Case ID: mich_137/html/0720-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JENNINGS v. BOARD OF ELECTION COM’RS OF DELTA COUNTY.
    Elections — Conventions—Nominations.
    In the absence of fraud, the determination of a political convention as to -who are its nominees is final, and mandamus will not be granted to compel the printing on the official ballot of a name not certified, on the theory that relator received a majority of the votes of the convention, the chairman having ruled otherwise, and no appeal having been taken from his ruling.
    Mandamus by Ira C. Jennings to compel the board of election commissioners of Delta county to place relator’s name upon the official ballot as the republican candidate for judge of probate.
    Submitted October 7, 1904.
    (Calendar No. 20,767.)
    Writ denied October 8, 1904.
    The relator and Thomas B. White were candidates for the office of judge of probate atu, recent convention of the republican party for the county of Delta, held at Escanaba, in said county. There were 46 delegates present. On the first informal ballot Mr. White received 35 votes, and the relator, Mr. Jennings, received 31. A formal ballot was taken immediately thereafter, and Mr. White received 21 votes, and the relator 23. The chairman ruled that, as there were 46 delegates present and no one had received a majority thereof, no nomination had been made. No appeal was taken from this ruling. On a subsequent ballot Mr. White received 24 votes and Mr. Jennings 22. Mr. White was then declared the nominee of the convention. Mr. Jennings, the relator, contends that he was nominated on the first formal ballot, and asks for a writ of mandamus to compel the board of election commissioners to place his name, and his name only, on the official ballot in the republican column.
    
      F. D. Mead (George Huggett, of counsel), for relator.
    
      T. B. White, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We think the case is controlled by Stephenson v. Election Com’rs, 118 Mich. 396 (76 N. W. 914, 42 L. R. A. 214, 74 Am. St. Rep. 402), and Phillips v. Gallagher, 73 Minn. 528 (76 N. W. 285, 42 L. R. A. 222).

Mandamus will be denied.