State ex rel. Voiles v. Johnson County High School

• Decision Date: 24 November 1931
• Docket Number: 1728
• Citation: 43 Wyo. 494,5 P.2d 255
• Parties: STATE EX REL. VOILES v. JOHNSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

5 P.2d 255

43 Wyo. 494

STATE EX REL. VOILES v. JOHNSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL

No. 1728

Supreme Court of Wyoming

November 24, 1931

RESERVED questions from District Court, Johnson County; JAMES H. BURGESS, Judge.

Action by the State of Wyoming on the relation of William A. Voiles against Johnson County High School, State of Wyoming and others. On constitutional questions reserved and certified by the District Court.

For defendants there was a brief and oral argument by Robert B Rose, of Buffalo, Wyoming.

Defendants demurred to plaintiff's petition and the court reserved constitutional questions to the Supreme Court for its decision. Plaintiff's petition alleges the facts concerning the holding of an election which was conducted under authority of Laws 1931, Ch. 52, and all other essential facts, concerning the election, which was upon the question of issuing coupon bonds of said High School District in the sum of $ 175,000.00 for the erection and equipment of a building for high school purposes, to be located at Buffalo Wyoming. A majority of ballots received in Box B were against the bonds. In support of defendant's demurrer it is submitted that Ch. 52, Laws 1931, is sustained by the following Sections of Const. Art. VI, subhead Elections, Sec. 1; Article VII, Section 1; Article XIII, Section 3. The Act is sustained by the decision of those voting, in Simpkins v. Rock Springs, et al., 33 Wyo. 190, and in the case of West, et al. v. School Dist. No. 9, 37 Wyo. 49. Both cases sustain the principle that the legislature may as a prerequisite to voting on a bond issue, add to the restrictions contained in the constitution. The provisions of the Act having been followed strictly, and it being conceded that a majority of votes in one of the boxes used at the election, was against the issuance of the bonds, plaintiff's action fails. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the validity of the Act. State v. Co., 38 Wyo. 47; State v. Snyder, Treas., 29 Wyo. 163-179. See also Koy v. Schneider, (Texas) 218 S.W. 479, 221 S.W. 880. The provision for two ballot boxes is preferable over any petition or referendum method, since it preserves the secrecy of the ballot. The law contemplates that all property shall be assessed upon the assessment roll, hence the requirement of the Act of 1931 is valid. Art. XVI, Sec. 11 Const., 2775 C. S., Laws 1929, Ch. 145. This law was enacted to prevent the voting of unnecessary burdens by non-taxpayers, upon taxpayers. The voting outside of School District No. 2, wherein the City of Buffalo is situated, was overwhelmingly against the bonds. They were defeated by a ratio of approximately five to one, and it is a fact that the assessed valuation of property in the ten outside districts is approximately one million dollars in excess of that in School Dist. No. 2. Ch. 52, Laws 1931, does not violate the suffrage clause in our constitution and is therefore valid. State v. Kohler, 69 A. L. R. 348. The petition cannot be considered as one in the nature of an election contest, not having been commenced within thirty days following the known result of an election. Ch. 166, Comp. Stats. 1920, Sec. 2677 C. S.

For the plaintiff there was a brief and oral arguments by Burton S. Hill and Burt Griggs, both of Buffalo, Wyoming.

