State Ex Rel. Browne v. Dist. Court

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: August 8, 1975
• Docket: 13076
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 13076

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN

THE STATE OF MONTANA, e x re1 JUANITA BROWNE ,

Petitioner,

THE DISTRICT COURT O THE THIRD F JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE OF F MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE C U T O O NY F POWELL AND THE HON. ROBERT J. BOYD, DISTRICT J U D G E ,

Defendants .

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:

Counsel o f Record:

For P e t i t i o n e r :

W i l l i a m R. T a y l o r a r g u e d , Deer Lodge, Montana Greg J. S k a k l e s a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana

F o r Defendants :

Hon. R o b e r t J. Boyd, Anaconda, Montana Ted L. Mizner a r g u e d , Deer Lodge, Montana

Submitted: J u l y 1 5 , 1975

Decided : All G 8 1975 9 J G 8 9975 P Filed : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court .

I n t h i s o r i g i n a l proceeding p e t i t i o n e r J u a n i t a Browne s e e k s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h i s Court t o s e t a s i d e t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , county of Powell, d e c l a r i n g S t a n l e y N. Smith a s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e a t t h e e l e c t i o n f o r t r u s t e e of t h e Board of T r u s t e e s , Powell County High School D i s t r i c t . These undisputed f a c t s a r e t h e b a s i s of t h i s p e t i t i o n : O A p r i l 1, 1975, an e l e c t i o n was h e l d i n Powell County n f o r t h e e l e c t i o n of a t r u s t e e t o t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of Powell County High School D i s t r i c t . P e t i t i o n e r was s e e k i n g r e e l e c t i o n t o t h e o f f i c e and h e r name, and h e r name a l o n e , was p r i n t e d on t h e o f f i c i a l b a l l o t . C o n t e s t a n t S t a n l e y N. Smith, M.D., conducted a w r i t e - i n campaign f o r t h e o f f i c e of t r u s t e e . The board of c a n v a s s e r s f o l l o w i n g such e l e c t i o n , r e t u r n e d J u a n i t a Browne a s t h e s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e , h o l d i n g t h a t s h e r e c e i v e d 437 v o t e s a s compared t o 424 v o t e s c a s t f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith. Subsequent t o such e l e c t i o n S t a n l e y N. Smith f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r recount which a c t i o n was l a t e r dismissed. Thereafter, Smith f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o c o n t e s t p e t i t i o n e r ' s e l e c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h e e l e c t i o n judges and t h e board of c a n v a s s e r s ignored and r e f u s e d t o count f o r him approximately 25 w r i t e - i n v o t e s i n t h e name of D r . Smith, D r . Stan Smith, D r . G. Smith and D r . M. Smith, i n s t e a d of S t a n l e y N. Smith. The p e t i t i o n prayed that the court d e c l a r e t h e e l e c t i o n of J u a n i t a Browne v o i d and t h a t a c e r t i f i c a t e of e l e c t i o n be i s s u e d t o S t a n l e y N. Smith. J u a n i t a Browne f i l e d an answer, r a i s i n g two a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s : (1) That even i f t h e 25 v o t e s were counted f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith, he would s t i l l n o t be e n t i t l e d t o t h e o f f i c e of t r u s t e e , a s a number of i l l e g a l n o t e s were e r r o n e o u s l y counted f o r him, which number i f taken from h i s t o t a l count would reduce h i s number of l e g a l v o t e s below t h e number of v o t e s given J u a n i t a Browne and t h e r e f o r e h e r e l e c t i o n could n o t be s e t a s i d e under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 23-4764, R.C.M. 1947. (2) That S t a n l e y N. Smith was n o t e n t i t l e d t o such o f f i c e because of v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 23-4753, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : "It s h a l l be unlawful f o r any person a t any p l a c e on t h e day of any e l e c t i o n t o a s k , s o l i c i t , o r i n any manner t r y t o induce o r persuade any v o t e r on such e l e c t i o n day t o v o t e f o r o r r e f r a i n from v o t i n g f o r any c a n d i d a t e * *." The m a t t e r came on f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e Hon. Robert J.

