Munger v. Town of Watonga

Decision Date09 December 1924
Docket NumberCase Number: 15053
Citation106 Okla. 78,1924 OK 1108,233 P. 211
PartiesMUNGER et al. v. TOWN OF WATONGA et. al.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Elections--Registration of Voters--Illegal Voting.

Under the General Registration Act of 1916 it is unlawful for any person to vote in any precinct other than the one in which he resides and is registered, and a ballot cast in any other precinct is void.

2. Municipal Corporations -- Town Bond Election--Designation of Voting Places.

The president of the board of trustees of an incorporated town, in calling an election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified tax paying voters the question of issuing municipal bonds for the construction of a utility, is authorized and empowered to designate the voting places, but where the town is divided into more than one voting precinct, he is required by law to designate one voting place in each precinct, and such requirement is mandatory.

3. Same--Only One Voting Place--Invalidity of Election.

Where the town was divided into regular election precincts and only one voting place was established for all the voters of the town, where they were required to vote without regard to residence or registration, or refrain from voting, the election was void.

Foose & Brown, Ben Smith, and I. H. Lookabaugh, for plaintiffs in error.

George P. Glaze and J. P. Wishard, for defendants in error.

RAY, C.

¶1 The trial court sustained a general demurrer to plaintiffs' petition, from which they have appealed. The suit is to enjoin the town of Watonga, and its regularly elected trustees, from issuing and selling its municipal bonds in the sum of $ 35,000 for the construction of a convention hall pursuant to an election held June 20, 1923, and from making an estimate and levying a tax to pay the principal and interest. It appears from the petition that Watonga is an incorporated town with a population of 1,678; that it is divided into four regular election precincts, numbered 17, 20, 26 and 27; that the president of the board of trustees, in his proclamation calling the election, designated only one voting place, that being the regular voting place in precinct No. 26, and designated election officers not residents or qualified voters in that precinct, and that the officers so designated held the election in precinct No. 26; that no voting place was provided for either of the other precincts, and all those voting at the election were required to vote in precinct No. 26 without regard to residence or the precinct of their registration; that 207 ballots were cast, which represented not more than one-half of the qualified tax paying voters of the town; that 118 votes were cast for the bonds and 89 votes against the bonds. The general allegation is made that the purpose of designating only one polling place was to confuse the voters opposed to the bonds, and that it prevented enough of those opposed to the bonds from voting to have defeated the bond issue, if they had voted, and that if there had been a voting place in each precinct there would have been a sufficient number of those voting opposing the bonds to have made a majority against the bond issue. Many other irregularities are alleged not necessary to be considered. It is argued for the defendants that section 1, art. 4, chap. 16, of the Laws of 1909, is a special act governing in such elections, and that by that act the president of the board of trustees was clothed with the discretionary power to designate one voting place for the voters of the entire town without regard to wards or election precincts. By the act of 1909, the mayor, or president of the board of trustees, was authorized to designate the time of the opening and closing of the polls, the number and location of the polling places, and the names of the officers who should conduct the election, such officers to consist of two judges and two clerks for each polling place, and no limitation was placed upon his power to designate the polling places without regard to wards or precincts, but that section was amended by section 458 of the 1910 revision of the statutes. That section is as follows:

"* * * The mayor or the president of the board of trustees shall thereupon issue a proclamation calling such election and shall set forth therein the proposition or propositions to be voted on at such election, the time of opening and closing the polls, the number and location of the polling places, the names of the precinct officers, residents of the precinct, who shall conduct said election, which officers shall consist of two judges and two clerks for each polling place, which officers shall also act as counters, and certify the result to the county election board, who shall canvass the returns as in case of regular elections."

¶2 The section, as amended, confers upon the president of the board of trustees power to designate the time of opening and closing the polls, the number and location of the polls as in the original act, but authorizes him to name the precinct officers, residents of the precinct, who shall conduct the election. This section is brought forward in the 1921 compilation as section 4392. Section 1 of the Registration Act of 1916 (chap. 24), sec. 6249, Comp. Stat. 1921, is as follows:

"The word 'elections' as used in this act is hereby declared to mean every general, primary, regular, or special election held in this state, or in any county, city, town, township, school district, or precinct for the nomination or election of federal, state, district, county, municipal, township, school district, or precinct officers, including United State Senators and Members of Congress, and upon any issue submitted to the people of the state or any municipality or subdivision of the state."

¶3 By section 6250 it is made the duty of every qualified elector in the state to register, and all persons not registered are prohibited from voting. Section 6252 requires each qualified elector to register in the election precinct of which he is a resident. By section 6255 each elector may be required to take oath that he is a qualified elector of the precinct. Section 6256 provides for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • King v. Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1928
    ... ... as required by law. (1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 215, sec. 42, p ... 445; Munger v. Town of Watonga, 106 Okla. 78, 233 P ... 211; McCrary on Elections, 4th ed., 161.) ... ...
  • Toohey v. Town of Canton
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1936
    ...of the constitutional limitation. ¶3 Plaintiffs rely upon the cases of Hall v. Turner, 125 Okla. 248, 257 P. 328; Munger v. Town of Watonga, 106 Okla. 78, 233 P. 211; and Goree v. Cahill, 35 Okla. 42, 128 P. 124. At the time these decisions were written, section 6134, C. O. S. 1921, was in ......
  • Livesay v. Town of Webb City
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1928
    ...the proposition, there would still be a majority for the proposition of 38 votes. ¶8 Plaintiffs cite the cases of Munger v. Town of Watonga, 106 Okla. 78, 233 P. 211, and Hall v. Turner, 125 Okla. 248, 257 P. 328. We fully concur in the rule laid down in these cases. In the syllabus of the ......
  • Hall v. Turner
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1926
    ...are generally held mandatory, and an election conducted at any other than the designated place is void." ¶5 In Munger et al. v. Town of Watonga et al., 106 Okla. 78, 233 P. 211, it is said:"Not only is every one presumed to know the law, but we think that the voters of this state generally ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT