she was for Shawnee in the campaign. The record shows one instance of an attorney repaying a client a part of an attorney's fee, but there is nothing in the record to show that that attorney was in any way connected with the campaign committee.

¶7 The $ 450 received by Kerfoot by check is accounted for by the rebate to him of $ 250 and the delivery by him of $ 200 to Hawk.

¶8 Mr. Hawk received $ 200 by check, $ 425 in cash from Ingram, and $ 200 in cash from Kerfoot. He testified that he spent $ 580.50 arranging for cars to be used on election day and that he employed men and women to work for Shawnee. He made a record of the names of the individuals paid by him and at the close of the campaign delivered that record to the campaign committee. Those that he employed were directed by him as follows:

"A. Well, go into a community and work for the interest of the campaign which we had on, and if necessary hire a man with his car, and hire a man to go out and

...