Flanagan v. Hynes

• Decision Date: 17 April 1903
• Citation: 54 A. 737,75 Conn. 584
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FLANAGAN v. HYNES.

54 A. 737

75 Conn. 584

FLANAGAN

v. HYNES.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 17, 1903.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Election contest by John H. Flanagan against James A. Hynes. From a judgment declaring petitioner duly elected to the office of registrar of voters for the town of Waterbury, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John O'Neill, for appellant.

Charles G. Root, Terrence F. Carmody, and John H. Cassidy, for appellee.

PRENTICE, J. At the annual town election held in the town of Waterbury on the first Monday of October, 1902, the petitioner and respondent were candidates for the office of registrar of voters. The one of them who received the larger number of votes was entitled to be declared elected. The other was not. Twelve hundred and twenty-six ballots were cast for the petitioner, of which 19 were upon pasters; 1,134 were cast for the respondent, 4 being by pasters. The respondent was declared elected. The 23 paster ballots, which were concededly valid, may, under the facts of the case, be disregarded. All the other ballots, whether cast for the petitioner or the respondent, were identical in all respects, save that the name of the petitioner appeared upon some, and that of the respondent upon others, as the candidate for registrar of voters. All of these ballots confessedly complied with the requirements of statute, and were altogether free from objection, save in one particular, which remains to be noticed. Both sets of ballots were headed with the word "Democratic." The claim was made at the count, and is now made, that this use of the word "Democratic" upon the ballots containing the petitioner's name invalidated them. The moderators in four of the six voting districts sustained this claim, and rejected all of said ballots cast therein for the petitioner as void, thus accomplishing his defeat. The judge before whom the petition was heard has declared them valid, and adjudged the petitioner elected. The single question thus presented for our decision is as to whether or not the presence of the word "Democratic" upon the petitioner's ballots rendered them void.

The objection to the rejected ballots rests upon the claim that the petitioner was not the rightful candidate of the Democratic party. The petitioner was placed in nomination at the regular convention held on October 3, 1902, for the nomination of Democratic candidates for the coming town election. This convention was duly called and constituted. It was the only convention held for the purpose, and nominated all the other Democratic candidates. The rules for the government of the party which had been adopted by the town convention held in the fall of 1901, and before the act of 1901 regulating caucuses and primaries (Pub. Acts 1901, p. 1375, c. 176) went into operation, prescribed the officers who should be nominated at town conventions. The registrar of voters was not included. The rules also provided for city conventions, wherein should be nominated candidates for city offices. The power to legislate for the party was expressly reserved to the city conventions. The nomination of registrar of voters was, under the rules, to be made at neither of these conventions of delegates selected at primaries, but at a special convention to be held in May, constituted of the members of the Democratic city committee and the Democratic holders of certain designated offices. This latter body met in May, 1901, as provided by the rules, and nominated the respondent. The town convention assembled on October 3, 1901, as aforesaid, which was the first held since the consolidation of the city and town governments, and also the first held since said caucus act of 1901 went into operation. After nominating candidates for all the offices to be voted for, except that of registrar of voters, it rescinded the rule adopted by the town convention of the year previous, providing for the nomination of the registrar of voters at a special convention in May, and thereupon placed the petitioner in nomination for that office. The chairman of the Democratic town committee refused to recognize the petitioner's nomination, and recognized the respondent as the rightful candidate of the party. The ballots issued by him contained the latter's name. The petitioner, in this situation, caused the ballots to be printed and circulated which are under review.

There is no question made of the petitioner's good faith in his issuance of the ballots bearing his name and the Democratic designation; nor is any claim made that they were used or cast with any unlawful purpose, or with any intent to deceive or defraud, or in any way evade either the express provisions or the underlying purposes of the ballot law. The sole objection to the ballots is that they did not in fact comply with...