Sims v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 05 December 1896
• Docket Number: 10730
• Citation: 57 Kan. 552,46 P. 952
• Parties: JOHN T. SIMS et al. v. LEONARD DANIELS, as County Clerk of Wyandotte County
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

46 P. 952

57 Kan. 552

JOHN T. SIMS et al. v. LEONARD DANIELS, as County Clerk of Wyandotte County

No. 10730

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 5, 1896

Decided July, 1896.

Original Proceeding in Mandamus.

WRIT AWARDED.

AN alternative writ of mandamus was issued in this case on the application of John T. Sims, who claims to have been nominated at a Republican county convention of Wyandotte County, for the office of Probate Judge of that county, and other persons plaintiffs, claiming to have been also nominated at the same convention for various other county offices, and representatives of the several legislative districts in that county, and also H. T. Carson, for himself and others, composing a delegate Republican convention in Wyandotte County, against Leonard Daniels, County Clerk of Wyandotte County, commanding him to place the names of the plaintiffs on the official ballot under the head of the Republican Party, or show cause before this Court why he had not done so. To this writ the County Clerk makes a long return, in which it is alleged, in substance, that in the year 1895, and for many years prior thereto, the supreme control of the Republican Party in the State of Kansas, and in Wyandotte County, except when in convention assembled, has been vested in the Republican State Central Committee composed of a representative from each senatorial district in the State, which has absolute and supervisory control over the party and all subordinate republican committees in the State, which power has always been claimed, many times exercised, and never questioned by the members of the Republican Party; that on the 11th of April, 1896, there was in Wyandotte County a committee known as the Republican County Central Committee, subordinate to the State Central Committee, which had charge and control of the political affairs of the Republican Party in Wyandotte County; that a convention called by it to select delegates to a Congressional Convention was held on the 11th of April, 1896 which became involved in a bitter factional contest, and finally divided into two factions, and elected two sets of delegates; that other conventions for other purposes were thereafter called, and resulted in similar contentions and divisions, at one of which, another Republican County Central Committee was elected, thereby making two Republican county committees claiming the right to act in Wyandotte County; that each of said committees called a convention to nominate candidates for state senator, the various county offices, and representatives in the State Legislature; that two conventions were held on different days, and the plaintiffs were nominated at the convention called by the old committee, and a full set of candidates were also nominated at the convention called by the other committee; that afterward an agreement was made in writing, and signed by the chairman and secretary of each committee, and a majority of the members of each committee, and also by the various candidates, including the petitioners, by which it was agreed that each of said central committees should be dissolved; that said committees and said candidates should submit their differences, and the question as to which set of candidates should be the candidates of the Republican Party, to a primary election of the Republican voters of the county to be called and held under the direction and supervision of the Executive Committee of the State Central Committee; that the candidates receiving the greater number of votes should be the candidates of the party, and the committeemen receiving the greater number of votes should be the committee; that pursuant to said agreement the State Executive Committee called a primary election to be held on the 12th day of September, 1896, in accordance with the terms of the written agreement; that said primary election was held on said 12th of September, and resulted in the nomination of the persons who had been nominated, and the committee who had represented the faction opposed to the plaintiffs. It is further stated that the plaintiffs in violation of the terms of said written agreement fraudulently procured nomination papers to be made, and filed in the office of the County Clerk, purporting to nominate them for the various offices for which they claim to be candidates. It also appears that on the 19th of October, 1896, the candidates opposed to the plaintiffs filed written objections to the nomination papers of the plaintiffs with the defendant as County Clerk; that the plaintiffs were notified thereof, and that on the 21st day of October, said contest board met, organized, and after hearing the evidence sustained the objections to the nomination papers of the plaintiffs. The grounds stated in the written objections to the nomination papers are very long, and include,--

"1. The pretended convention which nominated all of said persons, except H. A. Mendenhall, for said offices, was not a Republican convention.

"2. Said convention was not called by any person, or persons, authorized to call a Republican convention.

"3. The persons claiming to be, and to act as, delegates at said convention, were not elected by the Republican voters of Wyandotte County, but were elected, if at all, by ballot-box stuffing, or ballot stealing, by the use of tissue ballots, and fraudulent means.

"4. Said convention was not called, or ordered, by the Republican County Central Committee of Wyandotte County, Kansas; was not the Republican convention; the delegates were not elected as delegates to such convention; and said convention was called and held in violation of the established usages and customs of the Republican party of Wyandotte County, Kansas."

The fifth ground of objection states circumstantially and at great length the manner in which the Republican Party of Wyandotte County became divided into factions, and the holding of the various conventions in that county, the agreement of the candidates and opposing committees to submit their differences to a primary election, the holding of the primary election and the result thereof; and the filing of certificates of nomination of E. S.W. Drought, and others, opposed to the plaintiffs for the various offices. It was shown at the hearing in this Court, that before the last primary election was held the plaintiffs published in certain papers in Wyandotte County, a notice to the voters withdrawing from the contest at the primaries, announcing that they would not be bound thereby, and would insist on being candidates under their original nomination. The case in this Court has been submitted by counsel on the return and certain statements of facts by counsel on both sides.

L. W. Keplinger, for plaintiffs in error.

McGrew, Watson & Watson, and A. L. Berger, for defendant in error.

ALLEN J. MARTIN, C. J., concurring. JOHNSTON, J. dissenting.

OPINION

ALLEN, J.

Section 10 of chapter 78 of the Laws of 1893, known as the Australian Ballot Law, provides:

"The certificates of nomination, and nomination papers being so filed, and being in apparent conformity with the provisions of this act, shall be deemed to be valid, unless objection thereto is duly made in writing. Such objections or other questions arising in relation thereto in the case of nomination of state officers or officers to be elected by the voters of a division less than the state and greater than a county, shall be considered by the secretary of state, auditor of state and attorney general, and the decision of a majority of these officers shall be final. Such objections or questions arising in the case of nominations for officers to be elected by the voters of a county or township, shall be considered by the county clerk, clerk of the district court and county attorney, and the decision of a majority of said officers shall be final. . . . In any case where objection is made, notice shall forthwith be given to the candidates affected thereby, addressed to their place of residence as given in the nomination papers, and stating the time and place, when and where such objections will be considered."

The questions in this case are as to the extent of the inquiry which the County Clerk, Clerk of the District Court and County Attorney may make under objections filed to certificates of nomination, and the force and finality of their determination. As to the extent to which the interests of the public, the parties to this case, or the political party to which they adhere will be affected by the determination of the controversy we are not advised; but the question involved is of the utmost importance to the people of the State. It relates to the freedom of expression at the ballot-box, of the will of the voters, and to the power of the special tribunal created by the statute to determine what nominations may, and what may not, be submitted through the instrumentality of the official ballot to the electors for their suffrages. The language of the statute is far from being clear or explicit. On the one hand, it is contended that where objections to nomination papers are filed the inquiry is limited to matters of form, and at most to questions as to the genuineness of the papers themselves. On the other hand it is claimed that this tribunal has ample power not only to determine all questions as to the regularity and genuineness of the certificates themselves but also to go behind the certificates, and inquire whether a convention was, in fact, held, whether it represented the political party it claimed to represent, and whether the action of a political convention has been subsequently abrogated and superseded by the lawfully constituted party committee or authority. The question is suggested at once whether the law contemplates that political parties...