Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Vicars v. Stokely

Vicars v. Stokely

296 S.W.2d 599, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 2390
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 24, 1956
Docket13126
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 296 S.W.2d 599 (Vicars v. Stokely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vicars v. Stokely, 296 S.W.2d 599, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 2390 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinions

POPE, Justice.

This is an election contest. H. L. Stokely, incumbent, and M. M. Vicars were opposing candidates for the office of Mayor of the City of Brownsville. The election was held on November 1, 1955, and the official canvass of the returns showed that Vicars received 2355 votes, Stokely received 2338, and other persons received six votes. Vicars was declared winner with a majority of eleven votes. Stokely filed this contest, and after a thorough hearing, which included the opening of all the ballot and stub boxes, the trial court declared contestant Stokely the winner, 2,164 votes being for Stokely, 2,103 votes for Vicars, and four votes for other persons. Stokely won with a majority of fifty-seven votes. Vicars superseded the judgment and is serving as Mayor of Brownsville.

Contestant Stokely’s main complaint in the contest was that the ballots were not uniformly counted in all the precincts because of the unorthodox ballot used in the election. A sample ballot is set forth in the footnote.1 The third column, instead of providing a space for a “write-in” candidate, contained the command, “Write In Candidates.” The result was that many [602]*602voters wrote the name of either Stokely or Vicars in the third column. Many voters then failed to scratch the printed name of the opposing1 candidate. The result was that many ballots contained an unscratched printed name and the name of one candidate written in longhand. For convenience, the trial court designated the ballots by three distinguishing terms. “Unscratched write-in” ballots were those on which a candidate’s name was written in the third column, but no printed name was scratched. The trial court treated those ballots as invalid and did not count them. Art. 8.21, V.A.T.S. Election Code. “Vicars-Vicars” ballots were those which had Vicar’s name written in the third column and Stokely’s name was scratched. “Stokely-Stolcely” ballots were those which had Stokely’s name written in the third column and Vicars’ name was scratched. The trial court counted the two latter types of ballots.

[601]*601

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

Related

Olivarez v. Aguilar
431 S.W.2d 932 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Bagley v. Holt
430 S.W.2d 817 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Walker v. Thetford
418 S.W.2d 276 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Kennelly v. Gates
406 S.W.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Day v. Crutchfield
400 S.W.2d 377 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Mitchell v. Jones
361 S.W.2d 224 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Guerra v. Ramirez
351 S.W.2d 272 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Duncan v. Willis
302 S.W.2d 627 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
Vicars v. Stokely
300 S.W.2d 623 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
Vicars v. Stokely
296 S.W.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 S.W.2d 599, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 2390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vicars-v-stokely-texapp-1956.