State v. Jepsen
| Decision Date | 30 September 1922 |
| Docket Number | 2571. |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. BROCKLISS v. JEPSEN, COUNTY CLERK. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of F. E. Brockliss, to command H. C. Jepsen, as County Clerk of Douglas County, to have certain primary election ballots printed. Peremptory writ issued against respondent.
George S. Brown, H. R. Cooke, and A. D. Ayres, all of Reno, for petitioner
Robert Richards, of Carson City, for respondent.
The petition prays for a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding H. C. Jepsen, as county clerk of Douglas county, to cause to be printed sample ballots which, after the designation for the offices of Justice of the Supreme Court and Regent of the University of Nevada, shall have printed thereon the words "Vote for two," and to cause the official ballots which are used at said primary election to be printed in the same manner. A general demurrer was interposed to the petition.
There were three candidates for the nomination for each of those offices, all of which are nonpartisan under the law, and the sole question is: Shall the names of each group of candidates be preceded by the words "Vote for one" or "Vote for two." On account of the short period of time allowed by law in which the sample ballots and official ballots had to be printed, an immediate decision was necessary, and it was stipulated that the court might render its decision forthwith and write an opinion later. It was thereupon decided that the demurrer should be overruled and the petition granted, requiring the defendant to precede the names of each group of candidates referred to in the amended petition with the words "Vote for two."
In the year 1917 (St. 1917, c. 155) the Legislature passed a new primary election act, which has since been amended (St. 1921 c. 248) in some respects. In brief, and so far as applicable to the point, it provides for political parties, and that such political parties may, at the primary election, nominate candidates for public offices. Such political parties are partisan organizations, whose members are allowed to participate, at the primary election, in the nomination of their respective party candidates for political offices. The act provides that all judicial offices and school offices are nonpartisan offices, and the names of candidates for nonpartisan offices shall appear alike on the ballots of each political party, without any party designation or party name thereafter. Therefore, when a partisan elector approaches the polls to vote at any primary election, he is handed a partisan ballot of the party with which he affiliates, as shown by his registration, on which ballot there appears the names of all of his party candidates for nomination by that party and also the names of all nonpartisan candidates, in which there is a contest for nomination. If the voter is registered for the primary without a declaration of party affiliation he is given a ballot containing only the names of the nonpartisan candidates, among whom there is a contest for nomination.
Section 22 of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Girard, 6198
... 36 P.2d 773 54 Idaho 787 ROWLAND C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN GIRARD, Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, Defendant No. 6198 Supreme Court of Idaho October 5, 1934 ... Original ... proceeding by Rowland C. Taylor for a ... In support of ... the position above taken it would seem that the case of ... State ex rel. v. Jepsen, 46 Nev. 193, 209 ... P. 501, is in point. It would seem obvious that had the ... petitioners in Koelsch v. Girard, supra , ... remained silent ... ...
-
Secretary of State v. Tretiak
...L.Ed. 754 (1944)). 23. State, Div. of Insurance v. State Farm, 116 Nev. 290, 293, 995 P.2d 482, 485 (2000) (quoting State v. Jepsen, 46 Nev. 193, 196, 209 P. 501, 502 (1922)). 24. Aaron, 446 U.S. at 697, 100 S.Ct. 25. On cross-appeal, respondents raise several other arguments as to why the ......
-
Del Papa v. Board of Regents of University and Community College System of Nevada
...is no room for construction, and the courts are not permitted to search for its meaning beyond the statute itself." State v. Jepsen, 46 Nev. 193, 196, 209 P. 501, 502 (1922), quoted in Charlie Brown Constr. Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 503, 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990). "It is well settle......
-
Charlie Brown Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder City, 19159
... ... Nevada Corporation, Appellants, ... CITY OF BOULDER CITY, Nevada, a Political Subdivision of the ... State of Nevada, Respondent ... No. 19159 ... Supreme Court of Nevada ... Aug. 21, 1990 ... [106 Nev. 498] Marquis, Haney & ... In the case of In re Walter's Estate, 60 Nev. 172, 183-84, 104 P.2d 968, 973 (1940), we held, quoting from State v. Jepsen, 46 Nev. 193, 196, 209 P. 501, 502 (1922): ... Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, and its meaning clear and unmistakable, ... ...