Wyse v. Wolfe

• Decision Date: 18 July 1924
• Docket Number: 11552.
• Parties: WYSE ET AL. v. WOLFE, ATTY. GEN., ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

123 S.E. 818

129 S.C. 499

WYSE ET AL. v. WOLFE, ATTY. GEN., ET AL.

No. 11552.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 18, 1924

Petition in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by W. H Wyse and others against Samuel M. Wolfe, Attorney General and others, as the State Board of Canvassers. Petition dismissed.

J Fraser Lyon, of Columbia, for petitioners.

George Warren, of Hampton, for respondents.

FRASER J.

The petitioners thus state their case:

"On February 19, 1924, an election was ordered by the Governor to be held on the 4th day of March, 1924, upon the question of cutting off a certain part of the county of Hampton and annexing same to the county of Beaufort. The order or proclamation of the Governor was sent to the election officers in Hampton county, and was printed in the Hampton County Guardian, a newspaper published in the town of Hampton and bearing date February 27, 1924.

It does not appear by the record that the issue of the newspaper of the above date was circulated among the electors residing within the territory affected on the day of publication. On the contrary, it does appear that on the 29th day of February, 1924, the newspaper was mailed to 40 newly registered voters, there being 88 registered voters on the registration list. At the election 6 electors were permitted to vote, 5 of whom voted against changing the lines, and 1 in favor thereof. There were on the registration books at least 15 white people, who were duly qualified to vote in the election. It appears, by a statement of the county treasurer, that approximately 15 white people had paid their taxes prior to January 1, 1924, but it does not appear how many negroes were qualified to vote. Numerous persons offered to vote, who were not permitted to do so, because they did not present proof of payment of taxes before the 1st of January, 1924.

Aside from the four days' notice to less than one-half of the registered voters of holding this special election, the impression given among those who had heard that there was to be an election was that it would not be held on the day appointed, as appears by the affidavits of Hon. Niels Christensen et aliorum, and it also appears that those who had heard that the election was to be held on the 4th day of March, 1924, understood, by reason of the negotiations between Senators Lightsey and Christensen, that the election would not be held on that day."

Argument:

"The points desired to be urged upon this court as to why the election should be held null and void are the insufficiency in length of time fixed by the proclamation of the Governor for holding the election, and the short notice given some electors, and no notice given to others.

Section 732, Code of Laws of 1922, volume 3, provides for the holding of elections to change county lines. Section 724 provides that, 'within twenty days after receipt of the report of the commission, the Governor shall order an election in the territory proposed to be cut off for the new county, to be held within sixty (60) days from the date of the order.'

In the present case, although the Governor might have ordered the election 60 days after the 19th of February, 1924, he chose to order same only 14 days thereafter. The election should have been ordered more than 30 days from the date of the order, so as to give qualified electors an opportunity to register and hold their registration certificates at least 30 days before the date of the election, as provided under section 207 of the Code of Laws of 1922, volume 3. This right, contemplated under the law, has been denied them in this case, by reason of the shortness of time fixed in the Governor's proclamation for holding the election.

It is quite evident that

...