Defilipis v. Russell
| Decision Date | 15 August 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34850,34850 |
| Citation | 52 Wn.2d 745,328 P.2d 904 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mabel R. DEFILIPIS, Plaintiff, v. Leonard RUSSELL, Relator, Robert A. Morris, as Auditor of King County, and Edward Logan, Superintendent of Elections, Defendants, The Superior Court for King County, Honorable Hugh Todd, Judge, Respondent. |
Burton & Greenlee, Seattle, for relator.
Kane & Spellman, Seattle, for plaintiff.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Maurice M. Epstein, Seattle, for Robert A. Morris and Edward Logan.
August 5, 1958, the trial court entered judgment which (1) held null and void the declaration of candidacy of Leonard Russell for his party's nomination to the office of state representative for the thirty-seventh legislative district in Seattle, King county, Washington, and (2) restrained the auditor and the superintendent of elections of King county from printing the name of Leonard Russell on the primary election ballot for said position.
The facts are not in dispute.
July 21, 1958, Mr. Russell filed with the county auditor his declaration of candidacy for his party's nomination to the state legislature for the thirty-seventh district. On that date, he was a citizen of the United States, a resident of King county, and a registered voter in the thirty-third legislative district. He had resided in the thirty-seventh district more than thirty days prior to July 21, 1958. Eight days after filing his declaration of candidacy, he registered as a voter in the thirty-seventh district.
It is conceded that, under the constitution and statutes of this jurisdiction, Mr. Russell must be eligible to hold the office at the time he files his declaration to participate in the election process (see State ex rel. Reynolds v. Howell, 1912, 70 Wash. 467, 126 P. 954, 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 1119; State ex rel. Willis v. Monfort, 1916, 93 Wash. 4, 159 P. 889, L.R.A.1917B, 801; State ex rel. Pennick v. Hall, 1946, 26 Wash.2d 172, 173 P.2d 153), hence, his subsequent registration as a voter in the thirty-seventh district is not considered by us.
The question involved--Must a candidate for the state legislature be a registered voter in the district which he chooses to represent at the time of filing his declaration of candidacy?--is narrow and one of first impression in this jurisdiction. We have not found much aid to its solution in the adjudicated cases.
Article II, § 7 of the Washington constitution sets forth the basic qualifications of eligibility for election to the state legislature.
(Italics ours.)
The basic question is whether the framers of the constitution intended that the term 'qualified voter,' as used in Art. II, § 7, included registration to vote. We believe that they intended a meaning beyond that specified by the word 'elector,' else they would have used 'elector' as descriptive of one eligible to the office of legislator. The qualifications of an elector, found in Art. VI, § 1 of the state constitution, do not include registration to vote, and it cannot, by statute be made an additional prerequisite of eligibility to hold office. See Tennent v. Stacy, 1955, 48 Wash.2d 104, 291 P.2d 647.
On the other hand, however, it is the constitution itself which requires that
'The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote; * * *'. (Italics ours.) Washington constitution, Art. VI, § 7.
Article II, § 7, and Art. VI, § 7, must be construed together so that each has meaning; hence, under Art. II, § 7, of the state constitution a 'qualified voter' is one possessing the present legal power or capacity to vote. The term, as used in this section, is descriptive of one who has become eligible to vote by reason of registration. This gives meaning to the term 'qualified voter.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Sup'rs of Elections of Prince George's County v. Goodsell
... ... Burke v. Campbell, 542 S.W.2d 355, 357-358 (Mo.App.1976); Southerland v. Town of Goldsboro, 96 N.C. 49, 1 S.E. 760 (1887); Defilipis v. Russell, 52 Wash.2d 745, 328 P.2d 904 (1958). Goodsell also reiterates his argument that, if the Prince George's County Charter does require that ... ...
-
State ex rel. O'Connell v. Dubuque
... ... Art. II, of the constitution does not apply. State ex rel. McAvoy v. Gilliam, 60 Wash. 420, 111 P. 401 ... Then, in Defilipis v. Russell, 52 Wash.2d 745, 328 P.2d 904 (1958), although not discussing the question of jurisdiction, but proceeding directly to the substantive ... ...
-
Cedar County Committee v. Munro, 64958-8
... ... Defilipis v. Russell, 52 Wash.2d 745, 746-47, 328 P.2d 904 (1958) ... The framers did, in fact, address the issue of voter ... registration ... ...
-
State ex rel. Socialist Workers' Party of Missouri v. Kirkpatrick
... ... Other cases supporting our conclusion are Scott v. Kirkpatrick, supra, Defilipis v. Russell, 52 Wash.2d 745, 328 P.2d 904, Lane v. Henderson, 39 Ariz. 457, 7 P.2d 588 (1932), Williams v. Polk County Comm'r & Board of Education of ... ...