Crothers v. Jones
| Decision Date | 15 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 45033,45033 |
| Citation | 120 So.2d 248,239 La. 800 |
| Parties | Brenham C. CROTHERS v. Howard M. JONES. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, Murray Hudson, Monroe, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jones, Kimball, Harper, Te te & Wetherill, Lake Charles, Wood H. Thompson, Monroe, W. Davis Cotton, Rayville, Young & Watson, Burton L. Wade, St. Joseph, Lloyd F. Love, Ferriday, Miss Alwine L. Mulhearn, Tallulah, for appellee.
Because of its importance involving a matter growing out of an election, this case was not scheduled for hearing on the regular docket of this Court; it was heard out of term and received our immediate attention.
The results of the first Democratic Primary Election, held on December 5, 1959, for State Senator from the Thirty-Second Senatorial District of Louisiana, composed of the Parishes of Concordia, East Carroll, Madison, and Tensas, were:
Howard M. Jones ...... 3,676 Votes
Brenham C. Crothers .. 3,231 Votes
W. E. Person ......... 2,603 Votes
Candidates in a second primary election held on January 9, 1960 for the above office were Howard M. Jones and Brenham C. Crothers--W. E. Person having been eliminated in the first primary. The results of that election were:
Howard M. Jones ...... 5,177 Votes
Brenham C. Crothers .. 4,683 Votes
After tabulation the results of the January 9, 1960 election were certified to the Secretary of State by the Thirty-Second Senatorial Executive Committee on Friday, January 15, 1960, and Howard M. Jones was declared the Democratic Nominee for State Senator.
On the same day, January 15, 1960, Brenham C. Crothers, defeated candidate, supra, filed the present action, 1 wherein he prayed:
1. That the votes cast for Howard M. Jones in the first and in the second primary election be declared illegal, null, and not counted.
2. That Howard M. Jones be declared ineligible for candidacy in either the first or second primary elections, and that his participation in the primaries be declared a nullity and of no effect.
3. That plaintiff, Brenham C. Crothers, be declared the Democratic nominee for the office of State Senator from the Thirty-Second Senatorial District for the four-year term beginning 1960 and ending in 1964.
4. Alternatively, that the second primary election declaring Howard M. Jones to be the Democratic nominee for the office of State Senator be declared a nullity.
5. Further alternatively, that the first primary election declaring Howard M. Jones to be eligible to contest with plaintiff in a second primary and the second primary election declaring Howard M. Jones the nominee be each and both declared nullities.
Ground set forth by plaintiff for the relief sought were that Howard M. Jones, defendant, was convicted by the Federal District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, during May, 1925, on five counts of violating Section 215 of the Penal Code of the United States concerning Use of the United States Mails to Defraud, and was sentenced on each count to serve one year and one day in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, said sentences to run concurrently; that Jones served his sentence; that the crime of which Jones was convicted was a felony, and that such conviction deprived Jones of his rights to register to vote, to vote, and to hold the office of State Senator in Louisiana; that such conviction deprived Jones of his citizenship of the State of Louisiana and of the United States; that Jones's citizenship had not been restored on February 11, 1957 when he registered to vote in the Parish of Tensas; and, that when Jones qualified with the Thirty-Second Senatorial District Executive Committee as a candidate for State Senator, he fraudulently represented himself to have been a Louisiana citizen for a period of five years and to be a duly qualified elector and voter of Tensas Parish.
Reiterating the prayer of his original petition, plaintiff alleged in a supplemental petition that the Governor of the State of Louisiana had granted defendant a pardon on July 20, 1959 and had attempted to restore to defendant his citizenship. Plaintiff further alleged that even if defendant's pardon had the effect of restoring his citizenship, defendant had not complied with the requirements of Article III, Section 9, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, LSA, providing that a member of the State Legislature must have been a citizen of the State for five years.
In answer Jones admitted that he had entered a plea of guilty to the crime which plaintiff alleged he, Jones, had committed, and that he served approximately four months of his sentence, being released on parole. He stated that at no time had he made any secret of his past; 2 that in 1936, he established residence in Tensas Parish; and that in 1937, he registered to vote in Tensas Parish and had voted in that parish thereafter. He averred that he had not misrepresented his qualifications to anyone, and that he would establish his qualifications in every respect to represent the people as Senator of the Thirty-Second Senatorial District in the Louisiana Legislature.
After hearing the matter on the merits--all exceptions filed by defendant to plaintiff's original and supplemental and amending petitions having been referred to the merits--the trial judge rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, rejecting the plaintiff's demands and dismissing his suit.
The trial court held that LSA-R.S. 15:572.1, Act 129 of 1940, which prescribes that, 'No person who has been convicted of any crime, either in any of the courts of Louisiana or in any of the courts of the United States, which may be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary and who has not been afterward pardoned with express restoration of franchise shall be permitted to register, vote, or hold office or appointment of honor, trust, or profit in the state of Louisiana,' could not have a retroactive effect.
