State v. Superior Court of Thurston County

• Decision Date: 21 September 1914
• Docket Number: 12284-12287,12289.
• Citation: 143 P. 461,81 Wash. 623
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CASE v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THURSTON COUNTY et al. (three cases; Initiative Measures Nos. 7, 10, and 12. STATE ex rel. HOWELL, Secretary of State, v. SAME (Initiative Measure No. 8. STATE ex rel. SIMS v. SAME (Initiative Measure No. 9.

143 P. 461

81 Wash. 623

STATE ex rel. CASE v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THURSTON COUNTY et al. (three cases; Initiative Measures Nos. 7, 10, and 12.

STATE ex rel. HOWELL, Secretary of State, v. SAME (Initiative Measure No. 8.

STATE ex rel. SIMS v. SAME (Initiative Measure No. 9.

Nos. 12284-12287, 12289.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

September 21, 1914

Dissenting Opinions, October 6, 1914.

Certiorari by the State, on relation of Lucy R. Case (three cases), of I. M. Howell, Secretary of State, and of E. A. Sims, against the Superior Court of Thurston County and others, to review and reverse judgments of that court on appeal from decisions of the Secretary of State on questions submitting to the voters certain initiative measures. Reversed.

W. V Tanner, Atty. Gen., and E. W. Allen, of South Bend, for respondent Howell.

PARKER J.

The relators in these cases seek in this court review and reversal of the judgments of the superior court of Thurston county, rendered upon appeals from the decision of the Secretary of State upon the questions of submitting to the voters of the state at the general election of the present year initiative measures numbered 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 petitions for which have been filed in his office. The cases are so related in their presentation of questions that for convenience they were by stipulation tried at the same time before the two trial judges for Thurston county, though each judge considered the cases assigned to his department of the trial court, and rendered judgments therein separately as if sitting alone. This resulted in Judge Claypool rendering judgments in the case involving initiative measures numbered 7, 8, and 12, and Judge Mitchell rendering judgments in cases involving initiative measures numbered 9 and 10. The cases come here upon separate writs of certiorari but are all presented by one set of briefs, and have all been argued together.

The contentions of counsel relate to a number of alleged forged and fraudulent signatures upon the petitions which, it is insisted, should be rejected as invalid signatures, and also to alleged defects and irregularities in certifying and verifying as proper signatures a number of the names upon the petition which, it is insisted, should be rejected. The main problem is, Does the number of valid, properly verified signatures upon the petitions for each of these initiative measures exceed 31,836, which is conceded to be the required number to authorize the submission of initiative measures to the voters at the general election of the present year?

At its session of 1913 the Legislature passed an act to facilitate the operation of our constitutional amendment adopted in 1912, relating to the initiative. Laws 1913, p. 418. This law, interpreted in the light of the constitutional provision it was enacted to facilitate the operation of, is to guide us in the solution of the problem here presented. It prescribes the duty and power of certain specified local officers touching the verifying of names appearing upon the petitions as being the signatures of legal voters, before the filing of the petitions with the Secretary of State, and also prescribes the duty and power of the Secretary touching the canvass and counting of the names of certified legal voters upon the petitions, after the filing of them in his office. These respective powers and duties of the local certifying officers and the Secretary it will be well to have before us at the outset, to the end that we may the more readily and without repetition note as we proceed, not only what these respective powers are, but also how they are to be exercised, independent of each other, and in the absence of prescribed revisory powers on the part of the Secretary of State over the decisions of the local certifying officers touching the particular questions submitted to them for decision. Section 5 of the law prescribes the form of petitions for initiative measures to be substantially followed, which are to be signed by the voters, including the form of verification attached thereto, reading as follows:

'I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the officer of the city (town or precinct) of ..... county of ....., state of Washington, having the custody of the registration books containing the signatures, addresses and precincts of the registered legal voters of said city (town or precinct); that I have carefully compared the signatures on the foregoing petitions with said registration books, and the signatures on the petitions opposite which I have written my initials are the signatures of legal voters of the state of Washington.

