Morris v. Mims
| Decision Date | 08 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6359.) |
| Parties | MORRIS v. MIMS, Secretary of State, et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Ireland Graves, Judge.
Suit for injunction by A. T. Morris against C. D. Mims, as Secretary of State, and others. From a judgment sustaining demurrer to the petition, and refusing the temporary injunction prayed, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Page & Jones, of Bastrop, and Black & Smedley, of Austin, for appellant.
C. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone and E. F. Smith, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee Mims.
J. H. Burr, of Houston, A. L. Love, of Eastland, and White, Cartledge & Wilcox, of Austin, for other respondents.
This suit was brought to restrain the appellee secretary of state from certifying the names of the nominees of the American party to the election officers of the various counties of this state. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to appellant's petition, and refused to grant a temporary injunction. From this action of the court the appellant has prosecuted this appeal.
For the purpose of this appeal, the admitted facts and conclusions of law as appear from the pleadings are:
(1) The appellee C. D. Mims is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting secretary of state of the state of Texas.
(2) That it is his duty to certify to the proper election officers of the various counties in this state the names of persons legally nominated for state officers in this state.
(3) That it is the duty of such election officers to place on the official ballot as nominees the names of all persons certified by the secretary of state as having been legally nominated for such offices.
(4) That the names of the candidates of the American party will be placed upon the official ballot to be used in the general election in this state November 2, 1920, if the same be certified by the secretary of state as having been legally nominated, but not otherwise.
(5) That unless restrained by an order of court the secretary of state will certify to the proper election officers the names of the parties mentioned in appellant's petition as having been legally nominated as candidates of the American party for the respective offices therein alleged.
(6) That appellant is a citizen of this state, a resident taxpayer of Bastrop county, and the legally nominated democratic candidate for justice of the peace for precinct No. 1 in said county.
If the appellant may maintain this suit as a taxpayer of Bastrop county, he is probably entitled to the relief sought only as applicable to Bastrop county; but, as we do not think that certification of the nominees of the American party by the appellee is illegal, we do not deem it necessary to decide as to the right of appellant to maintain this suit.
The contention of appellant herein, that no new party can have the names of its nominees placed upon the official ballot, is in effect that no new party can ever be organized in this state. No ballot except the official ballot can be cast at any general election in this state. It is idle to say that a new party may be organized, but it shall not be allowed to present its claims to the voters. If such is the law, if slang may be excused, it may truly be said that all new parties "would die a bornin'."
Ours is a government by the people. Practically it is a government by political parties, for it is only by voting for or against the nominees of political parties that the people are able to express their will as to how and by whom the offices of government shall be conducted. The fact that one may have his name placed upon the official ballot as an independent candidate does not materially affect this statement.
If appellant's contention as to the proper construction of our election laws is correct, we believe that they are unconstitutional, in so far as they prevent a new party from having the names of its nominees, as such, placed upon the official ballot. But we do not believe that such construction is correct. The Legislature may make reasonable regulations as to how nominations may be made, but it cannot prohibit such nominations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. County Democratic Executive Committee
...Gilmore v. Waples, 108 Tex. 167, 188 S. W. 1037; Ashford v. Goodwin, 103 Tex. 491, 131 S. W. 535, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 699; Morris v. Mims (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 587; Waples v. Marrast, 108 Tex. 5, 184 S. W. 180, L. R. A. 1917A, 253; Hamilton v. Munroe, 116 Tex. 153, 287 S. W. 306; Nicholso......
-
Currie v. Wall
...to 200,000 voting bracket may nominate candidates by primary elections or by convention at the option of such party. Morris v. Mims, Tex.Civ. App., 224 S.W. 587. ...
-
Montague v. Joiner, 14365
...when the State Executive Committee appoints a County Chairman. See Williams v. Huntress, 153 Tex. 443, 272 S.W.2d 87, 88; Morris v. Mims, Tex.Civ.App., 224 S.W. 587. The point before us, however is not the impossibility of party organization, it is the non-existence of an organization. Duri......