State ex rel. Bateman v. Bode

• Decision Date: 13 November 1896
• Citation: 45 N.E. 195,55 Ohio St. 224
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BATEMAN et al. v. BODE et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

45 N.E. 195

55 Ohio St. 224

STATE ex rel. BATEMAN et al. v. BODE et al.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

November 13, 1896

Application by the state, on the relation of Warner M. Bateman and others, for mandamus against August M. Bode and others. Denied.

The defendants constitute the board of elections of Hamilton county, and are ex officio deputy state supervisors of elections in said county. The proceeding is a petition in mandamus to compel said board to place the names of Alexander B. Huston and Alfred B. Benedict upon both the ‘ Democratic judicial ticket’ and upon the ‘ Lawyers' judicial ticket,’ said two persons having been duly nominated by the parties representing both of said tickets. The board refused to place said names upon both tickets, but offered to place them upon such tickets as the persons might respectively designate, and, upon failure to so designate, to place them upon the Democratic ticket, as that nomination was first certified to the board.

Syllabus by the Court

The act of April 17, 1896 (92 Ohio Laws, p. 185), which prohibits the name of any candidate for office from being placed upon the official ballot more than once, is a valid law.

E. W Kittredge, L. C. Black, and Wm. Worthington, for relators.

August H. Bode, for defendants.

BURKET, J. (after stating the facts).

It is conceded by counsel for the relators that section 6a of the act of April 17, 1896 (92 Ohio Laws, p. 185), prohibits the printing of said names twice on the same ballot, but it is insisted that said section, in that regard, is unconstitutional. The only question, therefore, to be determined in this case, is whether the general assembly has the power to pass an act providing, as this one does, that the name of a candidate for office shall appear but once upon the ticket or ballot prepared by the board of elections. Full legislative power is vested in the general assembly, by section 1 of article 2 of our constitution, and the power in question is included in that grant of power, unless taken away by some other provision of the constitution. The only limitation upon this general grant of power cited by counsel for the relators in this case are section 2 of article 1 which reads, ‘ All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit * * *,’ and section 2 of article 5, which reads, ‘ All elections shall be by ballot.’ The relators seek to compel the board of elections to place the names of the two candidates upon both the Democratic and upon the Lawyers' judicial tickets. This necessarily concedes that those tickets are ballots within the meaning of the constitution, because, if they are not ballots, there is no right to have these or any other names placed thereon. If they are ballots when the names of certain candidates are on twice, they are equally ballots when the names are on but once. As the constitution is silent as to the number of times a candidate's name shall appear on a ballot, the matter is open to be regulated by the general assembly. The ballot now authorized by statute is different in form from that in sue at the time of the adoption of the constitution, but it is nevertheless a ballot. No form of ballot is prescribed by the constitution and therefore the general assembly is free to adopt such form as, in its judgment, shall be for the best interests of the state. The election must be by ballot, but the form of the ballot, so long as it is a ballot, is left to the sound discretion of the general assembly. The ballot or ticket in question is clearly a ballot, and therefore does not contravene the second section of the fifth article of the constitution. By the second section of the first article of the constitution, it is provided, in substance, that government is instituted for the equal protection and benefit of the people. It seems clear that the placing of the name of each candidate upon the ballot once, and only once, would be equal protection and benefit to all the candidates. To place the name of one on the ballot in two places, and the name of his opponent in only one place, would not be exactly fair. It would give the candidate whose name appears twice an advantage over the candidate whose name appears but once. So that the statute, instead...