Sandoval v. Madrid., 3456.
| Decision Date | 27 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 3456.,3456. |
| Citation | 294 P. 631,35 N.M. 252 |
| Parties | SANDOVALv.MADRID. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
District judge, having ordered county clerk to summon election officials for recount, had judicial power to compel proper execution of order; district judge, having ordered county clerk to summon election officials for recount, had no power to quash proceedings because of absence of clerks of election (Comp. St. 1929, § 41-620).
The district judge, on application for election recount, having ordered the county clerk to summon the election officials (1929 Comp. § 41-620), and the latter having failed to summon the clerks of the election, it was within the judge's judicial power to compel proper execution of such order, and it was not within his judicial power to entertain a motion to quash the proceedings because of the absence of the clerks of election.
Where sixth day after completion of canvass fell on Sunday, application for election recount filed on Monday following was seasonable (Comp. St. 1929, § 41-620).
The sixth day after completion of the canvass falling on Sunday, an application for recount filed in the district court the Monday following, and presented to the district judge promptly on his return from an absence of two days, was seasonable.
Statute providing for summoning election officials for recount held not to deny due process because of failure to require notice to candidate elected on face of returns (Comp. St. 1929, § 41-620).
Failure of statute to require notice of recount to party elected on face of returns is not denial of due process.
Application for recount alleging in language of statute that applicant has reason to believe error or fraud was committed by election officials held sufficient (Comp. St. 1929, § 41-620).
An application for recount, alleging in language of statute that applicant has reason to believe that error or fraud has been committed by the election officers in counting or tallying the ballots or certifying results, is sufficiently specific.
Individuals may qualify as sureties on “surety bond” required of one applying for recount of ballots (Comp. St. 1929, § 41-619).
Individuals may qualify as sureties upon the “surety bond” required of an applicant for recount.
Application by Alfonso Sandoval for recount of votes cast in election, opposed by Levi Madrid. The court granted respondent's motion to quash the order directing recount and dismiss the application, and the applicant brings certiorari.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Individuals may qualify as sureties upon the “surety bond” required of an applicant for recount.
C. N. Higgins, of East Las Vegas, and J. O. Seth, of Sante Fe, for applicant.
Frank Faircloth, of Santa Rosa, for respondent.
Alfonso Sandoval, defeated on the face of the returns as a candidate for county office at the recent election, filed an application in the office of the clerk of the district court for a recount of the votes in certain specified precincts. The sixth day after the completion of the canvass was Sunday. The application was filed on the following Monday, but, the district judge being absent, it was not actually presented to him until two days later. He made an order pursuant to and in the language of the 1929 Comp. § 41-620, fixing the date for the recount, and directing the county clerk to issue a summons to the election officers. On the day set, Levi Madrid, who on the face of the returns was elected to said office, moved the court to quash the order and dismiss the application on the grounds which will hereinafter be noticed. The motion was sustained. Thereupon Sandoval sued a writ of certiorari out of this court for a review of said action.
[1] The ground upon which the trial court based the quashing of the order and dismissal of the application was that the clerk of the district court, in issuing summons to the election officials, failed to include the clerks of election; it being the court's view that the presence of the clerks was necessary to the recount, and that their absence on the day set was fatal.
For the purposes of this case at least, we act upon the admission of petitioner's counsel that the presence of the clerks is necessary. In State ex rel. Scott v. Helmick, 294 P. 316, we held that the statutory duties of the district judge in connection with the recount subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montoya v. McManus
...the moment, the power and duty of the court to require an adequate or sufficient bond, we feel bound by our decision in Sandoval v. Madrid, 35 N.M. 252, 294 P. 631, to hold that the respondent erred in limiting the bond to one of 'commercial surety type.' In that case we held that a bond wi......
-
State Ex Rel. Romero v. Armijo., 4273.
...opposing him who seeks the recount. Constitutionality of the recount sections of the election code was assailed in Sandoval v. Madrid, 35 N.M. 252, 294 P. 631, upon the very ground that notice to the opposing candidate was not required, but the contention was overruled. Unquestionably, the ......
-
Zamora v. Archuleta., 3700.
...to appear and perform their duties on the day set will not be fatal. The whole contention seems to be controlled by Sandoval v. Madrid, 35 N. M. 252, 294 P. 631, 632. It was there urged that the failure to summon the clerks of election, and their failure to be present on the day set for the......