Boyd, Judge of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Every b a l l o t c a s t was s t i p u l a t e d i n t o evidence by s e g r e g a t i n g i n t o s e p a r a t e groups b a l l o t s c o n t a i n i n g s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and each t h e n b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d an e x h i b i t . The 434 v o t e s c a s t f o r J u a n i t a Browne were n o t a t i s s u e ; S t a n l e y N. Smith's candidacy was by w r i t e - i n v o t e . A s a part of h i s campaign, s t i c k e r s were p r i n t e d and d i s t r i b u t e d which c o n t a i n e d t h e name S t a n l e y N. Smith, M.D., and c o n t a i n i n g a box w i t h a s m a l l x p r i n t e d i n s i d e t h e box. O t h e day of t h e n e l e c t i o n , A p r i l 1, 1975, t h e e l e c t i o n committee s u p p o r t i n g ' S t a n l e y N. Smith, parked a t r u c k approximately 300 f e e t from t h e Deer Lodge p r e c i n c t p o l l i n g p l a c e b e a r i n g two s i g n s r e a d i n g " S t i c k e r s f o r Doctor smith" o r words t o t h a t e f f e c t . Of t h e v o t e s counted f o r Smith, approximately 180 b a l l o t s c o n t a i n e d t h e s t i c k e r r e f e r r e d t o above and were n o t placed over t h e name of J u a n i t a Browne and c o n t a i n e d no X o r mark by t h e v o t e r . I n a d d i t i o n , 10 b a l l o t s counted f o r Smith con- t a i n e d h i s name w r i t t e n i n by hand b u t c o n t a i n e d no X i n t h e

box i n f r o n t of t h e name of J u a n i t a Browne o r S t a n l e y N. Smith. These b a l l o t s counted f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith d i d n o t conform t o t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 23-3606(2), ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which provide : "(2) He s h a l l p r e p a r e h i s b a l l o t by marking an I X I i n t h e square b e f o r e t h e name of t h e person o r persons f o r whom he i n t e n d s t o vote.

"(4) The e l e c t o r may write i n t h e blank s p a c e s , o r p a s t e over any o t h e r name, t h e name of any person f o r whom he wishes t o v o t e , and v o t e f o r t h a t person by marking an ' X I b e f o r e t h e name. I I A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g proposed f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclu- s i o n s of law and memorandum i n support were submitted by both parties. O June 3 , 1975, Hon. Robert J. Boyd i s s u e d h i s n f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law holding t h a t t h e e l e c - t i o n judges impmpei!lycounted t h e v o t e s r e f e r r e d t o above f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith; t h a t he r e c e i v e d a m a j o r i t y of t h e v o t e s c a s t a t such e l e c t i o n and was e n t i t l e d t o t h e o f f i c e of t r u s t e e . He then ordered t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law c o n s t i t u t e d t h e judgment i n such m a t t e r and ordered t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of Powell County High School D i s t r i c t t o f o r t h w i t h i s s u e t o S t a n l e y N. Smith a c e r t i f i c a t e of e l e c t i o n . Here, p e t i t i o n e r a s k s t h i s Court t o determine whether or n o t t h e s t i c k e r w i t h a premarked "x" i s a l e g a l marked ballot. Defendant d i s t r i c t c o u r t argues t h i s Court must determine and c a r r y i n t o e f f e c t t h e expressed w i l l of t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e l e g a l v o t e r s , a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r v o t e , n o t r e g a r d i n g tech- n i c a l i t i e s o r e r r o r s , and c i t e s Heyfron v. Mahoney, 9 Mont. 497, 24 P. 93 and Peterson v. B i l l i n g s , 109 Mont. 390, 394, 96 P.2d 922. I n Peterson t h i s Court noted: "'1t has always been h e l d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t i f t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e v o t e r can be f a i r l y a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e b a l l o t , though n o t i n s t r i c t conformity w i t h t h e law, e f f e c t w i l l be given t o t h a t i n t e n t i o n . * *. "' F u r t h e r , defendant argues holding t o s t r i c t compliance w i t h t h e law was e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i c i t l y overruled by Peterson and t h a t Peterson holds t h e method of marking t h e b a l l o t i s d i r e c t o r y and n o t mandatory, f o r i t allowed b a l l o t s t o be counted which were n o t only " ~ d "o u t s i d e t h e square b e f o r e t h e can- didate!k name, b u t a l s o counted b a l l o t s marked w i t h a I1 V I1 mark.

