Fisher v. Dudley

• Decision Date: 16 June 1891
• Citation: 22 A. 2,74 Md. 242
• Parties: FISHER ET AL. v. DUDLEY ET AL., SUPERVISORS OF ELECTION.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

22 A. 2

74 Md. 242

FISHER ET AL. v. DUDLEY ET AL., SUPERVISORS OF ELECTION.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 16, 1891

Appeal from Baltimore city court.

Joseph Packard, Jr., Chas. I. Bonaparte, and John C. Rose, for appellants.

Wm. S. Bryan, Jr., and T. I. Campbell, for appellees.

IRVING J.

By section 128 of article 33 of the Code of Public General Laws as enacted by chapter 538, page 615, of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1890, all ballots to be used and cast at any election in the state are to be printed and furnished at public expense; and upon those ballots are to be printed the names of the several candidates, according to directions given in succeeding sections enacted by the same act; and the refusal of the board of supervisors of Baltimore city to place the name of Edward Stabler, Jr., as a candidate for the first branch of the city council of Baltimore city as an independent candidate in a separate place and column other than the column containing the names of candidates of the Republican party has given rise to this proceeding. The appellants filed their petition in the Baltimore city court representing that Edward Stabler, Jr., had been nominated by more than 200 citizens, including the petitioners, all of whom are registered voters, as an independent candidate for the first branch of the city council of Baltimore city; that they are not Republicans, and that they have not nominated Mr. Stabler because he is a Republican, but wholly irrespective of the question of political association; and that they have requested that the name of Mr. Stabler should be put upon the ballot in a different place from the column containing the nominations of the Republican party, which party had also nominated Mr. Stabler as a candidate for the same place, as the petitioners and others had done, by a paper containing more than 200 names; but that the supervisors of election had refused to comply with their request, and would not put Mr. Stabler's name any where but in the Republican group and under the Republican emblem; wherefore the appellants ask for a mandamus upon the supervisors of election, compelling them to print the name of Mr. Stabler on the official ballots in the independent group of candidates for the place already mentioned. The appellees answered, denying the right of the petitioners to have Mr. Stabler's name printed elsewhere on the ballot than in the Republican group. The court agreed with the appellees, and overruled the petitioners' demurrer to the defendants' answer, and refused the mandamus; hence this appeal, which raises the following questions under the new election law: (1) If two or more political parties, or bodies of citizens, calling themselves by a party name, nominate, either by conventions, primary elections, or nomination papers, the same man as a candidate for the same office, has each of the parties who nominated him the right to have his name printed on the official ballots under the name of such party and its emblem, if it has selected one? (2) If the same man is nominated by a political party, and by a nomination paper, in which no party name is set forth, have the persons signing the nomination papers the right to have the name of their candidate printed on the official ballot in another place than under the party name and emblem of the political party by which such candidate was then nominated? The questions thus raised depend upon the proper construction of section 131 of article 33, as enacted by the act of 1890, chapter 538, page 615, already mentioned, in conjunction with sections 129 and 130. Section 129 provides that any convention, as hereinafter defined, held for the purpose of making nominations to public office, and also registered voters to the number hereinafter specified, may nominate candidates for public offices to be filled by election within the state or...