Case ID: colo_25/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gabbert", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3980.]
    Acker v. Smith.
    Elections—Nominating Certificate—Party Name.
    The name “ The Anti-Fusion Populist Party ” is not so similar to either of the names, “The People’s Party” or “The National People’s Party,” as to mislead or confuse the voters, and a certificate of nomination under the former name should not be rejected on account of similarity to either of the latter, although tickets had been nominated and filed under both of the latter names.
    
      Upon Review from the District Court of Arapahoe County.
    
    October 28, 1898, there was filed with appellee, as comity clerk and recorder for the county of Arapahoe', a certificate of nomination by petition, whereby certain persons were designated the nominees of “ The Anti-Fusion Populist Party.” These nominations were protested by appellant, which protest was overruled, which ruling, on review by the district court, was affirmed. From this judgment petitioner brings the case here for review.
    Mr. J. H. Gabriel and Mr. W. H. Bryant, for appellant.
    Mr. J. D. Fleming, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only ground urged by petitioner in support of his contention, that his protest against the certificate of nomination mentioned should be sustained, is best stated in the language of his protest, as follows: “Because said name is misleading and confusing with that of ‘ The People’s Party ’ and that of ‘ The National People’s Party,’ both of which parties have heretofore filed their regular county tickets * * * , which tickets have not been protested, but will be placed on the official ballot of said county.” There is no such similarity between the names, “ The Anti-Fusion Populist Party,” “ The People’s Party ” and “ The National People’s Party,” as will tend to mislead or confuse the voters. The name selected in the certificate of nomination against which petitioner filed his protest, is entirely different from the others to which refer? ence is made.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.