State v. St. Louis School Board

• Citation: 33 S.W. 3,131 Mo. 505
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RUTLEDGE et al. v. ST. LOUIS SCHOOL BOARD et al.
• Decision Date: 10 December 1895
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

33 S.W. 3

131 Mo. 505

STATE ex rel. RUTLEDGE et al. v. ST. LOUIS SCHOOL BOARD et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 10, 1895.

ST. LOUIS SCHOOL BOARD — POWER TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS — MANDAMUS TO COMPEL ELECTION.

1. If a school board is under a clear statutory duty to order an election, mandamus will lie to compel the performance of that duty.

2. Citizens who are entitled to have the locality in which they live represented on the school board may maintain mandamus to compel the school board to order an election, as required by statute.

3. Laws 1887, p. 272, fixing the terms of members of the St. Louis school board, modified Laws 1833, p. 37, vesting the board with power to prescribe the time and manner of conducting elections, to the extent of requiring elections to be held at some reasonable time near the close of the terms of office which the former act defined.

4. The election act of 1895 (Laws 1895 [Sp. Sess.] p. 5) did not deprive the St. Louis school board of the power to conduct elections of members of said board; and it was not excused, by reason of the registration provisions of said law, from holding the November, 1895, election to fill the places of those members whose terms, as fixed by Laws 1887, p. 272, expired at that time, it appearing that the board could obtain the registry lists as they existed and were in effect in August, 1895.

In banc. Petition for mandamus by the state of Missouri, upon the relation of Rutledge and others, against the St. Louis school board and the individual members thereof, to compel said board to cause an election for members of said board to be held in that city. Peremptory mandamus awarded.

Rowell & Ferriss, for relators. Chas. B. Stark, for respondents.

BARCLAY, J.

This is an original proceeding to obtain a mandamus against the St. Louis school board, the official title of which is the "Board of President and Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools." The members of the board are joined as defendants. The relators are certain citizens and taxpayers of St. Louis. The object of the desired writ is to require defendant to cause an election for members of the said board to be held in that city. An alternative writ was issued on representations of the relators. A return thereto has been made by defendants, and a demurrer to the return has been argued and submitted. The controlling facts are admitted, and the issue is one of law.

The St. Louis school board is a corporation for the purposes of public education. It is invested with the control and management of the interests of the public schools in the city of St. Louis. It was incorporated in 1833 by a special act. Laws 1833, p. 37 (2 Terr. Laws, p. 399; Rev. St. 1889, p. 2170, § 1). But various amendments to the original charter have been made from time to time, the effect of some of which it will be necessary to consider. The board at the present time is entitled to an official membership of twenty-one. Seven members are elected from the city at large, and fourteen from separate districts, each choosing one member. This is ordained by the act of 1887, popularly known as the "Drabelle Law." Laws 1887, p. 272 (Rev. St. 1889, § 8113, and following). That act was held to be a constitutional measure, first, by the general term of the circuit court, city of St. Louis, and afterwards by the supreme court in State v. Miller (1890) 100 Mo. 439, 13 S. W. 677. The act, among other things, declares that the board first elected thereunder shall divide itself by lot into two groups of 11 and 10 members respectively. The term of the first group is fixed at four years, and of the second group at two years, at the outset of the new arrangement; but thereafter the full term of the office of director is to be four years, excepting only where vacancies are filled, or a holding over is necessary until the qualification of a new member. Rev. St. 1889, § 8115, as amended; Laws 1893, p. 249, § 8115. In accordance with the terms of the law of 1887, an election was held in November, 1891, at which 11 of the present board were chosen. One of the other group of members (elected in November, 1893) resigned in the early part of 1895, so that the vacancy thereby occasioned is to be filled at the next general school election. Id. The power originally given to the board "to prescribe the time, place, and manner of conducting the elections of members" has not been wholly repealed, though modified by subsequent amendments. The Drabelle law, however, undoubtedly limited and modified that power in one respect, important to notice. It fixed the full term of membership at four years, after the short terms expired of those drawn by lot for two years at the beginning of the plan of selection established by that law.

The board recognized the force of this change by the rules it adopted for its own government, the first of which, concerning "Elections," is as follows:

"Rule 1: Elections — When to be Held. Elections for directors of the board of president and directors of the St. Louis public schools shall be held biennially in the city at large, and in the respective districts, on the first Tuesday in the month of November. Such elections shall be managed and governed according to the provisions of rule 2."

In September, 1895, however, the board, or a majority thereof, after due consideration, decided to hold no election on the first Tuesday of November in 1895. No election was in fact held at that time, and no election has yet been called for 1895. These facts appear from defendants' return, filed in this case after the date appointed for the election in 1895, by the rule above quoted. The ground on which the board has concluded to hold no election at the usual time in 1895 is, to state its substance shortly, that the board is of opinion that it cannot obtain complete registration lists for use at such election, on account of the change of law governing the registration of voters in large cities. Laws 1895 (Sp. Sess.) pp. 5-43. It is conceded that the board can obtain the lists as they existed near the close of the month of August, 1895; but the claim is made that, as those lists may be imperfect by reason of omissions of names of voters entitled to registry since that time, no proper election can be held based upon such registration lists as can now be obtained. In this state of the case relators insist that the board should be required to order an election.

1. If the board is under a clear statutory duty to have an election, there can be no doubt that mandamus is an appropriate method of requiring the performance of that duty. State v. School Directors of Springfield (1881) 74 Mo. 21; State v. Brown (1882) 38 Ohio St. 344; State v. Ware (1886) 13 Or. 380, 10 Pac. 885.

2. The relators describe themselves as "citizens, taxpayers, and resident householders of the city of St. Louis," but it is insisted for defendants that private persons cannot set on foot a proceeding of this nature without, at least, the sanction of the official representatives of the state or of the locality affected by the application. On this point the precedents in other jurisdictions are not in accord. It is needless to review them, for in Missouri several cases have dealt with this subject, and the conclusion has...