State ex rel. Woodmansee v. Ridge

• Citation: 123 S.W.2d 20
• Decision Date: 20 December 1938
• Docket Number: No. 35966.,35966.
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of J.E. WOODMANSEE, BRUCE FORRESTER, EDGAR SHOOK and LEWIS ELLIS, as Members of and composing the BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS for Kansas City and also as citizens and qualified and duly registered voters of the City of Kansas City, Relators, v. ALBERT A. RIDGE, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

123 S.W.2d 20

STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of J.E. WOODMANSEE, BRUCE FORRESTER, EDGAR SHOOK and LEWIS ELLIS, as Members of and composing the BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS for Kansas City and also as citizens and qualified and duly registered voters of the City of Kansas City, Relators, v. ALBERT A. RIDGE, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County.

No. 35966.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, December 20, 1938.

Certiorari.

WRIT QUASHED.

Ben R. Estill, E.F. Halstead, Abraham E. Margolin, Samuel W. Sawyer, Leslie A. Welch and John S. Wright for relators.

(1) The question of law presented should be decided in this certiorari proceeding. (a) Certiorari issues to review questions of public interest arising on new statutes. State ex rel. Nolen v. Nelson, 310 Mo. 526, 275 S.W. 928; State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Mo. Workmen's Comp. Comm., 320 Mo. 893, 8 S.W. (2d) 899; 5 R.C.L., p. 255, sec. 7; State ex rel. Ellis v. Brown, 326 Mo. 635, 33 S.W. (2d) 109; State ex rel. Meyer v. Woodbury, 326 Mo. 275, 10 S.W. (2d) 524; State ex rel. Faust v. Thomas, 313 Mo. 160, 282 S.W. 34. (b) Certiorari lies to review and correct any unauthorized exercise of power by an inferior court. State ex rel. Scott v. Smith, 176 Mo. 90, 75 S.W. 588; State ex rel. Bentley v. Reynolds, 190 Mo. 588, 89 S.W. 880; State ex rel. Davidson v. Caldwell, 310 Mo. 397, 276 S.W. 635. (c) Certiorari lies where there is no other remedy by appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. Alderson v. Moehlenkamp, 133 Mo. 134, 34 S.W. 469; State ex rel. Iba v. Mosman, 231 Mo. 474, 133 S.W. 38; State ex rel. Lunsford v. Landon, 304 Mo. 654, 265 S.W. 530. (d) The case is not moot. 1 C.J., sec. 139, p. 1017; State ex rel. Ellis v. Brown, 326 Mo. 637, 33 S.W. (2d) 109; State ex rel. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Trimble, 254 Mo. 542, 163 S.W. 860; State ex rel. Conran v. Duncan, 63 S.W. (2d) 138; State ex rel. Pickett v. Truman, 64 S.W. (2d) 105; Southern Pac. Term. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 219 U.S. 498, 31 Sup. Ct. 279; Boise City Irr. & Land Co. v. Clark, 131 Fed. 419; In re Cuddeback, 3 App. Div. 103, 39 N.Y. Supp. 388; People v. Martin, 72 Hun, 354, 25 N.Y. Supp. 775, affirmed 142 N.Y. 228, 26 N.E. 885. (2) The 1937 Registration Law is constitutional. (a) The law was enacted pursuant to a constitutional mandate. Mo. Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 5; State ex rel. Faust v. Thomas, 313 Mo. 160, 282 S.W. 34; Patterson v. Barlow, 60 Pa. St. 75. (b) The provisions for closing registration are reasonable. 1937 Law, sec. 22; State ex rel. Meyer v. Woodbury, 321 Mo. 275, 10 S.W. (2d) 524; State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 S.W. 636, affirmed 179 U.S. 506; Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485; State v. Weaver, 122 Tenn. 198, 122 S.W. 465; Moore v. Sharp, 98 Tenn. 491, 41 S.W. 589; People ex rel. Grinnell v. Hoffman, 116 Ill. 587; Blue v. State ex rel. Brown, 206 Ind. 98, 188 N.E. 583; Simmons v. Byrd, 192 Ind. 274, 136 N.E. 18. (3) The provisions of the 1937 law closing registration are mandatory. (a) The new act expressly and unequivocally closes registration. Registration Act of 1937, Secs. 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 46. (b) The new act is self-interpretative. State ex rel. Cobb v. Thompson, 319 Mo. 492, 5 S.W. (2d) 59; Clark v. K.C., St. L. & C. Ry. Co., 219 Mo. 524, 118 S.W. 44; State ex rel. Jacobsmeyer v. Thatcher, 338 Mo. 622, 92 S.W. (2d) 641; State ex rel. St. Louis v. Caulfield, 333 Mo. 270, 62 S.W. (2d) 822; Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W. (2d) 547; Cummins v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., 334 Mo. 672, 66 S.W. (2d) 925.

James P. Aylward, Terence M. O'Brien and Ralph M. Russell for respondent.

