Storm v. Parman

• Decision Date: 11 August 1914
• Docket Number: 5621.
• Citation: 143 P. 38,43 Okla. 495,1914 OK 364
• Parties: STORM v. PARMAN.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

143 P. 38

43 Okla. 495, 1914 OK 364

STORM v. PARMAN.

No. 5621.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

August 11, 1914

Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1914.

Syllabus by the Court.

Under the provisions of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma article 3, section 4a(Williams), and section 5, chapter 106,Sess. Laws 1911, the duty of applying the educational test necessary to prove the qualification of certain persons otherwise entitled to vote, and thereupon determining the right of such persons to vote at any election, devolves upon the precinct election officers; and in the absence of proper allegations, and proof of fraud or failure or neglect on the part of such officers in the performance of said duties their action in permitting, or refusing to allow, persons to vote at an election, will not be reviewed by the courts, the presumption being that said duties were fairly and honestly performed in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Error from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield Judge.

Election contest by Bob Parman against W. W. Storm.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

Sam Hooker and Ames, Chambers, Lowe & Richardson, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

G. A Paul and Embry & Hastings, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

BLEAKMORE J.

This case presents error from the superior court of Oklahoma county, and is an election contest brought in the court below by the defendant in error, as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error, as defendant, to try the right to the office of county clerk of said county.For convenience, the parties are herein referred to as they appeared in the trial court.The plaintiff was the Republican candidate and defendant the Democratic candidate for said office at the general election held on November 5, 1912.The trial court rendered judgment finding that plaintiff was entitled to the office.The county election board, after a canvass of the ballots cast for said office, declared the defendant duly elected and issued to him a certificate of election.Plaintiff contested, claiming that he had received a plurality of all the votes cast and was rightfully elected and entitled to said office.The defendant claimed that there were a large number of ballots counted for the plaintiff and against him, cast by persons who were disqualified to vote under the provisions of what is commonly known as the "grandfather clause"; that is, that said persons were not able to read or write any section of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma and were lineal descendants of persons who were not entitled to vote under the forms of government under which they lived on and prior to January 1, 1866.

The only ground upon which plaintiff in error seeks to reverse the judgment rendered in this case is that the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to the introduction of the stub books of ballots returned from certain election precincts, to show the names of the voters who cast their ballots at said election.Upon trial of the case, the ballots were recounted, and the recount disclosed the fact, and the court found, that the plaintiff had received a plurality of 56 votes.After such recount of the ballots was had, the defendant offered in evidence the stub books of certain election precincts, and the following colloquy between the court and attorneys occurred:

"By Mr. Hooker: Now comes the defendant, and offers in evidence Exhibits 40 to 48, inclusive, which are the stub books containing the names of the voters who cast their vote for the various county officers at the November election 1912, from precincts of Springer township, Edmond township, Lincoln township, Pottawatomie township, Luther township, Greeley township, Elk township, Crutcho township, and Choctaw township.

By Mr. Paul: To which the plaintiff objects until it is shown, first, the materiality of these stub books, and they are not in issue in this case.

By the Court: In what way are they material, Mr. Hooker?

By Mr. Hooker: Just a minute.And now comes the defendant, and offers in evidence the stub book from Luther City, showing the names of the voters in that precinct who voted for the state candidates at the November election, 1912; the county ballot book, with the stub book thereon, not being in the possession of the election board.

By Mr. Paul: To which we object for the reason the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, it being a stub book of the state election, and not of the county election, and also, until it is shown that it is material to some issue in this case, we object.

By Mr. Hooker: The purpose is simply this: It is the contention of the defendant in this case that there were 200 or 300 illegal voters who cast their votes for the plaintiff in this county at the November election, 1912.The basis of their disqualification consists in the fact that these voters were unable to comply with the grandfather clause of the state of Oklahoma describing the necessary qualification for a party to be able to

...