Dillman v. State ex rel. Merrill

125 P. 367, 20 Wyo. 404, 1912 Wyo. LEXIS 46
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedJune 18, 1912
DocketNo. 722
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 P. 367 (Dillman v. State ex rel. Merrill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dillman v. State ex rel. Merrill, 125 P. 367, 20 Wyo. 404, 1912 Wyo. LEXIS 46 (Wyo. 1912).

Opinion

Potter, Justice.

This case involves generally the question whether the primary election for the nomination of candidates of political [410]*410parties for offices to be filled at the general election to be held November next should be under the control and supervision of the old county as to the nomination of candidates for an office to be voted for at such general election in a county yet unorganized, but in process of organization, created out of a part of the territory of such old county, or whether as to the nomination of such candidates, the primary election is to be conducted under the control and supervision of the commissioners and clerk appointed for the purpose of organizing such new county. The particular question to be decided is whether the nomination papers of a candidate for precinct committeeman of a political party, where the whole of the precinct is within such new unorganized county, should be filed with the county clerk of the old county or the clerk of the board appointed to organize the new county. A determination of that question necessarily involves a consideration of the general question above stated.

On June 4, 1912, the petition in this case was filed in the district court in Laramie County, setting forth that the defendant therein named is county clerk of the County of Laramie; that the relator, M. R. Merrill, is a member of the Democratic party and a resident and qualified elector of precinct No. 1 in election district No. 4 in said county; that the whole of said precinct is included in that part of the territory of said county which constitutes the unorganized County of Platte; -that heretofore, at a special election duly called and held in said unorganized County of Platte under the control of the commissioners for organization purposes appointed by the governor, a majority of the persons voting voted in favor of the creation and organization of said County of Platte; that the relator desires to become a candidate for the position of a member of the Democratic County Central Committee from said precinct to be voted for at the primary election to be held August 20, 1912, and on June 3, 1912, he caused a nomination paper to be properly signed and verified nominating the relator as a candidate for said position; that on June 4, 1912, he caused said [411]*411nomination paper, together with a statemeht signed by hitn ' to the effect that Tie would qualify as such officer if nominated and elected, to be offered to the said county clerk at • his office for filing; and that defendant refused to accept the said nomination paper and declaration and Refused to-file them. Upon these facts a writ of mandamus was prayed to require the defendant, as county clerk of said County of Laramie, to accept the said nomination paper and declaration and fiile the same in his office.

An alternative writ was issued, and the cause was heard in the district court upon a general demurrer to the petition, and thereupon it was ordered that the demurrer be over-' ruled, and the defendant having elected to stand upon his cjemurrer and refused to further plead, that the said defendant accept and file in his office the nominating paper and declaration aforesaid. The defendant has brought the^case here on error.

In the argument’our attention was called to the fact thaf at the last session of the Legislature, the same session at which the primary election law was passed, several new counties were created by defining the boundaries thereof and giving a name thereto respectively, and that in each of said new counties organization commissioners had been appointed, and a special election had been held at which was submitted to the qualified electors of the territory proposed to be cut off the question of division,- in compliance with the provision of the Constitution that no county shall be divided unless a majority of the qualified electors of the territory proposed to be cut off voting on the proposition shall vote in favor of the division, and in compliance with the statute' providing for such election, and also the question of the location of the county seat for such new county; and that at such special election so held in each' of said new counties the vote was in favor of said division and had been so declared, and the county seat had been located; also that at least two of such new unorganized counties are respectively composed of territory taken, from two or more counties. [412]*412And.that all the territory embraced in each of the new counties of Platte and Goshen was taken from Laramie County. It was also suggested that a determination of the particular •question here presented will necessarily determine the extent •and manner of the operation of the primary election law in each of such new unorganized counties, affecting as well •as other offices the nomination of candidates for the office ■of senator and member of the house of representatives in 'the State Legislature to be voted for at such primary election; and it is argued that if such election in an unorganized county, which is in process of organization as aforesaid, .is to be conducted under the control and supervision of the organization commissioners and clerk, it will be impossible by reason of certain provisions of the primary election law, ■and the acts creating the new counties, for party candidates for the legislature to be nominated as required by the primary law, and voted for at the primary election in the new counties. It is also argued that if the election is to be conducted by the officers of the old counties, respectively, from ■which the new counties are taken, there will be much diffi•culty', if it will not be impossible, for the candidates for office in the new counties to be nominated as required by the primary election law, at least in such new counties as are respectively composed of territory taken from two or more counties; and that these matters should be considered in •construing the various provisions of the primary law, in order that they may be so construed as to operate uniformly •and in harmony with the laws controlling the general election to be held in November.

The question thus presented is therefore not only an important one, but it is not free from difficulty, for it is conceded that the primary election law is ambiguous respecting the matters to be considered, because of some of the language employed therein, and the omission of any reference to unorganized counties, and that one provision which is similar in each of the acts creating a new county adds to the uncertainty of the application of such primary law to the •election .in such unorganized counties.

[413]*413It is necessary to first consider the provisions controlling the general election in November in the new counties, bearing in mind that the main object of the primary law is to-provide for the nomination of candidates to be voted for at the November election. The Constitution provides that in-, several enumerated cases the Legislature shall not pass local' or special laws, and that in all other cases where a general' law can be made applicable no special law shall be enacted. (Art. Ill, sec. 27.) And that the .Legislature shall provide-by general law'for organizing new counties. (Const., Art. XII, sec. 2.) A general law for such purpose was enacted' in 1895. (Laws 1895, Ch. 59; Rev. Stat. 1899, secs. 102-112; Comp. Stat. secs.

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1948
Burke v. Burkhart
176 N.W. 743 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 P. 367, 20 Wyo. 404, 1912 Wyo. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillman-v-state-ex-rel-merrill-wyo-1912.