Relying on opinion of the Louisiana Attorney General, the trial court held that conviction of a Federal offense and confinement in a Federal penitentiary during the years prior to 1940 did not deprive Jones of his Louisiana citizenship. Article VIII, Section 6, Louisiana Constitution of 1921; Opinions of the Attorney General, March 6, 1940, Opinions 1938--40, p. 779; Opinions of the Attorney General, November 23, 1938, Opinions 1938--40, p. 766.
Plaintiff appealed to this Court from the above judgment. In brief, he sets forth the following specification of errors:
'1. The district judge erred in holding that Article 8, Section 6 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, and R.S. 18:42(1) and R.S. 15:572.1 did not disfranchise Howard Jones prior to receipt of a valid pardon.
'2. The district judge erred in holding that R.S. 15:572.1 is or may be unconstitutional as prohibited Ex post facto law.
'3. The district judge erred in holding that Howard M. Jones committed no fraud when he registered in February of 1957.
'4. The district judge erred in holding that Howard Jones had established his right to citizenship since approximately 1937, while said appellee was an admitted convicted felon.
'5. The district judge erred in holding that registration following the pardon was 'pointless'--a requirement provided for by Louisiana Law.
'6. The district judge erred in holding that the Acting Governor of Louisiana had the power to grant unto Howard Jones a valid pardon for a Federal crime.
The specification of errors charges in effect that Howard M. Jones did not possess the required legal qualifications for the office of State Senator from the Thirty-Second Senatorial District when he offered himself as a candidate for that office to the Thirty-Second Senatorial District Executive Committee on or about September 18, 1959.
The evidence of record discloses that the defendant established his residence in Tensas Parish during the summer of 1936, and registered to vote in that parish in 1937 or 1938. His testimony is as follows:
'Q. Now, Mr. Jones, did you remain or did you continue to register and vote in Louisiana from that time forward?
'A. I have registered and voted in every election in Tensas Parish and the State of Louisiana since my initial registration and I have never been challenged by any person whatsoever. Or has the question ever been asked of me, 'are you qualified or do you know that you might not be qualified?'
'Q. Mr. Jones, did you * * * on that occasion, on the initial occasion, when you registered, or at any other time, when you registered, before a Registrar of Voters, in Tensas Parish, Louisiana, did you ever state or represent to them, that you had not served this sentence in Leavenworth, Kansas?
In 1937, Article VIII, Section 6, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, provided:
'The following persons shall not be permitted to register, vote, or hold office or appointment of honor, trust, or profit in this State, to-wit: Those who have been convicted of any crime which may be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, and not afterwards pardoned with express restoration of franchise; * * *'
and Section 1 thereof stated:
'After January 1, 1922, the right to vote in Louisiana shall not exist except under the provisions of this Constitution.
'Citizenship and age. Every citizen of this State of the United States, native born or naturalized, not less than twenty-one years of age, and possessing the following qualifications, shall be an elector, and shall be entitled to vote at any election in the State by the people:
'(a) He shall have been an actual bona fide resident of the State for two years, of the parish one year, * * *
'(c) Character and literacy. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. Baronian
...of bribery, or of any crime deemed infamous at common law").13 E. g., Hildreth v. Heath, 1 Ill.App. 82 (1878); Crothers v. Jones, 239 La. 800, 120 So.2d 248 (1960); State ex rel. Mitchell v. McDonald, 164 Miss. 405, 145 So. 508 (1933); Isaacs v. Board of Ballot Comm'rs, 122 W.Va. 703, 12 S.......
-
Malone v. Shyne
...convictions and the federal government's interest for directly punishing their offenses against the United States. Crothers v. Jones, 239 La. 800, 120 So.2d 248 (1960). The court made the following observation, citing an Alabama Our research has revealed no authority which would have made i......
-
Stiner v. Musick
...§ 41-101; Burdine v. Kennon, 186 Tenn. 200, 209 S.W.2d 9 (1948); State v. DuBose, 88 Tenn. 753, 13 S.W. 1088 (1890); Crothers v. Jones, 239 La. 800, 120 So.2d 248 (1960). Compare cases cited, Annot., 39 A.L.R.3d 303. This is particularly true given the difference in both the significance an......
-
Tucker v. Huval
...should be liberally construed to accomplish the legislative intent. The trial judge relied heavily on the case of Crothers v. Jones, 239 La. 800, 120 So.2d 248 (1960). In that case Jones had defeated Crothers in an election in 1959 for state senator. Crothers filed suit to disqualify Jones ......
-
Undermining individual and collective citizenship: the impact of exclusion laws on the African-American community.
...KY. CONST. [section] 145. Louisiana LA. CONST. art. 1, [section] 10; LA. REV. STAT. ANN. [section] 18:102 (2007); Crothers v. Jones, 120 So. 2d 248 (La. 1960). Massachusetts MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 279, [section] 30 (West 2006). Michigan MICH. CONST. art. II, [section] 2; see also MICH. CO......