White v. Livingston Parish School Board
| Decision Date | 31 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 28013 |
| Citation | 111 So. 700,163 La. 266 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHITE et al. v. LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD |
Rehearing Denied February 28, 1927
Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston; Columbus Reid, Judge.
Suit by W. Hines White and others against Livingston Parish School Board to annul a special election and proceedings of school board levying a special tax, and to restrain further steps toward collection thereon. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
A. L Ponder, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, for appellant.
Ellis & Ellis and M. J. Allen, all of Amite, for appellees.
On April 7, 1925, the school board of Livingston parish ordered a special parish-wide election to be held on May 28, 1925, at which was submitted to the property taxpayers, duly qualified as electors, the proposition to levy a 3 mills tax for 10 years as additional aid to the public schools.
The result of the election held was promulgated by the school board, and indicated a majority of 38 votes in number, and $ 88,720 in amount in favor of the proposition.
An ordinance was passed by the school board levying the tax, and requiring its collection on all property within the parish-wide school district.
Petitioners, as duly qualified electors and property taxpayers of said district, seek to have annulled and set aside in the present suit the special election held on May 28, 1925, and the ordinances, resolutions, and proceedings of the school board levying said special tax, and pray that defendant board be restrained from taking any further steps toward the collection of said tax.
Among the various grounds of attack upon the special election and proceedings of the school board, petitioners allege that no election was held in precinct 1 of ward 10, and in precinct 2 of ward 7 of Livingston parish, and that a majority of the legally qualified voters and property taxpayers entitled to vote at these two precincts was against the tax, and was sufficient, both in number and in amount, to have changed the result of the election, and to have defeated the proposition to levy the special tax.
It is admitted that the judgment of the lower court annulling the election and enjoining the school board from collecting the special tax in question is based upon the specific grounds above stated. The school board has appealed.
1. It is conceded by defendant board that no election was held at either of these precincts, and that the duly qualified taxpayers in the precincts named, who were deprived of the right to vote at the special election, were sufficient in number and in amount to have defeated the proposition to levy the special tax.
The school board contends, however, that it desired to hold the election, and alleges that it did everything in its power to do so; that the board provided the boxes and all necessary paraphernalia for holding the election in these precincts; appointed commissioners and clerks to serve there; but avers that so little interest was taken in the election at these two boxes that no one would serve as commissioner.
In other words, the school board contends that the special election was not held in these precincts through any fault or design of its own, but that the failure to hold the election was due solely to the laches of the voters of these precincts.
In one of the precincts, a member of the school board waited at the polling place with the box about two hours, and, as no one came to serve as commissioner, the box was removed by him, and left at his store.
In the other precinct, the box was removed from the polling place at 4 o'clock p. m., because of absence of necessary commissioners. A very small percentage of the qualified voters of these two precincts was called upon to serve as commissioners at either polling place, and the removal of the boxes deprived the voters of their legal right to elect their own commissioners, and to proceed with the election. Act 256 of 1910, § 9; Act 46 of 1921, § 17.
Voters appeared at the polls in both of these precincts, and were deprived of their right to vote, as no election was held, or could be held under the circumstances.
The ultimate fact in the case is that neither box at these two polling places was opened at all on the day of the special election, and not a vote was cast at either polling place. We see no difference in principle between the case at bar and the case of Whatley et al. v. La Salle Parish School Board, 155 La. 797, 99 So. 603, in which a special election to vote a school tax was set aside, because no election was held at one of the two precincts at which it had been ordered by the school board; the proof in that case being that voters were thereby deprived of their votes sufficient in number and in amount to have changed the result of the election.
The facts, as stated in the opinion in the Whatley Case, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial