Easler v. Blackwell

• Decision Date: 22 July 1940
• Docket Number: 15132.
• Parties: EASLER et al. v. BLACKWELL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

10 S.E.2d 160

195 S.C. 15

EASLER et al. v. BLACKWELL et al.

No. 15132.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 22, 1940

Donald Russell and R. B. Pasley, both of Spartanburg, for petitioners.

Osborne Butler & Moore, and J. Davis Kerr, all of Spartanburg for respondents.

J. HENRY JOHNSON, Acting Associate Justice.

Certiorari to the Board of State Canvassers, wherein, by petition filed in the original jurisdiction of this Court, petitioners challenge the action of that Board in sustaining the validity of an election for school trustees in Saxon School District, Spartanburg County, held December 12, 1939 upon the order of the Governor and agreeable to mandate of this tribunal in Easler v. Maybank, 191 S.C. 511, 5 S.E.2d 288.

As a part of the history of the cause, it may not be amiss to advert to the fact that the effort to elect trustees for the aforementioned district, following the passage of Act Number 872 of the Acts of 1938 (Act April 12, 1938, 40 Stat. at Large, 1775), has produced litigation of such a nature as to render necessary four appeals to this Court--see Hawkins v. Carroll et al., 190 S.C. 11, 1 S.E.2d 898, 126 A.L.R. 1028; Corn v. Blackwell et al., 191 S.C. 183, 4 S.E.2d 254, and Easler v. Maybank, supra --and it is desired that the adjudication in the instant cause may point the way to an end of misunderstanding of the law applicable to elections, to carelessness in many instances in the conduct thereof, due no doubt, in large measure, to what may be termed a, "One-Party-System" in this commonwealth, and to further expensive litigation resulting therefrom.

The record certified here discloses that there were six candidates for the three trusteeships at stake; that 690 ballots were cast, and that the result was so close that the successful candidate receiving the greatest number of votes had a total of 347, while the unsuccessful candidate obtaining the fewest number received 336 votes, the other four candidates procuring 346, 346, 344 and 339 respectively; that the polls were kept open for approximately two hours beyond the advertised (and legal) hour of closing, that, perhaps, as many as 150 ballots were cast during that period, of which approximately 125 were voted by persons who reached the polls after the legal hour of closing; that, of the total number of voters participating in the election, more than 100 were permitted to vote upon the production of registration certificates issued by a single member of the Board of Registration for Spartanburg County at the offices of two of the mills in Saxon School District, which certificates were not signed by the members of that Board, although their names were affixed thereto by means of a rubber stamp; that 14 ballots in excess of the number of voters entered upon the poll lists were deposited in the ballot box, of which 9 were destroyed because, in lieu of striking or scratching the names of three of the candidates, the voters of such ballots placed a cross-mark (X) after the names of three candidates, while the other 5 were counted; that a number of voters did not sleep in the district; and that two persons who had not paid poll tax were permitted to vote.

It is gratifying to discover, however, that there is neither charge nor evidence of any fraud in the conduct of the election, nor even the slightest suggestion thereof, and that petitioners' attack upon its validity is based solely upon the alleged irregularities enumerated.

But, while the true purpose of an election is to ascertain and declare the will of the majority, and when that is obtained in a free and fair contest the Courts will not interfere because of mere irregularities which do not appear to have affected the result, many decisions of this Court confirm the rule that irregularities, sufficient to cause doubt as to the result, will nullify an election. Johnston v. City of Charleston, 1 Bay 441; Gunter v. Gayden, 84 S.C. 48, 65 S.E. 948; Davis v. State Board of Canvassers, 86 S.C. 451, 68 S.E. 676; Clarke v. McCown, 107 S.C. 209, 92 S.E. 479; Abernathy v. Wolfe, 117 S.C. 545, 109 S.E. 275; Callison v. Peeples, 102 S.C. 256, 86 S.E. 635, Ann.Cas.1917E, 469. And such irregularities may result either from the counting of illegal ballots, or from the refusal to count legal ballots. Davis v. State Board, supra.

In determining whether or not irregularities in the conduct of an election are sufficient to render the result doubtful, the rule deducible from the decisions is that all illegally cast ballots shall be deducted from the total number counted for the declared winning candidate, and that all rejected (uncounted), legal ballots shall be added to the total number counted for the declared losing candidate. Johnston v. City of Charleston, supra; Davis v. State Board, supra.

In the election now under attack, because of the closeness of the vote for the several candidates, and the terms of the Act under which the election was held--it being provided that the person receiving the highest number of votes should have a term of three years, the second highest a term of two years, and the third highest a term of one year--the deduction of two (illegal) votes from the highest candidate, or the addition of two (uncounted, legal) votes to the admitted total of either of the other two candidates who were declared to have been elected, would affect the length of the terms of at least two of the three candidates declared elected, and thereby affect the result of the election. Moreover, as there was a difference of only two votes between two of the candidates said to have been elected, and the highest, unsuccessful candidate, a deduction of only three votes from either of the former, or the addition of that number to the total counted for the latter, would have changed the result. So, also because only eleven votes separated the highest (347) and lowest (336) candidates, the deduction of twelve (illegally counted) votes from the three highest candidates, or the addition of...