'Dated the ... day of ....., 19..

'Of the City (Town or Precinct) of .....,

'[Seal.] By ........, Deputy.'

This form, it will be noticed, applies only to petitions signed by voters residing in precincts where there is registration of voters. For certification of petitions signed by voters residing in precincts where there is no registration of voters section 8 of the law provides:

'Blank petitions for circulation in precincts where registration of voters is not required shall bear certificates, in lieu of those contained in the foregoing forms, to be signed by a justice of the peace, road supervisor, member of a school board or a postmaster, to the effect that he resides in the precinct, naming it, and is acquainted with the legal voters thereof and that he believes the signatures opposite which he has written his initials are the signatures of legal voters of such precinct.'

The duty and power of the local certifying officers is prescribed by section 10 of the law, as follows:

'Every initiative and referendum petition, before it is filed with the Secretary of State as hereinafter provided, shall be filed with the officer having custody of the registration books containing the signatures, addresses and precincts of the registered voters of the city, town or precinct, as the case may be, where the persons who have signed such petition claim to be legal voters. Upon the filing of any such petition it shall be the duty of such officer to forthwith compare or cause a deputy to compare the signatures, addresses and precinct numbers on such petition with said registration books. The officer or deputy making the comparison shall place his initials in ink opposite the signature of those persons who are shown by the registration books to be legal voters, and shall certify upon the last signature sheet of such petition that the signatures so initialed are the signatures of legal voters of the state of Washington, and shall sign such certificate and attach thereto the seal of the registration officer, if such officer have a seal, and return such petition to the person filing the same upon demand. The omission to fill any blank shall not prevent the initialing or certification of any name, if sufficient information is given to enable the officer, by a comparison of the signatures, to identify the voter. Every such petition bearing the signatures of persons residing in precincts where registration of voters is not required, before it is filed with the Secretary of State, shall be submitted to and initialed and certified by a justice of the peace, road supervisor, member of a school board or a postmaster residing in such precinct in the form provided in section 8 of this act.'

Upon the filing of the petitions with the Secretary of State, his duty, in so far as it relates to his canvass and count of the names thereon, is prescribed by section 15 of the law, as follows:

'* * * the Secretary of State shall * * * proceed to canvass and count the names of certified legal voters on such petition. If he find the same name signed to more than one petition he shall reject both names from the count. * * *'

There is no other language in the law referring in terms to the duties of the Secretary touching his 'canvass and count' of the names upon the petitions certified by the local certifying officers, or touching his duties so far as they relate to his determination of the sufficiency of the petitions so far as the number of signatures of legal voters thereon is concerned. If the petitions seek the submission of an initiative measure to the voters and are sufficient as to number of valid signatures thereon, the Secretary's duty following his canvass and count is prescribed by section 19 of the law, as follows:

'If such * * * initiative petition for submission to the people shall be found sufficient, the Secretary of State shall at the time and in the manner he certifies to the county auditors of the various counties the names of candidates for state and district officers certify to each county auditor the serial numbers and ballot titles of the several initiative * * * measures to be voted upon at the next ensuing general election. * * *'

Section 17 of the law provides for review of the decision of the Secretary, upon the question of the sufficiency of the petitions as to the requisite number of signatures thereon, in the courts, as follows:

'Any citizen who shall be dissatisfied with the determination of the Secretary of State that the petition contains or does not contain the requisite number of signatures of legal voters may, within five days, after such determination, apply to the superior court of Thurston county for a citation requiring the Secretary of State to submit said petitions to said court for examination, and for a writ of mandate compelling the certification of the measure and petition, or for an injunction to prevent the certification thereof, * * * as the case may be, which application and all proceedings had thereunder shall take precedence over other cases and shall be speedily heard and determined. No appeal shall be allowed from the decision of the superior court

...