Bingamin v. City of Eureka Springs

408 S.W.2d 607, 241 Ark. 477, 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1193
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 28, 1966
Docket5-4132
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 408 S.W.2d 607 (Bingamin v. City of Eureka Springs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bingamin v. City of Eureka Springs, 408 S.W.2d 607, 241 Ark. 477, 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1193 (Ark. 1966).

Opinion

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal in an election contest, in which, inter alia, the validity' of certain absentee ballots is questioned.

On June 7, 1966, a special election was held in the City of Eureka Springs, at which time three different questions were submitted to the voters, but two of those questions are not involved in this appeal. The question at issue relates to a proposed bond issue under Amendment 49 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. On the face of the returns, the bond issue was certified by the election commissioners as having been adopted by a vote of 363 for the issue and 359 against the issue. Within proper time, Mozelle Bingamin, and others as contestants, filed an action in the Circuit Court contesting the result of the election. Among other allegations (with which we are not here concerned), appellants challenged the votes of six persons who were residents of the Municipal Hospital in Eureka Springs, and who purportedly voted by absentee ballot.1 After hearing testimony, the court held that the six absentee votes were valid, found that the final vote was 363 for the bond issue and 359 against, and appellants’ complaint was dismissed.2 From the judgment so entered, comes this appeal.

The absentee ballots challenged were those of Mattie Rowland, Yerda Cox, Alice Aimes, Jessie Dukeminier, Joe T. Nelson, and Roscoe Fowlks. During the course of the trial the Circuit Court, with the lawyers and court reporter (apparently by agreement), went to the hospital and took the testimony of these voters.

Before considering this evidence, we deem it first proper to review the statutes relating to absentee voting. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 3-1125 (Repl. 1956) sets out the manner of making applications for absentee ballots, as follows:

“Applications for absentee ballots may be made in one of the following three [3] ways, m no other manner [emphasis supplied] and then only on the form set out in this Act [§ § 3-1123 — 3-1136].

(a) In person at the office of the County Clerk of the county of residence of the voter.

(b)3 By mail; provided that, applications by mail must be received in the office of the County Clerk of the county of residence of the voter not sooner than ninety (90) days, nor later than one (1) day before the election for which such application was made. When there are first and second primaries, one (1) application may be used to request ballots for both primaries if the request is made as provided on the application form. Provided, however, that no ballot shall be mailed to any applicant except in strict compliance with the provisions of Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution.

(c) By delivery of the application form to the office of the County Clerk of the county of residence of the applicant not later than 1:30 p.m. on the day of the election. Delivery may be made only by the elector,4 or the husband, wife, son, daughter, sister, brother, father or mother of the applicant.” [Emphasis supplied.]

Section 3-1126 sets out the required application form, in which the prospective voter directs the clerk to either mail a ballot to him, or to ‘ ‘ send by (name of relative) an absentee ballot.”

Section 3-1130 provides the manner in which absentee ballots must be cast, and reads as follows:

“Absentee voting may be accomplished in one of three [3] following methods, and in no other manner [emphasis supplied] :

(a) On ballots east in the office of the County Clerk in the County of residence of the voter during regular business hours of any day not earlier than the fifteenth [15] day before election day, not later than 6:30 p.m. on election day.

(b) By ballot cast by mail which must be received in the office of the County Clerk of the county of residence of the voter not later than 6:30 p.m. on election day.

(c)By delivery of ballot to the office of the County Clerk of the county of residence of the voter not later than 6:30 p.m. on election day. Delivery may be made only by the husband, wife, son, daughter, sister, father or mother of the absentee voter.” [Emphasis supplied.]

Amendment 51, Section 13, Sub-section (d), the Voter Registration Amendment, provides:

“(d) Absentee voting shall be conducted in the same manner as now provided under the laws of the State; provided, that the Permanent Registrar shall determine that the signature on the application for absentee ballot is identical with the signature appearing on the voter’s Affidavit of Registration before mailing or passing out an absentee ballot. * * *”

With these provisions in mind, let ns examine the testimony. The evidence reveals that the application forms were filled out for the voters in question by B-uby Bailey, Deputy Clerk, and were apparently taken by Mrs. Maxine Weaver to the Eureka Springs Municipal Hospital, where the six absentee voters in question were staying. Though the deputy clerk stated that she received requests for these ballots by mail from these six persons, none of the voters testified that they mailed in such a request. Excerpts from the testimony of several voters are herewith quoted.

Prom the testimony of Mattie Rowland:

“Q. ' Did you vote by absentee ballot where somebody brought the ballot around to you and you voted!
A. Yes, I guess I did.
Q. Who brought the ballot in here and gave it to you! The affidavit!
A. Did you, Sister!
Q. Did you put in any request for it! To anybody to send you a ballot!
A. Well, I don’t know. Did I, Sister!
Q. Now, ivait a minute. Did you write any letter or have any of your relatives write a letter!
A. No.
Q. Did anybody come in here and ask you to vote in that election!
A. No.
Q. Did you know there was going to be an election before the ballot was brought in!
A. No, sir, I sure didn’t.
Q. Did you mark your own ballot?
A. I guess I did, didn’t I Sister?”
Prom the testimony of Alice Aimes:
“THE COURT: I used to know you down at the Basin Park. Now, did you vote in this bond election?
A. No, sir, I didn’t. I didn’t vote at all. They said they was coming for me to vote. I can’t go out, see. * * *
THE COURT: Did you mark a ballot, a piece of paper?
A. No.
THE COURT Was this the bond election?
A. Well, now, this was the election they had just a few days ago.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tate-Smith v. Cupples
134 S.W.3d 535 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)
Womack v. Foster
8 S.W.3d 854 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2000)
Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 1988
Martin v. Hefley
533 S.W.2d 521 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1976)
Rogers v. Mason
436 S.W.2d 827 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
408 S.W.2d 607, 241 Ark. 477, 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bingamin-v-city-of-eureka-springs-ark-1966.