Moon v. Halverson
| Decision Date | 24 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 32117. |
| Citation | 288 N.W. 579,206 Minn. 331 |
| Parties | MOON v. HALVERSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; Alfred L. Thwing Judge.
Suit by C. O. Moon against A. S. Halverson to annul the election of A. S. Halverson to the office of register of deeds and to oust him from office. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff's petition, the plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
In an election contest to annul contestee's election to a non-partisan office, held :
1. 1 Mason Minn.St.1927, § 294, does not prohibit a candidate for a non-partisan elective office from procuring the indorsement and support of his candidacy from a political party. Likewise it does not prevent him from engaging in political activities.
2. Section 294 does not prevent a candidate stating his party affiliations except with reference to filing for nomination and upon the ballot.
F. J McPartlin, of St. Paul, and George L. Bargen, of Bemidji, for appellant.
Daniel DeLury, of Walker, and Arnold C. Forbes, of Bemidji, for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the district court for Beltrami county sustaining a demurrer to the petition of C. O. Moon to annul the election of A. S. Halverson to the office of register of deeds and to oust him from office.
The decisive facts are as follows: Contestant was a candidate for re-election to the office of register of deeds at the general election held November 8, 1938. Halverson was the rival aspirant. By statute, the office is non-partisan and candidates file for it and are placed upon the ballot without party designation.
Prior to filing for office, Halverson solicited and received the indorsement of the county unit of the Farmer-Labor political party. This party had candidates for the various partisan offices and was actively supporting those running for non-partisan elective offices. Halverson sought and obtained active support of this party during the campaign as its indorsed candidate. Through newspapers, circulars, and public meetings, it was made known to the public that the contestee was the candidate supported by the Farmer-Labor party. In addition, it is alleged, Halverson ‘ permitted himself to be presented to the voters and their votes solicited for said office as a Farmer-Labor candidate.’ Further allegations are that ‘ in all respects he conducted a campaign as a Farmer-Labor candidate for the office * * * and was publicly known, and intentionally permitted himself to be known as a Farmer-Labor candidate for the office * * *.’ It is then alleged that by reason of these party activities and the party indorsement, he received the votes of those in sympathy with the party and without which he could not have been elected.
Contestee's demurrer to the petition was sustained.
‘ * * * the names of all candidates for nomination for the office of chief justice, associate justice of the supreme court * * * and all elective county officers, * * * shall be placed upon a separate primary ballot hereinafter designated as ‘ non-partisan primary ballot.’
‘ No party or other designation, except as above, shall be placed on such ballot except as herein provided, nor shall any candidate filing for nomination on said non-partisan primary ballot be permitted or required to state his party affiliation.’
At this time we are not disposed to construe precisely what the word ‘ primary’ was intended to accomplish. The result which must be reached here would not be altered in any event.
Previous to the non-partisan election movement, governmental officers, state and local, were selected from candidates running for office on party tickets. After enactment of the non-partisan laws, all county offices (including register of deeds), among others, were placed in the non-partisan category. Its objective was to sever certain offices from the control of political parties and to permit emphasis of the candidate's merits irrespective of his party membership or association. Whether adequate statutory provisions were made to accomplish this ‘ Utopia’ is not a present concern except that unless contestee's activities are prohibited by law, they are not grounds for forfeiture.
Two constructions of § 294 are possible. One is that the candidate shall not be permitted or required to state his party affiliation at any time . The other is that the statute has reference to the filing for nomination and the contents of the ballot. As to these, the aspirant is prohibited from stating his party affiliation. We think the latter the more practical and reasonable in light of our elective system of government. If more were comprehended by the legislature, provisions should have been enacted broad enough to accomplish the desired result.
The statute does not prohibit party activity or indorsements. Even if a very literal interpretation were given, as appellant insists, a party indorsement would not constitute a stating of his party affiliation. We find nothing in the statute which prohibits, under threat of forfeiture, a candidate for a non-partisan office obtaining a party indorsement or...
To continue reading
Request your trial