State, Ex Rel. Campbell v. Durbin

79 N.E.2d 791, 81 Ohio App. 398, 37 Ohio Op. 224, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 616
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 22, 1947
Docket954
StatusPublished

This text of 79 N.E.2d 791 (State, Ex Rel. Campbell v. Durbin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State, Ex Rel. Campbell v. Durbin, 79 N.E.2d 791, 81 Ohio App. 398, 37 Ohio Op. 224, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 616 (Ohio Ct. App. 1947).

Opinion

By the Court.

This is" an action in mandamus brought by the state of Ohio on relation of Bruce M. Campbell against Francis W. Durbin, Dewey Fetter, *399 Aldine Kohli and M. M. Bogart, members of the Board of Elections of Allen County, as respondents, for an order commanding the respondents to permit the relator and all other persons possessing the qualifications of electors of the city of Lima, to register with the respondents so that they may be entitled to vote at the election to be held bn October 7, 1947, to nominate candidates for the office of representative in Congress from the fourth congressional district of Ohio, to be' voted for at the special election to be held on November 4, 1947, pursuant to writ of election issued by the governor of the state of Ohio on the 9th day of September 1947, to fill the vacancy in the office of congressman of the district, and at the general election to be held on the last mentioned date.

In his petition, the relator avers his qualifications as- ' an elector of the city of Lima and the refusal of the respondents, on September 17, 1947,' to permit hiip 'to register as a qualified voter of the city.

In their answer, the respondents admit the qualifications of the relator as an elector of the city, and their •refusal to permit him to register as such elector, and allege that such refusal was by reason of, and pursuant to, a written ruling of the Secretary of State of Ohio, delivered to the respondents, bearing date of September' 15, 1947, made pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio, No. 2242, dated September 12,1947, to the effect that the last day for registration for persons living in registration precincts in the congressional district who desired to register in order to vote at either the aforesaid election on October J, 1947, or at the special election to fill the vacancy in the office of representative in Congress from the district, or in the general election to be held on November 4, 1947, was September 8,1947. '

*400 On the trial of this cause, the writ of election issued by the Governor, the ruling of the Secretary of State, and the opinion of the Attorney General, above referred to, were introduecd in evidence, and the attorneys for the parties conceded, and the court took judicial notice of the fact that the law required registration of electors in the cities of Lima and Piqua in the «congressional district _in order to entitle them to vote 'at the elections to be held in the district.

Under the admissions in the pleadings, and the in.■struments introduced in evidence, and the fact conceded by counsel and taken judicial notice of by thp •court, the relator and all other persons having the •qualifications of electors of the city of Lima are entitled to register in order to enable them to vote at «each of the elections, unless the ruling of the Secretary •of State, based on the opinion of the Attorney General, constitutes a correct statement of the law applicable to registration in such cities.

The pertinent provisions of the General Code governing registration in the city of Lima, as well as the city of Piqua, are contained in Section 4785-39, reading as follows:

“Persons qualified to register or to change their registration may register or change their registration at the office of the board at any time such office is open except twenty-eight days preceding or ten days following a primary or general election, provided that any registered elector who removes from one precinct to another in the same political subdivision after the close of such registration period shall have fhe right to vote at the next succeeding election in the ¡precinct from which he moved, wherein he was legally registered.”

The above section clearly states, that persons quali *401 fled to do so, “may register * * * at aiiy time * * * except twenty-eight days preceding or ten days following a primary or general election. ’ ’

It is prescribed by the writ of election issued by the Governor, that the election for the nomination of candidates for the special election to fill the vacancy in the office of representative in Congress is to be held on October 7,1947, and the special election to fill such vacancy is to be held on November 4, 1947, being the same day as the general election, so that if the election for the nomination of candidates for the special election is a “primary” election within the purview of the laws relating to elections, the relator and other persons having the qualifications of electors would, by the application of the provisions of the above section, be precluded- from registering subsequent to September 8, 1947, as the 28-day period preceding Octobér 7, 1947, was September 9, 1947, and the ten-day period following October '7, 1947, will be October 17, 1947, which will fall within the 28-day period next preceding November 4,1947, the date of the general election.

As the writ of election was not issued by the Governor until September 9, 1947, a holding that the election for the nomination of candidates for the special congressional election was a “primary”' within the purview of Section 4785-39, General Code, would have' the effect of precluding qualified electors who may have lawfully registered on September 9, 1947, prior to the issuánce of the writ of election, from voting at the election for the nomination of candidates for such special election, such special election, and the general election. It would also have the effect of precluding any qualified persons who had not registered prior to September 9,1947, from voting at any of such elections.

In his opinion, the Attorney General relies upon *402 certain of the definitive provisions of the act of which Section 4785-39, General Code, is a part, as determinative that the election for the nomination of candidates for the special congressional election is a “primary ’ ’ within the purview of that section.

Those definitive provisions are contained in the section of the act now designated as Section 4785-3, General Code, and are as follows:

“The terms used in this act and in the statutes relating to elections shall have the meaning herein defined, unless other meaning is clearly apparent in the language or'context.”

‘ ‘ a. The term ‘ general election ’ shall mean any election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.”

“d. The term ‘special election’ shall mean any election other than a regular state, a regular municipal or primary election.”

“e. The term ‘primary’ or ‘primary election’ shall mean any election held for the purpose of electing party committees, choosing delegates to a party convention, or nominating candidates to be voted for at an election.”

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

Related

Manning v. Young
247 N.W. 61 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 N.E.2d 791, 81 Ohio App. 398, 37 Ohio Op. 224, 1947 Ohio App. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-campbell-v-durbin-ohioctapp-1947.