(1) Since it is strictly a common-law remedy unmodified by statute in this State, certiorari determines only jurisdictional questions. It does not review the merits. State ex rel. Kennedy v. Remmers, 340 Mo. 126, 131, 101 S.W. (2d) 71; State ex rel. Miller v. O'Malley, 117 S.W. (2d) 321; State ex rel. Brenner v. Trimble, 326 Mo. 710, 32 S.W. (2d) 762; State ex rel. Horton v. Clark, 320 Mo. 1198, 9 S.W. (2d) 638; State ex rel. Walker v. Dobson, 135 Mo. 20, 36 S.W. 243; Hannibal v. Board of Equalization, 64 Mo. 308; State ex rel. Dalton v. Baker, 170 Mo. 390, 70 S.W. 873; State ex rel. Scott v. Smith, 176 Mo. 99, 75 S.W. 588. (2) Jurisdiction and power to decide the issue presented below was conferred upon respondent both by Section 23 of Article VI of the Missouri Constitution which provides: "The Circuit Court shall exercise superintending control over ... inferior tribunals ..." such as Board of Election Commissioners, State ex rel. Meyer v. Woodbury, 321 Mo. 278, 10 S.W. (2d) 526, and by Section 10701a-35 of the act in question (Secs. 10701a-1 to 10701a-99, R.S. 1929, amended, Laws, 1937, pp. 294-341, incl.), which provides: "Any person who has been denied registration ..." (Miss Matheson was admittedly such a person) "may appeal... . All records bearing upon such appeal shall be presented to one of the judges of the Circuit Court, and his rulings and findings shall be final." Having jurisdiction, respondent had power to decide the issue, correctly or incorrectly. State ex rel. Gatewood v. Trimble, 333 Mo. 212, 62 S.W. (2d) 758; State ex rel. Fichtner v. Haid, 324 Mo. 138, 22 S.W. (2d) 1048; State ex rel. American Press v. Allen, 256 S.W. 1052; State ex rel. Johnson v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 8, 18 S.W. 41; State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 45, 92 S.W. 197.

LEEDY, J.

This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review the record of the Circuit Court of Jackson County in a proceeding lately pending in that court entitled, "Alphie Nellie Matheson, Appellant, v. Board of Election Commissioners for Kansas City, Missouri, and J.E. Woodmansee, Bruce Forrester, Edgar Shook and Lewis Ellis, Members of and composing the Board of Election Commissioners for Kansas City, Missouri, Respondents." The appellant therein, Alphie Nellie Matheson, had appealed from the action of respondents (relators here), as the Board of Election Commissioners for Kansas City, denying an application made by her on March 8, 1938, to register as a qualified voter of the 8th precinct of the 13th ward of that city for the city election to be held March 29, 1938. The Board had denied her application for the reason that registration for that election had closed on the preceding Saturday, March 5. However, the Board offered to register her for succeeding elections, but not to be effective until after said city election. The court having indicated it would sustain the position of the appellant, withheld action until the Board could apply for prohibition. Application therefor was made to this court, and denied, following which the circuit court ordered that the Board "permit and effect (registration of applicant) in time for the city election to be held on March 29, 1938." It is the record thus made which relators seek to have reviewed and quashed by this proceeding in certiorari.

The ultimate question for decision is one of statutory construction, i.e., the interpretation and effect to be given certain provisions of a statute passed by the 59th General Assembly enacting into law a scheme for the permanent registration of voters in cities of 300,000 to 700,000 inhabitants — an act not hitherto construed by this or any other appellate court. [Laws, 1937, pp. 294-341.] It is the contention of relators that the close-of-registration provisions of that statute are mandatory in character; that they operate as a limitation or restriction upon the power and authority of the board, and in consequence thereof, upon the circuit court on appeal, so as to render it without jurisdiction to grant the relief ordered.

The several sections relating to close-of-registration will be briefly noticed. Section 22 says flatly, "Registration for any election shall be closed at the close of office hours on the fourth Saturday prior to the day of the election." Section 24, relating to the form of affidavits of registration, also provides, "The wording of the affidavits of registration, and the applications for registration hereinafter provided for, for registrations made between the close of a registration for an election and the day of said election, shall be changed by striking through the words, `the day of the next succeeding election' and inserting the date of the election for which registration applies, and such registration affidavits shall not be filed in the precinct registers until following the date of the next succeeding election." (Italics ours.) Section 26 says, "Only such persons as shall be duly qualified to vote within the city at the next succeeding election and who shall personally apply for registration shall be registered. Any person who may be qualified to vote at an election following the next succeeding election may be registered after the close of registration for the said next succeeding election, but the registration shall not be effective until after the next succeeding election." (Italics ours.) Section 16 makes it the duty of the board "to give ten days' notice in two daily newspapers of such city, of opposite politics if possible, of the time and place of election in each precinct of the city, of the date of the close of registration. ..." (Italics ours.) Section 18 provides that a citizen "shall not vote elsewhere than in the precinct where his name is registered, and whereof he is registered as a resident," and Section 46 expressly declares, "The vote of no one shall be received by said judges whose name does not appear upon said register as a qualified voter."

[1] On the other hand, it is contended that under Article VI, Section 23, Constitution of Missouri the circuit court is vested with superintending control over inferior tribunals, such as the Board of Election Commissioners, and that Section 35 of the act in question expressly confers jurisdiction on the circuit court to hear and determine the appeal of "any person who has been denied...