State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Kirkpatrick, 52822
| Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52822,No. 1,52822,1 |
| Citation | 426 S.W.2d 72 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Missouri et al., relators, and Don B. Sommers, Relator-Intervenor, Respondents, v. James C. KIRKPATRICK, Secretary of State, State of Missouri, Godfrey Padberg et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Joseph B. Moore, St. Louis County Counselor, Thomas W. Wehrle, Deputy County Counselor, Clayton, for respondents St. Louis County and Lawrence K. Roos.
Walter M. Clark, St. Louis, for respondent, Don B. Sommers.
Norman Barken, St. Louis, for appellants.
The first question before us in this case is whether relator St. Louis County has the authority to enact an ordinance submitting to the voters of St. Louis County at the next general election, a proposal calling for the nonpartisan appointment and retention of circuit judges and probate judges in said county, pursuant to the provisions of Art. V, § 29(a)--(g), 1945 Constitution, V.A.M.S., and another ordinance with the same proposal as to magistrate judges. The Board of Election Commissioners refused to place the two proposals on the ballot. The county, joined by intervenor Sommers, a registered and qualified voter of the county, petitioned the circuit court of St. Louis County for a writ of mandamus requiring the Election Board to submit the proposals to the voters. The circuit court, after a hearing, entered an order issuing a peremptory writ, and respondent Board of Election Commissioners has appealed. The trial court, on October 25, 1966, found the failure of the General Assembly to provide for the submission to the voters of St. Louis County of the question of adoption of the nonpartisan court plan was a denial to intervenor Sommers of equal protection and due process of law; that the two ordinances were part of an orderly procedure for the submission of the propositions contained so as to guarantee equal protection and due process to the intervenor and others similarly situated, and ordered respondents to submit the two propositions at the next general election after the November 8, 1966 election.
The county contends that by virtue of its charter provision authorizing it to exercise all powers of legislation conferred on counties by the constitution and the holding in HELLMAN V. ST. LOUIS COUNTY (MO.SUP.) 302 S.W.2D 911, 916, 1 that Art. VI, § 18(b), carries with it an implied grant of such powers as are reasonably necessary to the powers granted and not contrary to the public policy of the state, the County Council as the 'legally authorized agency to order elections' is authorized to guarantee due process and equal protection to respondent Sommers and other citizens of the county by adopting the two ordinances in question, which, it argues, the election board must then carry out by submitting the proposals to the voters.
If St. Louis County, which is a county of the first class operating under a home rule county charter, originally adopted by its voters in 1950, has any authority to enact such ordinances, it must be found in Art. VI, § 18, of the 1945 Constitution. Our construction of the section is that it does not give St. Louis County any such authority. Therefore, the two ordinances are not valid and the judgment must be reversed, State on Information of Dalton, ex rel. Shepley v. Gamble, banc, 365 Mo. 215, 280 S.W.2d 656, 659--660.
While it is true Art. VI, § 18(b), requires a county home rule charter provide for certain matters, including the '* * * manner of selection * * * of the county...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cates v. Webster, 68382
...of the State of Missouri and not merely judges of the circuit in which they are elected or appointed' ". State ex rel. St. Louis County et al. v. Kirkpatrick, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 72. Since the circuit judge is an officer or employee of the State, rather than of the County in which his court is ......
-
Hawkins v. Missouri State Emp. Retirement System
...of the State of Missouri and not merely judges of the circuit in which they are elected or appointed". State ex rel. St. Louis County et al. v. Kirkpatrick, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 72. Since the circuit judge is an officer or employee of the State, rather than of the County in which his court is lo......
-
In re Design Craft, Inc.
.... . nor may it be out of harmony or in conflict with the controlling law of the state." 283 S.W.2d at 514. In State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Kirkpatrick, 426 S.W.2d 72 (Mo.1968), the court ruled that a charter county could not change by ordinance and referendum the method for the selecti......
-
Flower Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. St. Louis County, 58615
...the state as a whole. State ex rel. Spink v. Kemp, 283 S.W.2d 502, 514 (Mo. banc 1955). In State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Kirkpatrick, 426 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Mo.1968), the question was whether the County had the authority to enact an ordinance submitting to the voters a proposal calling for ......