Line v. Board of Election Canvassers

117 N.W. 730, 154 Mich. 329, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 723
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 1, 1908
DocketCalendar No. 23,062
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 117 N.W. 730 (Line v. Board of Election Canvassers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Line v. Board of Election Canvassers, 117 N.W. 730, 154 Mich. 329, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 723 (Mich. 1908).

Opinions

McAlvay, J.

At the general primary election held September 1, 1908, relator was one of the three candidates for nomination for the office of prosecuting attorney by the republican party of the county of Menominee. Said primary election was held under and by virtue of an act entitled:

‘' An act relative to the nomination of party candidates for public office, and delegates to political conventions, to regulate primary elections and to prescribe penalties for violation of its provisions.” Act No. 4, Extra Session 1907.

At said primary election in the first precinct of the [331]*331township of Spalding, in said county, all of the votes of all voters were cast and voted by means of a voting machine, and the record of the votes cast for all the candidates voted for at said primary was taken from said voting machine, certified and returned by the board of election inspectors of said precinct to the respondent canvassing board as the returns from said precinct, and were duly received by respondent board. Under the provisions of the primary election law, petitioner applied to said board for a recount, upon the ground that the use of a voting machine at such primary was not authorized by law, and asked that the votes as returned from said precinct be not counted, for the reason that they .were null and void, in effect making the claim that no lawful primary had been held in that precinct. Relator’s petition was received, and an order and subpoena was issued to the said board of election inspectors to produce and deliver to said respondent board the ballot boxes containing the ballots cast in said precinct at said primary election. To which order and subpoena the inspectors returned and showed that there “ were no ballot boxes used at such primary election, but that a voting machine was used for the purpose of voting and registering the vote cast by the electors at such primary election,” and therefore that they were unable to produce any ballot boxes containing ballots cast at such primary, as commanded. Respondent board then denied relator’s petition for recount, on the ground that it was bound by the certified statements of the inspectors of election, and the board has no power to inquire into the matter.

A writ of mandamus is asked in this proceeding to compel the respondent board to reconvene and recount or re-canvass the votes cast for said candidates for the office of prosecuting attorney for said county, and to hold and treat null and void the alleged returns from the precinct in question, and such further order as may be necessary to give relator full relief in the premises. The facts herein above stated appear from the record before us undisputed, and the further fact is admitted that, if the votes as re[332]*332turned from the precinct in dispute could not be considered by respondent board, the relator had received a plurality of all the votes cast for candidates for the office of prosecuting attorney on the republican ballot. On the part of respondents it is urged before us, first, that the use of a voting machine is permissible at primary elections; second, that if the primary law cannot be so construed as to intend the use of voting machines, yet if used in good faith, and the choice of the electors is expressed, no fraud or prejudice appearing, the use of the voting machine ought not to invalidate the election.

The first contention, as far as express enactment of the legislature is concerned, must be determined against respondents. A primary election is not an election to public office. It is merely the selection of candidates for office by the members of a political party in a manner having the form of an election. The law provides:

“At all State, county, city, village and township elections hereafter held in the State of Michigan, ballots or votes may be cast, registered, recorded, and counted by means of voting machines.” Act No. 287, Pub. Acts 1907, § 1.

The elections referred to are the elections where persons are given public offices by a plurality of the votes of all the electors voting thereat. Unless by the terms of the primary election law it can be fairly inferred that the use of voting machines was intended, or that such machines are adaptable to the requirements of such law, we must hold that they cannot be used. This law provides:

The provisions of the general election law relative to the furnishing of ballots, * * * arrangement of booths, * * * powers and duties of inspectors, manner of conducting the election, and all other matters, shall be applicable hereto except in so far as the provisions thereof may be inconsistent herewith.” Act No. 4, Extra Session 1907, § 34.

This provision by its terms expressly limits the application of the general election laws, as there are inconsistent provisions.

[333]*333This was a general primary election for all political parties, held in every precinct in the State, to vote for party candidates for the office of governor and lieutenant governor, and in districts, counties, etc., where parties had decided for direct nomination of candidates, for such other candidates as might be necessary. The official primary election ballots for each party are furnished by the board of election commissioners of each county, and the law provides that they “ shall contain the name of the political party for which they are to be used.” The ballots are printed on a different colored paper for the different parties. It is also provided (section 25):

“The names under heading designating each official position shall be alternated on the ballots of each party casting at least five per cent, of the vote cast in the county or political subdivision at the preceding November election, and printed in the following manner: First. The forms shall be set up with the names of such candidates arranged alphabetically, in order according to surnames. In printing each set of tickets for the several election precincts, the positions of the names shall be changed in each office division, as many times as there are candidates in the office division in which there are the most names. As nearly as possible an equal number of tickets shall be printed after each change. In making the changes of position, the printers shall take the line of type at the head of each office division and place it at the bottom of the division, and shove up the column so that the name that before was second, shall be first after the change. After the ballots are printed, and before being trimmed, they shall be kept in separate piles, the one pile for each change of position, and shall then be piled by taking one from each pile and placing it upon the pile to be trimmed, the intention being that every other ballot in such pile shall have the names in a different position. After the pile is made'in this manner, the ballots shall be numbered consecutively on the upper right hand corner upon the front of the ballot, with a perforated line across said corner, underneath the said number, so that the corner with the number can be torn off. After that,- the ballots shall be trimmed and done up in sealed packages and distributed for use at the primary election the same as is re[334]*334quired by law for the distribution of ballots at the general election.”

Other provisions of this law are as follows:

“Sec. 35.

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

Related

O'HARA v. Wayne County Clerk
607 N.W.2d 380 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2000)
Gallagher v. Keefe
591 N.W.2d 297 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1999)
Ferency v. Secretary of State
476 N.W.2d 417 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1991)
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate
359 Mass. 775 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
City of Grand Rapids v. Harper
188 N.W.2d 668 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
Attorney General Ex Rel. Reuter v. City of Bay City
54 N.W.2d 635 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1952)
State ex rel. La Follette v. Kohlee
200 Wis. 518 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1930)
Koy v. Schneider
218 S.W. 479 (Texas Supreme Court, 1920)
Baer v. Gore
90 S.E. 530 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
State ex rel. Miller v. Flaherty
136 N.W. 76 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Riter v. Douglass
32 Nev. 400 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 N.W. 730, 154 Mich. 329, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/line-v-board-of-election-canvassers-mich-1908.