Brown v. Smallwood

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Brown v. Smallwood

153 N.W. 953, 130 Minn. 492, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 610

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 30, 1915

DocketNos. 19,447—(259)

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 153 N.W. 953 (Brown v. Smallwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Smallwood, 153 N.W. 953, 130 Minn. 492, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 610 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

Opinions

Dibell, C.

At the general municipal election held in Duluth on the first Tuesday of April, 1915, the contestee, W. H. Smallwood, was a candidate for the office of municipal judge, and was declared elected by the city council. The contestant, John Brown, Jr., is an elector of Duluth, entitled to contest the election. On the hearing of the contest there were findings and judgment for the contestee. The contestant appeals from the judgment.

There are two questions:

(1) Whether the preferential system of voting provided by the , Duluth charter applies to elections of the municipal judge.

(2) Whether the preferential system provided by the Duluth char-' ter is constitutional.

1. It is contended that the municipal judge is a state officer and that for this reason the legislature did not intend his election by the preferential system. It is conceded that the municipal judge is a [494]*494state officer in certain senses of the term. State v. Fleming, 112 Minn. 136, 127 N. W. 473. In the case cited it was so held where there was an attempt to legislate an incumbent, a municipal judge under the general laws, out of office upon a change to a home rule charter. The municipal court is a state court within the meaning of Const. art. 6, § 1, providing that all inferior courts shall be established by the legislature by a two-thirds vote. The state does not pay the municipal judge. He is paid by the city of Duluth. The city furnishes him quarters. He is elected by the electors of the city. Const. art. 6, § 9. His jurisdiction is limited.

The Duluth Home Rule Charter of 1912 undertook to provide an assistant judge and a branch of the court in the territory- known as West Duluth. The municipal court act was a special act. Sp. Laws 1891, p. 595, c. 53. It provided for a municipal judge and a special judge. The home rule charter of 1900 took no notice of the municipal court.

There was a well-founded doubt as to the constitutionality of the charter of 1912, insofar as it attempted to provide a branch court and create the office of assistant judge, or otherwise legislate as to the municipal court. By chapter 102, p. 107, Laws of 1913, approved March 24, 1913, which amended the original municipal court act of 1891, provision was made for a municipal judge, a special municipal judge, and an assistant municipal judge, with a branch of the court at West Duluth. It was provided that at the general municipal election, on the first Tuesday in April, 1913, there should be elected a successor to the then special judge, and at the same time an assistant municipal judge, both of whom should hold office for four years. It was provided that the municipal judge should be elected at the general election on the first Tuesday in April, 1915.

The act of 1913, for one thing, intended to put the constitutionality of the municipal court, and the provision for a branch court -and a new judge, beyond doubt. It intended, further, to do away with annual elections, and make the election of the judges biennal to correspond with the biennial election system of the city. It was enacted March 24, 1913, and the general municipal election, to which it [495]*495referred, was on tbe first Tuesday in April following. We take judicial notice that in April, 1913, a special judge and an assistant municipal judge were elected under tbe preferential system; and tbe legislature, wben it enacted tbe act of March 24, 1913, providing for tbeir election, knew of tbe general municipal election to be beld in tbe following April under tbe preferential system, and knew that there was no law, except that provided by tbe charter, under which an election could be bad. There was no time for a primary under tbe general law prior to tbe election and no method of putting candidates before tbe people, except by tbe preferential system which tbe city bad provided.

We are of tbe opinion that it was tbe intention of tbe legislature that, commencing with 1913, tbe three judges for whom provision was then made should be elected at the general municipal election of Duluth, in tbe manner provided for elections by the charter. Tbe election was a local one, of no particular concern to tbe rest of tbe state, and there was no reason why it should not be conducted by tbe local machinery. There was every reason why it should intend to avoid annual elections, or a primary for tbe judges alone, and afterwards an election either by a separate ballot or by a ballot combined with tbe preferential ballot. Tbe fact that tbe election was of a judge is, in itself, of no significance. If tbe preferential system of voting was constitutional, there is no reason why it should not be applied to tbe judges. There is nothing peculiarly sacred about tbe method of tbeir election and by chapter 102 tbe legislature manifested no intent that a different method of election should be accorded them. If a preferential election was good for commissioners, it was not necessarily bad for judges. We think tbe court was right in bolding that tbe preferential system was intended; and if constitutional tbe apparent result of tbe election is right.

In speaking of the effect of Laws 1913, p. 107, c. 102, we have not overlooked article 6, § 1, of the Constitution, requiring that all inferior courts must be established' by a two-thirds vote, nor have we neglected to notice that chapter 102 was not enacted by such a vote. All objection to tbe lack of such vote is answered by Dablsten v. Anderson, 99 Minn. 340, 109 N. W. 697.

[496]*4962. The next question is whether the preferential system of voting, which provision is made in the Duluth charter, is constitutional. The general scheme of the preferential system is this:

All candidates go upon the official ballot by petition. The ballot provides for first choice, second choice and additional choice, votes. If the result of the first choice is a majority for a candidate, he is elected. If a count of the first choice votes brings no majority, the second choice votes are added to the first choice votes, and if a candidate then has a majority of the first and second choice votes, he is elected. If there is not a majority, the first and second choice votes are added to the additional choice votes, and the candidate having a plurality is elected. Each voter may vote as many additional choice votes as he chooses, less the first and second choice votes; that is, he may vote as many additional choice votes as there are candidates, less two. In this case, there were four candidates, each voter had two additional votes, or a total of four votes. No voter can vote more than one vote for any one candidate. He is not required to vote a second choice or additional choices, The following is the official ballot used at the election:

MUNICIPAL BALLOT.

General Municipal Election, City of Duluth, April 6th, 1915.

Instructions.

To vote for any person mark a (x) in the square in the appropriate column according to your choice at the right of the name voted for.

Vote your first choice in the first column.

Vote your second choice in the second column.

Vote for all other candidates which yoii wish, to support in the third column.

Vote 2 first choices for Commissioners or ballot will be void as to Commissioners.

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