Snyder v. Blake
| Decision Date | 22 October 1912 |
| Citation | 129 P. 34,35 Okla. 294,1912 OK 668 |
| Parties | SNYDER v. BLAKE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
One who seeks to have an election declared void and set aside upon the ground that by irregularities and fraudulent misconduct of the election officers in some precincts persons were prevented from voting must allege and prove that such persons were qualified voters, and that the number thereof was sufficient that if they had voted and had cast their vote for the next highest candidate the result of the election would have been changed.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Under Const. art. 3, § 4a, providing that no person shall be allowed to vote unless he be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of the state, but that no person who was on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto entitled to vote under any form of government or at that time resided in some foreign nation, and no lineal descendant of such person shall be denied the right to vote because of inability to so read and write sections of the Constitution when any person not within those provisions presented himself to vote, the precinct officers might require him to read and write a section of the Constitution before permitting him to vote.
Under Const. art. 3, § 4a, where a proposed voter reads intelligibly and writes legibly the section of the Constitution designated by the election officers, he demonstrates his qualifications to vote, and acts of the election officers requiring him to write at great length many provisions of the Constitution, or detaining him for any great length of time under pretense of examination, thereby delaying other persons from entering the polls, are without authority of law.
Error from District Court, Wagoner County; R. C. Allen, Judge.
Action by A. L. Snyder against Harrie Blake. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
A. A Davidson, of Muskogee, and Robert F. Blair, of Wagoner, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph S. Dickey, Jr., of Wagoner, for defendant in error.
This is an action in the nature of a quo warranto, brought by plaintiff in error in the court below to try the title to the office of clerk of the district court of Wagoner county, and grows out of the general election held in that county on November 8, 1910, for the purpose of electing state and county officers.
Plaintiff in error, who will hereinafter be referred to as "plaintiff," was elected to the office of clerk of the district court of Wagoner county on September 17, 1907, and thereafter duly qualified and took charge of said office, by reason of which facts he was entitled to hold same until the second Monday in January, 1911, and until his successor was duly elected and qualified. At the election on November 8, 1910, plaintiff was a candidate as the nominee and candidate of the Republican party to succeed himself, and defendant was, as candidate and nominee of the Democratic party for said office, plaintiff's competitor. At that election, as shown by the returns duly canvassed by the election board of the county, a total of 1,675 votes were cast for all candidates for said office, of which number 937 were cast for defendant and 738 for plaintiff, or a majority of 199 in favor of defendant. By reason thereof, there was issued to defendant a certificate of election, and he thereafter qualified and took possession of the office. Plaintiff now seeks to oust defendant from the office and to obtain possession thereof upon the ground that the election of 1910 as to said office was void and should be set aside on account of fraud and misconduct on the part of the election officers, or some of them, in said county, and of other persons set forth in his amended petition. Plaintiff does not contend that he received a sufficient number of votes at said election, or would have received a sufficient number of votes in the absence of the alleged fraud and misconduct on the part of some of said election officers to have elected him to said office, but alleges in his petition that a sufficient number of qualified voters were deprived by the wrongful misconduct of the election officers of the right to vote to render the result of said election doubtful and the real choice of the people of a candidate for said office impossible of determination.
In his petition in the lower court, plaintiff alleges in detail and at much length the various fraudulent acts and misconduct of the election officers which he claims invalidate the election. We shall, however, state only the general substance of those allegations. He alleges that prior to the election of 1910 Wagoner county was divided into 25 voting precincts; that no change or alteration had been made in such precincts prior to that election, but that at that election polls were opened in only 21 places in the county; that at 5 of such precincts the polling places were not at the usual and established places for holding elections in such precincts; that the voters of two precincts were required to vote at one place, which was not the established polling place of either of the theretofore existing precincts. He alleges that in various precincts in the county a large number of negro voters were present on the election day for the purpose of presenting themselves to the election officers of the various precincts to vote and remained there for such purpose all day; that only a few of such voters at each place were permitted to and did enter the polling places for the purpose of qualifying as voters; that at such places such proposed voters were subjected to a pretended examination which occupied the whole of said day; that other voters in large numbers present had no opportunity to present themselves to the election officers and prove their qualifications to vote; that in some precincts persons who established their qualifications to vote were by the election officers arbitrarily refused the right to do so and were prevented from voting. The number of voters he alleges to have been deprived of the privilege of voting by these acts of the officers is in excess of a number sufficient to have changed the result of the election, had they been permitted to vote and all of them had cast their votes for plaintiff.
Defendant in his answer alleges that, if the voters were deprived of the privilege of voting at said election by the election officers, it was done without defendant's knowledge or consent, and that the same was done by the election officers in an honest and faithful effort to discharge the duties of their offices, and that their action was free from any fraud whatever. He further alleges that there was a conspiracy between the Central Committee of the Republican party of the county of which plaintiff was the nominee, and the political friends and adherents of plaintiff, to defeat defendant by inducing persons who were not qualified voters to vote at said election; and that in furtherance of said conspiracy they had caused threats to be made and sent to the election inspectors throughout the county, threatening such officers with prosecution if they enforced certain provisions of the election laws of this state, to be found in section 4a, art. 3, of the Constitution; and that many negroes, in furtherance of the conspiracy, who were not entitled to vote crowded about the polling places on the day of the election, demanding the privilege to vote, creating confusion and hindering and obstructing the election officers; and that, because of such confusion and acts of alleged illegal voters, the election officers were hindered and delayed in the conducting of said election.
The cause was tried to the court without a jury. The trial court made a general finding in favor of defendant, and also found specifically as to certain issues of fact presented by the pleadings. He found that the alleged changes in the election precincts complained of by plaintiff had been regularly made by the county election board after due notice thereof had been posted throughout the county. He found "that the persons offering or attempting to offer themselves to vote at the different polling places throughout the county were fair and honestly dealt with by the election officers; and the action of said officers was free from fraud or oppression, except as to about 30 or 40 persons who offered themselves to vote; and the evidence does not show whether or not said 40 persons were legal voters." He also found that "the allegations of plaintiff's petition charging conspiracy and fraud are not sustained by the evidence." Upon the general finding and these special findings, a judgment was rendered for defendant.
Counsel for plaintiff has set out in his brief in hæc verba the 13 assignments of error alleged in his petition in error, but he does not in his brief separately set forth and number the specifications of error complained of and argument and citation of authorities in support of each point relied upon in the same order as required...
To continue reading
Request your trial