Thornton v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 22 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38041,38041 |
| Citation | 195 N.E.2d 723,30 Ill.2d 234 |
| Parties | Earl THORNTON, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. C. R. GARDNER et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James W. Sanders, Marion, for appellant.
Boswell & Boswell, Harrisburg, for appellee.
On January 12, 1963, an election was held on the proposition as to whether the Carrier Mills-Stonefort Unit School District of Saline and Williamson Counties should be established. This is an appeal from the order of the county court of Saline County, affirming the establishment and creation of the district entered in a proceeding to contest that election.
Article 11-7 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 122, par. 11-7), provides, inter alia, that the proposition must receive a majority of the votes cast within the corporate limits of all cities, villages or incorporated towns located within the territory sought to be organized and a majority of the votes cast in the territory outside of all such corporate limits, the count to be taken separately as to the total vote in the cities, villages and incorporated towns and as to the total vote in the territory outside such corporate limits. The proposition carried within the corporate limits 633 to 322 and in the rural areas 174 to 172.
Plaintiffs ask that the entire election be declared void because of alleged irregularities and frauds. Their primary contentions are, (1) that seven persons voted at a polling place other than their own, and since these affected the vote of the rural areas where there was a difference of but two votes, those seven votes make the election uncertain; and (2) that one of the election judges in a rural area was electioneering in the polling place for the proposition, which affected the vote in that poll.
The votes of the seven persons who voted at the wrong polling place were determined to be illegal votes; and, since there was no evidence as to how these seven voted, they were deducted on a prorata basis. Plaintiffs do not quarrel with the rule requiring apportionment of the votes for and against the proposition according to the legal votes cast, (Choisser v. York, 211 Ill. 56, 71 N.E. 940; Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 4 N.E.2d 388; Smoda v. Gallagher, 412 Ill. 271, 106 N.E.2d 181) but say this case comes within the holding of Lehman v. Hill, 414 Ill. 173, 111 N.E.2d 120. The Lehman case posed an entirely different problem. There wholesale frauds were perpetrated in a precinct which resulted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullen v. Mulligan
...cannot now be counted either for or against the third proposition." (Boland, 370 Ill. at 398, 19 N.E.2d 177.) In Thornton v. Gardner (1964), 30 Ill.2d 234, 235, 195 N.E.2d 723, the court stated that the votes of seven persons who voted at the wrong polling place were determined to be illega......
-
Renshaw v. Dirnbeck
...two cases holding those ballots invalid (Boland v. City of LaSalle, 370 Ill. 387, 19 N.E.2d 177 (1938), and Thornton v. Gardner, 30 Ill. 2d 234, 195 N.E.2d 723 (1964)). Such determination was based on factual differences in Pullen, as opposed to these cases. The court noted that there was n......
-
Renshaw v. Dirnbeck
...two cases holding those ballots invalid (Boland v. City of LaSalle, 370 Ill. 387, 19 N.E.2d 177 (1938), and Thornton v. Gardner, 30 Ill. 2d 234, 195 N.E.2d 723 (1964)). Such determination was based on factual differences in Pullen, as opposed to these cases. The court noted that there was n......
-
Likens v. Baas, 84-0235
...ward, [and they] cannot now be counted either for or against the [three] propositions." (Emphasis supplied.) In Thornton v. Gardner (1964), 30 Ill.2d 234, 195 N.E.2d 723, the proposition on the ballot was whether a school district should be created. It was established in a proceeding to con......