Peterson and two e a r l i e r c a s e s c i t e d a s b e i n g e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i c i t l y o v e r r u l e d , Dickerman v. Gelsthorpe, 19 Mont. 249, 47 P. 999; Corwile v. Jones, 38 Mont. 590,101 P. 153, d i s c u s s e d t h e marking o f t h e b a l l o t and i n each t h e r e had been a d i s t i n c t marking of t h e b a l l o t by a v o t e r . Here, t h e mark on some 180 v o t e s was t h e mark of a p r i n t e r . The 1969 Montana l e g i s l a t i v e assembly enacted Chapter 368, whereby t h e e l e c t i o n laws of t h e s t a t e were r e w r i t t e n . The laws were n o t copied nor taken from a n o t h e r source o r s t a t e . Chapter 368, Laws 1969, enacted t h e s e s e c t i o n s of t h e Montana code r e l a t i v e t o t h e manner i n which an e l e c t o r c a s t s a v o t e o r marks a b a l l o t : "23-3506. R e g i s t r a r t o provide p r i n t e d ballots--marking by e l e c t o r s - - o t h e r b a l l o t s i n e f f e c t i v e . Except a s o t h e r - wise provided i n t h i s a c t : 11 (1) The r e g i s t r a r s h a l l provide p r i n t e d b a l l o t s f o r every e l e c t i o n f o r p u b l i c o f f i c e r s . He s h a l l p r i n t on t h e b a l l o t t h e names of a l l c a n d i d a t e s , i n c l u d i n g c a n d i d a t e s f o r c h i e f j u s t i c e and a s s o c i a t e j u s t i c e s of t h e supreme c o u r t , and judges of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s ;

" ( 2 ) A e l e c t o r may w r i t e o r p a s t e on h i s b a l l o t n t h e name of any person f o r whom he d e s i r e s t o v o t e f o r any o f f i c e , b u t must mark i t a s provided i n s e c t i o n 23- 3606. When t h e b a l l o t i s marked i n t h i s manner i t must be counted t h e same a s though t h e name i s p r i n t e d upon t h e b a l l o t and marked by t h e v o t e r ;

"(3) B a l l o t s o t h e r than t h o s e p r i n t e d by t h e II r e g i s t r a r s may n o t be c a s t o r counted i n any e l e c t i o n . "23-3515. Stub, s i z e and c o n t e n t s . (1) The b a l l o t s h a l l be p r i n t e d on t h e same l e a f w i t h a s t u b , and s e p a r a t e d by a p e r f o r a t e d s t u b .

"(3) Upon t h e f a c e of t h e s t u b s h a l l be p r i n t e d , i n type c a l l e d b r e v i e r c a p i t a l s , t h e following:

"(a) his b a l l o t should b e marked w i t h an "Xu i n t h e square b e f o r e t h e names of each person o r can- d i d a t e f o r whom t h e e l e c t o r i n t e n d s t o v o t e . The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n blank s p a c e s , o r p a s t e over a n o t h e r name, t h e name of a EeEson f o r whom he wishes t o v o t e , and v o t e by marking an X i n t h e square b e f o r e t h e name. ' 9 ~ " ,. "23-3606. Xethod o f v o t i n g . (1) O r e c e i p t o f h i s n b a l l o t , t h e e l e c t o r must immediately r e t i r e t o one of t h e booths and p r e p a r e h i s b a l l o t .

"(2) He s h a l l p r e p a r e h i s b a l l o t by marking an I X ' i n t h e s q u a r e b e f o r e t h e name of t h e person o r persons f o r whom he i n t e n d s t o v o t e .

