Feld v. Prewitt
| Decision Date | 21 June 1938 |
| Citation | 118 S.W.2d 700,274 Ky. 306 |
| Parties | FELD v. PREWITT, Sheriff of Montgomery County, et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County.
Action by Sol Feld against Allen G. Prewitt, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and others to contest a local option election. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Prewitt & Prewitt, of Mt. Sterling, for appellant.
Chas D. Grubbs, of Mt. Sterling, and B. S. Grannis, of Flemingsburg, for appellees.
This is a contest of a local option election held in Montgomery county on January 10, 1938, in which 1,889 votes were cast in favor of adopting the Local Option Law, Ky.St. § 2554c-1 et seq., and 1,502 against it, making a majority of 387 in favor of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor in that county. After the result of the election had been duly certified, Sol Feld, a citizen, resident and taxpayer of the county, instituted a contest proceeding against the members of the county board of election commissioners of Montgomery county and the members of the campaign committee favoring the adoption of the Local Option Law. A demurrer to the petition as amended, was sustained, and, from the judgment dismissing his petition, the plaintiff appeals.
It was alleged in the petition that Thomas W. Farmer and five other persons constituted the campaign committee favoring the adoption of the Local Option Law in Montgomery county, and as such committee, had charge of the campaign for its adoption and collected money and paid the expenses incident to the campaign. It was further alleged that this committee failed to comply with the provisions of the Corrupt Practice Act relative to the filing of expense accounts, and particularly with section 1565b-5 of the Kentucky Statutes, which requires any campaign committee, managing or paying the expenses, or contributing to the expenses of a campaign for the adoption or rejection of any question submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at any election, to file a pre-election expense account. It was further alleged that by reason of the campaign committee's failure to file the pre-election expense account, as required by section 1565b-5 of the Kentucky Statutes, the election was void. This is the principal ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment.
Section 2554c-9, which is part of the Local Option Law, provides:
"Not more than twenty days prior to an election any group of citizens or committee which in good faith advocates or opposes the proposition to be submitted may file with the chairman of the county election commission a petition asking that such petitioners be recognized as the committee entitled to nominate election officers and challengers and witnesses to the count of the ballots and certification of the results, and to name guards to assist in guarding the ballot boxes during such period of time as said committee may desire."
It will be noted that the rights accorded to a citizens' committee advocating or opposing the adoption of the Local Option Law are limited to nominating election officers and challengers and witnesses to the count of the ballots and certification of the results, and to naming guards to assist in guarding the ballot boxes. It does not appear in the present case that the campaign committee referred to in the petition, as amended, was ever officially recognized by the board of county election commissioners. It was alleged in the petition that the committee filed in the county clerk's office a list of names of persons residing in each precinct in the county and requested that they be appointed election officers to serve in the election. The petition was addressed to the chairman of the board of election commissioners of Montgomery county, but it was not alleged that it ever came into the hands of the board of election commissioners or was acted upon by it. But, be that as it may, we are of the opinion that even if the persons named in the petition had been recognized as the duly authorized campaign committee favoring the adoption of the Local Option Law, yet its failure to file the pre-election expense account required by the Corrupt Practice Act would not vitiate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
News-Press Pub. Co., Inc. v. Firestone
...that protection of the orderly process of voting and the secrecy of the ballot is a compelling governmental interest. Feld v. Prewitt, 118 S.W.2d 700 (Ky.1938); Clean-Up '84 v. Heinrich, 759 F.2d 1511, 1514 (11th Laws designed to effect these purposes are unquestionably a legitimate exercis......
-
Adams v. Wakefield
...preventing the casting of ballots or otherwise sufficient to destroy or at least impair the fairness of the election. Feld v. Prewitt, 274 Ky. 306, 118 S.W. 2d 700; Dance v. Anderson, 288 Ky. 431, S.W. 2d 463; Karloftis v. Helton, 297 Ky. 463, 178 S. W. 2d 959. The contestant and others bro......
-
Burchell v. Smith
...the election invalid. Beauchamp v. Willis, 300 Ky. 630, 189 S.W.2d 938; Holley v. Burke, 300 Ky. 571, 189 S.W.2d 862; Feld v. Prewitt, 274 Ky. 306, 118 S.W.2d 700. We have reviewed the record and find that we are in accord with the Chancellor's findings of fact; and also we agree with his r......
-
Adams v. Wakefield
... ... the casting of ballots or otherwise sufficient to destroy or ... at least impair the fairness of the election. Feld v ... Prewitt, 274 Ky. 306, 118 S.W.2d 700; Dance v ... Anderson, 288 Ky. 431, 156 [301 Ky. 41] S.W.2d 463; ... Karloftis v. Helton, 297 Ky ... ...