The election was not conducted solely under the authority of Chap. 52, Laws 1931. That chapter did not repeal any former law upon the procedure governing bond elections, and if it be declared unconstitutional, a school bond election may be held under Section 2403 C. S., as amended by the Laws of 1921, Ch. 137. The Act of 1931 attempts to do indirectly, what former laws have attempted to do by direct legislation. Two ballot boxes are provided by the Act designated "Box A" and "Box B". In this election, Box A received the ballots of taxpayers and non-taxpayers as well. Counsel for defendants cite three sections of the constitution, conferring authority upon the legislature to enact Ch. 52, Laws 1931, but we are unable to see wherein either of them apply, and it is also urged that every presumption must be resolved in favor of the validity of the Act. It is contended that the law contemplates, that all property shall be assessed and appear upon the assessment roll. Our reference to this point in the petition, is directed at Ch. 122, Laws 1929, excluding motor vehicles from the assessment roll, but providing for a county fee, which is a tax, and distributed and used as such. Automobile owners are taxpayers, but by reason of this law, are not placed on the assessment roll, whereas the owner of a $ 3.00 dog is assessed and may vote in Ballot Box B. The same rule would apply to the owner of a fleet of valuable trucks, who had no other property. If property is to be the basis of suffrage, as the statute attempts to assert, then all property owners should be entitled to vote. If two ballot boxes may be used in a bond election, more than two may just as logically be used, under an Act providing that all persons who have a specific amount of property vote in one box, and those having a different amount of property shall vote in a second box. The number of ballot boxes could be multiplied indefinitely. Pursuing the subject a step further, it might be provided that Protestants must vote in one box, and Catholics in another on religious and political questions, or add a restriction of years of residence in the state or the ownership of certain kinds of livestock, such as sheep or cattle. Examples might be multiplied showing the possible absurdities that such a principle might lead to. The present action was not intended as an election contest, so we pass the reference to Sec. 2677 C. S. without comment. Moreover the petition expressly alleges that the election was duly and regularly held as provided by law. The only question involved here, is whether the trustees of the School District should have carried on the election in accordance with the principles of Ch. 52, Laws 1931. The statute is in violation of Art. I, Sec. 27, Article VI of the Constitution requiring elections to be open, free and equal. It is in violation of Art. I, Sec. 3 Constitution requiring uniformity of political rights, and of Art. VI, Sec. 1, prohibiting discrimination in the exercise of the right of suffrage. It violates Art. VI, Sec. 2, prescribing the qualifications of electors, which as held in the Simpkin and West cases, applies to bond elections. The statute violates Art. XVI, Section 4 relating to the right of the people to vote on the creation of indebtedness. The legislature has fallen into the error of interpreting the language of this court, in Simpkin v. Rock Springs, 33 Wyo. 166, and West v. School Dist., 37 Wyo. 36, to mean, that there might be a distinction drawn between the ballots of taxpayers, and of non-taxpayers at bond elections, whereas the court held, as we understand, that the legislature might pass an Act requiring a referendum of some sort, not upon the issuance of the bonds, but upon the question as to whether the bond issue shall be submitted to the people at all, at which only taxpayers may vote. Art. XVI, Sec. 4 contemplates the vote of the people, not one vote for a part of the people, in one box, and a second vote for another part of the people in a second box. To summarize, the Simpkins and West cases, held that the only qualification required of electors participating in elections mentioned therein, are those prescribed by Art. VI, Section 2, but that the legislature may constitutionally pass an Act requiring that before the election contemplated in Art. XVI, Section 4 can be held, the question of holding it may be referred to property owners. We have refrained from a general citation of authorities, believing that all of the law upon the subject is contained in the Constitution itself, as interpreted by this court in the Simpkin and West cases.

RINER, Justice. KIMBALL, C. J., and BLUME, J., concur.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

This case is here upon constitutional questions reserved and certified to this court by the District Court of Johnson County as important and difficult, and as arising in the action pursuant to the provisions of Sections 6398-6400, W. C. S. 1920. An order has heretofore been entered herein indicating the answers deemed by us proper to be made in response to these questions, and also that the opinion concerning them would be subsequently filed.

The action in the course of which the proceedings at bar were instituted is an application by the plaintiff for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the defendants requiring them to issue certain negotiable coupon bonds of Johnson County High School, State of Wyoming. To plaintiff's petition the defendants interposed a general demurrer and the facts thus presented and necessary to be considered in connection with the law (c. 52, Laws of Wyoming 1931), whose constitutional validity is directly attacked, are these:

The plaintiff is a duly qualified elector of Johnson County High School, State of Wyoming, and the owner of real and personal property assessed upon the assessment roll of one of the school districts embraced in the High School District aforesaid. The defendant Johnson County High School, State of Wyoming, herein generally referred to as the "District", or the "High School District", is a corporation organized under the provisions of Chapter 155, W. C. S. 1920, relating to the establishment and management of high school districts, and includes some eleven school districts within its boundaries. The remaining defendants are respectively the seven trustees of said High School District and the County Treasurer of Johnson County, who is ex-officio the High School District Treasurer and is by law required to countersign and register...