McBroom v. Brown
| Citation | 127 P. 957,53 Colo. 412 |
| Parties | McBROOM et al. v. BROWN. |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1912 |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Arapahoe County; Chas. McCall, Judge.
Petition by J. W. McBroom and others against Robert S. Brown. There was a judgment for respondent, and petitioners bring error. Reversed and rendered.
John H. Gabriel and Crump & Allen, all of Denver for plaintiffs in error.
Daniel Prescott, of Littleton, and E. M. Sabin, of Denver, for defendant in error.
Upon the morning of September 6, 1912, immediately after he opened his office, a certificate of nomination, in due form nominating the petitioners by petition for sundry county offices, was tendered to the county clerk and recorder of Arapahoe county for filing. The name therein designated by the petitioners for their ticket was 'the Progressive Party.' The clerk refused to accept or file the certificate, giving as his reason that he had already filed a similar certificate for other nominees under the name of 'the Progressive Party.' This action is to compel the clerk to accept the certificate nominating the petitioners and to expunge the other.
No question was raised in the court below or here as to proper parties, petitioners or respondents, and we will give the matter no consideration, but will limit our opinion to the questions presented. At the trial but two questions were made issues: First. Which of the two certificates was first tendered for filing? Second. Was there at that time a political party in existence in this state and in Arapahoe county, known as and entitled to this name, and, if so, which of the two certificates was authorized by that political party?
The evidence is conclusive of the fact, and it stands admitted, that a political organization under this name was then in existence in this state, and also in Arapahoe county, with recognized officials; that the nomination of the petitioners had been authorized by this organization; and that the nomination of the candidates upon the certificate filed had not been thus authorized.
In Philips v. Smith et al., 25 Colo. 456, 55 P. 184, this court held that where a party is organized, although it may not have sufficient strength to make nominations by convention it is entitled to have whatever proceedings it may take with reference to making nominations protected in the same way that nominations by conventions are; that if parties undertake to make a nomination by petition, who are not authorized to do so, such a nomination cannot be sustained as against one made by those who do represent the party. The facts are the same here. But counsel contend that this decision does not apply, for the reason that we then had under consideration the former statutes, while these nominations are made under the election act of 1910, adopted at the special session (Laws 1910, p. 15); that section 26 gives any set of petitioners the right to adopt any name they desire, not theretofore used for the same office, except that of any political party as defined in the act. The definition is contained in section 2. It defines a political party as any political organization (having candidates at, and) whose candidate for Governor received 10 per cent. of the total vote cast at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Prohibition Party v. State, 87SA12
...party appear on the general election ballot, and the name is protected from appropriation by other candidates. McBroom v. Brown, 53 Colo. 412, 127 P. 957 (1912); § 1-6-402(4); see Baer v. Meyer, 728 F.2d 471 (10th To require political organizations under section 1-1-104(17) to comply with t......
-
Baer v. Meyer, 84-1056
...it may take with reference to making nominations protected in the same way that nominations by convention are .... McBroom v. Brown, 53 Colo. 412, 127 P. 957, 958 (1912) (citing Phillips v. Smith, 25 Colo. 456, 55 P. 184 (Colo.1898)). If this clear mandate of the Colorado Supreme Court were......
-
RAINBOW COALITION v. Oklahoma State Election Bd.
...include in the computer the additional letters "C" and "L" (for Citizens Party and Libertarian Party, respectively). 19 McBroom v. Brown, 53 Colo. 412, 127 P. 957 (1912). 20 The Court expressly limited its opinion to the two parties which were plaintiffs in the case and to those instances i......
-
Constitution Party of Kan. v. Kobach
...frivolous party registration, but we rejected the Secretary's argument by relying on the state-law precedent of McBroom v. Brown, 53 Colo. 412, 127 P. 957 (1912). See Baer, 728 F.2d at 475. We cited McBroom as “ha[ving] already provided a water mark which if followed prevents this burdensom......