Ridings v. Jones

• Decision Date: 26 March 1926
• Parties: RIDINGS v. JONES.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

281 S.W. 999

213 Ky. 810

RIDINGS v. JONES.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 26, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Laurel County.

Election contest by John M. Ridings against Merit Jones. Judgment for defendant, and contestant appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Lewis Begley & Lewis, of London, for appellant.

C. R Luker and William A. Hamm, both of London, and H. C. Clay, of Danville, for appellee.

HOBSON C.

John M Ridings and Merit Jones were opposing candidates for the office of member of the county board of education in educational division No. 5 of Laurel county at the regular November election, 1925. Jones received a majority of the votes cast, and was issued a certificate of election. Ridings contested his election, among other things, on the ground that Jones had not filed a pre-election expense account, as provided by the Corrupt Practice Act. Jones filed an expense account after the election and before he received his certificate, but he did not file any expense account before the election. The circuit court held that the Corrupt Practice Act did not apply to such school elections. Ridings appeals.

Sections 145-155 of the Constitution regulates suffrage and elections. Section 151 provides that the General Assembly shall provide suitable means for depriving of office any person who, to procure his nomination or election, has been guilty of any unlawful use of money or any other corrupt practice. But section 135 is in these words:

"The provisions of sections 145 to 154 inclusive, shall not apply to the election of school trustees and other common school district elections. Said elections shall be regulated by the General Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution." It will be observed that section 151 does not apply to the election of school trustees and other common school district elections. But it will also be observed that these elections may be regulated by the General Assembly, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution. There is no other provision of the Constitution touching the subject except section 183, which provides:

"The General Assembly shall, by appropriate legislation, provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the state."

Construing these provisions in Crook v. Bartlett, 159 S.W. 826, 155 Ky. 305, the court said:

"It is also urged that the county superintendent is a county and not a district officer, because his compensation is paid by the people of the county, but this circumstance is not entitled to weight in determining the status of this officer. If the Legislature should provide for the election of common school trustees by the people of the entire county, as it may do, these trustees might, with as much force, be called county officers. It is a matter of no consequence by what name school officers are designated or by what authority their compensation is paid, or whether they are elected from what may be called districts or the county at large. It is the fact that they are school officers that brings them within the meaning of section 155 and thereby exempts them from the operation of the other sections relating to suffrage and elections. In excepting school officers and school elections from the general provisions relating to elections, the framers of the Constitution had in view the large purpose of putting all common school elections in a class by themselves, and this manifest purpose should not be frustrated by attaching undue importance to particular words, or by giving to them a meaning that would defeat the intention of section 155 when considered as a whole. This section should be given a liberal construction and one that will carry out what seemed to be the purpose of its enactment, which was to leave the Legislature a free hand in everything relating to the management and control of the common schools of the state except when restrained by other sections of the Constitution. The Legislature having this view of the meaning of section 155, has from time to time made radical changes in almost every administrative feature of the school laws. For example, it has virtually abolished the school trustee; it has created county boards in place of district boards; it has granted a limited suffrage to women, and then taken it away; it has enlarged district boundaries in this place and decreased them in that; it has, in short, adopted every new method that seemed to it available and practicable for the purpose of affording better educational facilities."

To same effect see Moss v. Riley, 43 S.W. 421, 102 Ky. 1, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 993; Clark v. Board of Trustees, 175 S.W. 359, 164 Ky. 213; Smith v. Board of Trustees, 186 S.W. 927, 171 Ky. 39; Hoskins v. Ramsey, 247 S.W. 371, 197 Ky. 468.

Under the Act of March 24, 1908, p. 133 (Kentucky Statutes 1915, 4426a), each county in the state was divided into educational divisions. The trustees of the various school districts in each educational division elected a chairman, and these chairmen, together with the county superintendent, constituted the county board of education. By the Act approved March 22, 1920, p. 148 (Kentucky Statutes 1922, § 4399a1), it was provided that all elections for members of the county board of education shall be held on the regular election day in November, and it shall be the duty of the county court clerk to cause to be printed on the ballot used for the election of members of the county board of education the names of all candidates for membership in whose behalf a petition was filed as provided in the act. It shall be the duty of the county court clerk to prepare a separate ballot on which shall be placed the names of the candidates for membership on the county board of education with no party emblem or devices or distinguishing mark of any character, save the words "School Ticket" at the head thereof. The ballot cast at the election shall be deposited in a separate ballot box, and the election officers shall make out for the election a separate tally sheet and certificate.

When this act was passed, the Act of March 13, 1916, to prevent corrupt practice in elections was in force. Acts 1916, p. 53 (Kentucky Statutes 1922, § 1565b1 et seq.). This act is much broader than section 1586, Kentucky Statutes, punishing bribery in elections, which was the only statute passed by the General Assembly up to that time in compliance with section 151 of the Constitution. The title to the act is in these words:

"An act to promote pure elections, primaries and conventions, and to prevent corrupt practice in the same; to limit the expenses of candidates; to prescribe the duties of candidates and providing penalties and remedies for violations,

...