" (4) The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n t h e b l a n k s p a c e s , o r p a s t e over any o t h e r name, t h e name of any person f o r whom he wishes t o v o t e , and v o t e f o r t h a t person by marking an 'x' b e f o r e t h e name. 11

I n Dunphy v. Anaconda Co., 151 Mont. 76, 79, 438 P.2d

G60, t h i s Court d i s c u s s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t a t u t e s and h e l d : "9; c ; ' +< In c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i s c o n t r o l l i n g . + 9: -'- Although v a r i o u s r u l e s : 4b

of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n have been developed and employed i n d i v e r s e c a s e s t h a t have come b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t i n t h e p a s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t o b e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i n determining l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . The i n - c e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must f i r s t b e determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a - t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e can be s o determined, t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and apply any o t h e r means of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ** 9: Where t h e language of a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , unambigu- o u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o c o n s t r u e . ** The f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i s simply t o a s c e r t a i n and de- c l a r e what i n terms o r i n s u b s t a n c e i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been omitted. ** I n s h o r t , i t i s simply t h e d u t y of t h e Supreme Court t o c o n s t r u e t h e law a s i t f i n d s i t . * it *. " I n a r e c e n t opinion on t h e q u e s t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s

t h e a c t o f v o t i n g t h i s Court h e l d t h a t v o t i n g i s t h e a f f i r m a t i v e

a c t of marking t h e b a l l o t . S t a t e ex r e l . Cashmore v. Anderson,

160 Mont. 175, 500 P.2d 921. When a p p l i e d t o t h e school e l e c t i o n h e r e i n q u e s t i o n s e c t i o n 75-5915, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "Conduct of E l e c t i o n and B a l l o t . *** The t r u s t e e e l e c t i o n b a l l o t s s h a l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e f o l - lowing form: "OFFICIAL BALLOT "SCHOOL TRUSTEE ELECTION "1NSTKIJCTIONS TO VOTERS: Make an X o r s i m i l a r mark i n t h e vacant s q u a r e b e f o r e t h e name of t h e c a n d i d a t e f o r whom you wish t o v o t e . ** *I' L'he s c a t u t e c a l l s f o r flhe v o c e r t o make '?is mark; an a s f i r m a t i v e

a c ~ s c a l l e d f o r t o s i g n i f y h i s s e l e c t i o n , n o t a premarked b a l l o t i :uark of a p r i n t e r .

W n o t e t h a t some 1-73 s t i c k e r s were i m p r o p e r l y p l a c e d e

dn t h e b a l l o t which i n i t s e l f i s a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e e l e c t i o n laws. Where s t i c k e r s a r e u s e d s e c t i o n 23-3606 ( 4 ) , x.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :

" ( 4 ) The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n t h e b l a n k s p a c e s , o r p a s t e o v e r any o t h e r name, t h e name o f any p e r s o n Eor whom h e w i s h e s t o v o t e , and n o t e f o r t h a t p e r s o n by marking an ' X ' b e f o r e t h e name. 11

!.mproprr a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s e s t i c k e r s t o t k b a l l o t s r e n d e r s them i n v a l i d .

The p r o v i s i o n s of ~ o n t a n a ' se l e c t i o n laws a s t o t h e marking o f r h e b a l l o t and t h e u s e of s t i c k e r s a r e mandatory and n o t

directory. Here, w h i l e t h e v o t e r s may have i n t e n d e d t o v o t e t o r Smith, t h i s Court i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o validate those S a l l o t s when v o t e r s f a i l t o mark them i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d by

statute.

Having d e t e r m i n e d t h e m a t t e r on t h e above d i s c u s s e d i s s u e ,

w e firrd no need t o c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by p e t i t i o n e r a s

co t h e conduct of t h e campaign on e l e c t i o n day.

The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and judgment of

d e f e n d a n t d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e o r d e r e d v a c a t e d and t h e m a t t e r r e - r u r n e d t o t h a t c o u r t f o r e n t r y of judgment i n c o n f o r m i t y h e r e w i t h .

thief Justice 'l.-J." Yr. J u s ~ i c eTdesley Z a s c l e s dissenting:

L dissent. ! t h i n k t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i s much t o o narrow i n

c o r ~ s t r u i n gt h e e l e c t i o n laws. I would l o o k t o t h e i n t e n t

m d a c t of t h e v o t e r i n p a s t i n g on t h e s t i c k e r . Judge Boyd

was c o r r e c t i n e v e r y d e t a i l , and I would a f f i r m .

Justice. U