Douville v. Docking

• Decision Date: 04 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 46937,46937
• Citation: 210 Kan. 285,501 P.2d 778
• Parties: Arthur W. DOUVILLE, Plaintiff, v. Governor Robert DOCKING et al., Defendants.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 778

501 P.2d 778

210 Kan. 285

Arthur W. DOUVILLE, Plaintiff, v. Governor Robert DOCKING et al., Defendants.

No. 46937.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Oct. 4, 1972.

Arthur W. Douville, argued the cause pro se, and James C. Wright, Topeka, was with him on the brief for plaintiff.

John Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for the State.

Robert F. Bennett, of Bennett, Lytle & Wetzler, Prairie Village, argued the cause, and John L. Vratil, Prairie Village, was with him on the brief for the defendant John T. Brauchi.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is an original action in mandamus in which the plaintiff seeks to establish that despite losing the primary election of August 1, 1972, by two votes, he is nevertheless the lawful Republican nominee for representative to the Kansas legislature from the twentieth district. The state officials named as defendants are members of the state board of canvassers (K.S.A.1971 Supp. 25-3201). The secretary of state, auditor of state and attorney general are also charged with the duty of considering objections to certificates of nomination filed under K.S.A.1971 Supp. 25-308. The individual defendant, John T. Brauchi, is the successful candidate for the nomination sought by plaintiff.

Plaintiff's claim is based on the fact that Brauchi's name appeared on the primary ballot as 'John T. (Tony) Brauchi, M.D.' His contention is that the initials 'M.D.' should not have been appended to Brauchi's name on the ballot and that their presence gave Brauchi an unfair advantage. The result, he claims, is to invalidate all votes cast for Brauchi, leaving as the only valid votes those which were cast for plaintiff. He asks this court to so declare, and to order by way of mandamus that the state board of canvassers reconvene, recount the votes without regard to those cast for Brauchi, and declare and certify plaintiff to be the nominee. He would also have us enjoin the secretary of state from placing Brauchi's name on the ballot in the November general election order her to cancel Brauchi's certificate of nomination and order her to issue such a certificate to plaintiff.

If this were an action timely brought to enjoin the appearance of 'M.D.' on the ballot there would be much merit in plaintiff's cause. Our election laws speak repeatedly of placing the 'names' of candidates on the ballot; e. g., K.S.A.1971 Supp. 25-205, 25-206, 25-209, 25-211, 25-212, 25-213. There is no provision for adding titles, degrees, or other symbols of accomplishment, occupation or qualification, either by way of prefix or suffix. Those courts which have considered the question have uniformly held that 'M.D.' is no part of a person's 'name', and that under statutes like ours a candidate is not entitled to have any such descriptive matter appear on the ballot with his name. The only exception recognized is where there is such similarity between the names of candidates that some sort of description is necessary to identify them for the electors. See, State ex rel. Whetsel v. Murphy, 122 Ohio St. 620, 174 N.E. 252; State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe (Mo. App.), 382 S.W.2d 38...