State Ex Rel. Gandy v. Page

169 So. 854, 125 Fla. 348, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1290
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 28, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 169 So. 854 (State Ex Rel. Gandy v. Page) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Gandy v. Page, 169 So. 854, 125 Fla. 348, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1290 (Fla. 1936).

Opinion

Davis, J.

— Gandy and Mays were candidates for nomination to the office of Shériff of Escambia County at the second Democratic primary election held June 23, 1936. Gandy polled 5,828 votes and Mays polled 5,807 votes, ex- *353 elusive of certain “absentee” ballots! that have been brought into controversy in this proceeding. Said absentee ballots were objected to and challenged by written protest signed and filed with the County Canvassing Board of Escambia County prior to the completion of the County canvass of votes cast for the office of sheriff and the object of this proceeding is to make such challenge and protest effective by means of a judicial command per mandamus to coerce the respondent members of the County Canvassing Board to reject the “absentee” ballots according to the ground of objection urged in the written challenges interposed thereto.

Attached to the alternative writ and made a part thereof is a list of challenged voters described as “Exhibit 1-A.” Such list is as follows:

“Exhibit T-A.’
“Precinct “Name and Address.
30 “Mrs. Ermelinda Rosasco, Washington.
30 Henry P. Rosasco, Washington.
14 L. F. Giarette, Hattiesburg, Miss.
26 Louise Smallwood Burd, Bethesda, Maryland.
46 T. E. Bledsoe, Washington.
29 Madge M. Cushman, Washington.
42 Dorothy Roberts, Washington.
39 Tom E. Williams, Hyattsville, Maryland.
41 James A. White, Washington.
39 Herbert Lindsay, Washington.
27 Wm. R. Mayes, Washington.
39 Mabel R. Robartson, Washington.
39 C. R. Swett, Washington.
30 Harry J. White, Washington.
14 D. C. Thornton, Washington.
13 Margaret R. Johnston, Washington.
14 Marion C. Hall, Washington.
*354 29 Howland A. Sarra, Washington.
13 John C. Greene, Washington.
13 Bertha C. Greene, Washington.
32 Charles H. Cope, Washington.
31 Herman Engel, Washington.
27 Lois K. Mayes, Washington.
27 Charles A. Mayes, Washington.
26 Lena B. Hertner, Washington.
34 Annie T. Townsend, Washington, D. C.
34 EdgaP W. Townsend, Washington.
39 Lucile Robertson, Washington.
34 Wm. J. Anderson, Washington.
34 ' Laura May Anderson, Washington.
42 Sherry T. McAdams, Jr., Washington.
27 Faith Binkley, Washington.
13 Hazel D. Johnston, Miller, Washington.
14 Anna G. Ehrlich, Washington.
14 A. M. Ehrlich, Washington.
27 L. Grey Bell, Camden, N. J.”

The particular ground upon which the foregoing votes were challenged, and upon which they are contested in this proceeding is that each of the parties named in said list and whose ballots are involved in this contest were registered solely upon the provisions of Chapter 16987, Acts 1935, which Act relator alleges is unconstitutional and void because (a) said Act requires the registration of persons without the State of Florida by filing of an affidavit which does not comply with Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution of Florida; (b) said Act requires registration of persons without the State of Florida in any primary, general, school, municipal or special election pursuant to a form of affidavit prescribed therein that does not contain any provision for an oath by the elector to protect and defend *355 the Constitution of the State of Florida nor any affirmation or oath that the elector is twenty-one years of age and entitled to vote under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida; (c) that said Act is in conflict with Section 3 of Article' VI of the Constitution of Florida. It is further alleged that none of the listed voters actually took or subscribed to the elector’s oath required by Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution of Florida.

The primary election laws are a part of the general election machinery of the State. Under their present effect as interpreted by this Court, no candidate is eligible to have his name printed on the general election ballot as a candidate for elective office in opposition to major parties’ candidates, if the latter have been nominated in the general June biennial primary elections. Primary elections are, therefore, the beginning of the operation of the general election laws that must ultimately result in the actual choice of our elective public officers. As such our primary election law amounts to a policing and regulation of the method and means by which the political activities of the qualified electors defined by Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution (who are bona fide members of the recognized major political parties of the State) are ultimately exerted in the final choice of elective officers.

The Constitution of Florida defines the qualifications of electors who may participate in general elections. Section 1 of Article VI. It likewise requires an official registration of all such qualified electors before they can be permitted to vote. Section 2 of Article VI. And as a condition precedent to such constitutionally required registration the Constitution further provides that all qualified voters who present themselves for registration under the law shall personally appear before the registration officer and there take *356 and subscribe before such officer the following oath set forth in Section 3 of Article VI:

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida, that I am twenty-one years of age, and have been a resident of the State of Florida for twelve months and of this county for six months, and I am qualified to vote under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida.”

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

Related

Jennifer Brinkmann v. Tyron Francois, etc.
184 So. 3d 504 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
AFL-CIO v. Hood
885 So. 2d 373 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1974
State Ex Rel. Limpus v. Newell
85 So. 2d 124 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)
Wagner v. Gray
74 So. 2d 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Ervin v. Richardson
70 So. 2d 585 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Bowden v. Carter
65 So. 2d 871 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Overstreet v. Whiddon
177 So. 701 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 So. 854, 125 Fla. 348, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gandy-v-page-fla-1936.