Mobile County Republican Executive Committee v. Mandeville
Decision Date | 23 October 1978 |
Parties | The MOBILE COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE et al. v. John E. MANDEVILLE, as Clerk, etc., et al. 77-789. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William W. Stoudenmire, Charles S. White-Spunner, Jr., Michael A. Wermuth, Mobile, J. B. Sessions, III, Russellville, for appellants.
Maury Friedlander of Marr & Friedlander, Mobile, for appellees, John E. Mandeville, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, Mobile County, Ala. and John L. Moore, as Judge of Probate, Mobile County, Ala.
This appeal was taken from a September 13, 1978, order of the circuit court in a declaratory judgment action brought by the Mobile County Republican Executive Committee and its chairman against the appointing board established by § 17-6-1, Code of Alabama 1975. The appointing board consists of the Sheriff, Probate Judge and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. As provided in § 17-6-3, Code of Alabama 1975, the defendant, Tom Purvis, Sheriff of Mobile County, was unable to serve as an appointing board member because he was a candidate for renomination to that office in the September 5, 1978, Democratic Primary Election. Jeff C. Mims was named to serve on the appointing board in Sheriff Purvis's absence as provided in § 17-6-4, Code of Alabama 1975, and was made a party defendant in this action.
The Republican Executive Committee contends that it submitted a list of suggested election officers for the primary election as allowed by § 17-16-17, Code of Alabama 1975; and that the appointing board failed, neglected or refused to consider this list in the appointment of election officers. It contends that Alabama law requires the appointing board to name election officers for primary elections from lists provided by the respective political party executive committees and in equal proportion to the number of political parties participating in the primary election.
§ 17-16-17 controls this issue as it relates to the appointment of election officers in primary elections. This statute provides:
The trial court held that § 17-16-17 was directory only and did not require the appointing board to appoint election officers in equal proportions from the lists submitted by the county executive committees. The trial court held, in part, that:
". . . the appointing board, and their successors in office, shall give due consideration to each such list so presented to it, and in choosing the election officials at any primary or general election, exercise its discretion as to the selection of such election officers . . . ."
We affirm, but disagree with the trial court that § 17-16-17 controls the appointment of election officers who serve in general elections.
§ 17-16-17 admonishes the appointing board to appoint the election officers while ". . . observing the above rule as to representation wherever more than one (political) party enters the primary . . . ." The statute, however, is devoid of any rule to which this language can refer, as the trial court observed.
The Republican Executive Committee concedes, in brief, that this statute is ambiguous and subject to a number of interpretations; but asserts that if properly construed, the statute would mandate that appointments of election officers in primary elections be equally divided between candidates submitted by each political party participating in that primary.
Of course, when the plain meaning of a statute can be gleaned from its words, it should be so construed. State v. Commercial Loan Co., 251 Ala. 672, 38 So.2d 571 (1949); Van Houtan v. Black, 191 Ala. 168, 67 So. 1008 (1915). But where, because of ambiguous language or otherwise, the meaning is not clear on the face of the statute, we must determine its meaning. To accomplish this, courts frequently and properly look to the legislative purpose in enacting the legislation. State v. Union Tank Car Co., 281 Ala. 246, 201 So.2d 402 (1967).
One of the stated legislative purposes of § 17-16-17 is ". . . to allow candidates to nominate election officers . . . ." See Preamble, Act No. 1196, 1975 Acts of Alabama, approved October 10, 1975, Vol. IV, page 2349 (predecessor to § 17-16-17).
The legislature's method of accomplishing this purpose is by allowing candidates to nominate prospective election officers through their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd.
...but when the provision of a statute is the essence of the thing to be done, it is mandatory. Mobile County Republican Executive Committee v. Mandeville, 363 So.2d 754, 757 (Ala.1978). In the first two sentences of § 17-10-7, the affidavit is the essence of the thing to be done: "Each absent......
-
State v. K.E.L.
...rather than supposed words [of] art such as ‘shall,’ ‘may,’ or ‘must,’ that ultimately controls." Mobile Cty. Republican Executive Comm. v. Mandeville, 363 So. 2d 754, 757 (Ala. 1978). See also Robertson v. State, 276 S.C. 356, 358, 278 S.E.2d 770, 771 (1981) ("[W]hen the question arises wh......
-
Aquino v. United Prop. & Cas. Co.
... ... Dunn County Mut. Ins. Co. , 39 Wis. 2d 240, 249, 159 N.W.2d ... ...
-
Nobis v. State
...any requirement that appellant should have received a preliminary hearing in the instant case.4 In Mobile County Republican Executive Comm. v. Mandeville, 363 So.2d 754, 757 (Ala.1978), our Supreme Court held that, when the plain meaning of a statute can be gleaned from its words, it should......