Case Title: STATE EX REL BROWNE v DIST COURT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13076 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , ex re1 JUANITA BROWNE , P e t i t i o n e r , THE DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R THE C O U N T Y O F P O W E L L AND THE HON. ROBERT J. BOYD, DISTRICT JUDGE, Defendants . ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For P e t i t i o n e r : William R. Taylor argued, Deer Lodge, Montana Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Defendants : Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Anaconda, Montana Ted L. Mizner argued, Deer Lodge, Montana Submitted: July 15, 1975 Decided : All G 8 1975 F i l e d : 9 P J G 8 9 9 7 5 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . In t h i s o r i g i n a l proceeding petitioner Juanita Browne seeks a determination by t h i s Court t o s e t aside the findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, county of Powell, declaring Stanley N. Smith a successful candidate a t t h e election f o r t r u s t e e of the Board of Trustees, Powell County High School D i s t r i c t . These undisputed f a c t s a r e the basis of t h i s petition: O n April 1, 1975, an election was held i n Powell County f o r the election of a t r u s t e e t o the Board of Trustees of Powell County High School D i s t r i c t . Petitioner was seeking reelection t o the o f f i c e and her name, and her name alone, was printed on the o f f i c i a l b a l l o t . Contestant Stanley N. Smith, M.D., conducted a write-in campaign f o r the o f f i c e of trustee. The board of canvassers following such election, returned Juanita Browne a s the successful candidate, holding t h a t she received 437 votes a s compared t o 424 votes c a s t f o r Stanley N. Smith. Subsequent t o such election Stanley N. Smith f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r recount which action was l a t e r dismissed. Thereafter, Smith f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o contest p e t i t i o n e r ' s election alleging the election judges and the board of canvassers ignored and refused t o count f o r him approximately 25 write-in votes i n t h e name of D r . Smith, D r . Stan Smith, D r . G. Smith and D r . M. Smith, instead of Stanley N. Smith. The p e t i t i o n prayed t h a t the court declare the election of Juanita Browne void and t h a t a c e r t i f i c a t e of election be issued t o Stanley N. Smith. Juanita Browne f i l e d an answer, r a i s i n g two affirmative defenses: (1) That even i f the 25 votes were counted f o r Stanley N. Smith, he would s t i l l not be e n t i t l e d t o the o f f i c e of t r u s t e e , a s a number of i l l e g a l notes were erroneously counted f o r him, which number i f taken from his t o t a l count would reduce h i s number of l e g a l votes below the number of votes given Juanita Browne and therefore her election could not be s e t aside under the provisions of section 23-4764, R.C.M. 1947. (2) That Stanley N. Smith was not e n t i t l e d t o such o f f i c e because of violation of section 23-4753, R.C.M. 1947, which provides: "It s h a l l be unlawful f o r any person a t any place on the day of any election t o ask, s o l i c i t , o r i n any manner t r y t o induce o r persuade any voter on such election day t o vote f o r or r e f r a i n from voting f o r any candidate * *." The matter came on f o r hearing before Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Judge of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Every b a l l o t c a s t was stipulated i n t o evidence by segregating i n t o separate groups b a l l o t s containing similar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and each then being considered an exhibit. The 434 votes c a s t f o r Juanita Browne were not a t issue; Stanley N. Smith's candidacy was by write-in vote. A s a part of h i s campaign, s t i c k e r s were printed and distributed which contained the name Stanley N. Smith, M.D., and containing a box with a small x printed inside the box. O n the day of the election, April 1, 1975, the election committee supporting' Stanley N. Smith, parked a truck approximately 300 f e e t from the Deer Lodge precinct polling place bearing two signs reading "Stickers f o r Doctor smith" or words t o t h a t e f f e c t . Of the votes counted f o r Smith, approximately 180 b a l l o t s contained the s t i c k e r referred t o above and were not placed over t h e name of Juanita Browne and contained no X o r mark by the voter. In addition, 10 b a l l o t s counted f o r Smith con- tained h i s name written i n by hand but contained no X i n t h e box i n front of the name of Juanita Browne or Stanley N. Smith. These b a l l o t s counted f o r Stanley N. Smith did not conform t o the requirements of section 23-3606(2), ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which provide : "(2) H e s h a l l prepare h i s b a l l o t by marking I an X I i n the square before the name of the person o r persons f o r whom he intends t o vote. "(4) The e l e c t o r may write i n the blank spaces, o r paste over any other name, the name of any person f o r whom he wishes t o vote, and vote f o r t h a t person by marking an ' X I before the name. I I After t h e hearing proposed findings of f a c t and conclu- sions of law and memorandum i n support were submitted by both parties. O n June 3, 1975, Hon. Robert J. Boyd issued h i s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law holding t h a t the elec- t i o n judges impmpei!lycounted the votes referred t o above f o r Stanley N. Smith; t h a t he received a majority of the votes c a s t a t such election and was e n t i t l e d t o the o f f i c e of trustee. H e then ordered t h a t the findings of f a c t and conclusions of law constituted the judgment i n such matter and ordered the Board of Trustees of Powell County High School D i s t r i c t t o forthwith issue t o Stanley N. Smith a c e r t i f i c a t e of election. Here, petitioner asks t h i s Court t o determine whether o r not t h e s t i c k e r with a premarked "x" i s a l e g a l marked b a l l o t . Defendant d i s t r i c t court argues t h i s Court must determine and carry i n t o e f f e c t the expressed w i l l of the majority of the l e g a l voters, a s indicated by t h e i r vote, not regarding tech- n i c a l i t i e s o r e r r o r s , and c i t e s Heyfron v. Mahoney, 9 Mont. 497, 24 P. 93 and Peterson v. Billings, 109 Mont. 390, 394, 96 P.2d 922. In Peterson t h i s Court noted: "'1t has always been held i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t i f the intention of the voter can be f a i r l y ascertained from the b a l l o t , though not i n s t r i c t conformity with t h e law, e f f e c t w i l l be given t o t h a t intention. * *. "' Further, defendant argues holding t o s t r i c t compliance with the law was e i t h e r expressly or implicitly overruled by Peterson and t h a t Peterson holds the method of marking the b a l l o t i s directory and not mandatory, f o r it allowed b a l l o t s t o be counted which were not only " ~ d " outside the square before the can- I1 I1 didate!k name, but a l s o counted b a l l o t s marked with a V mark. Peterson and two e a r l i e r cases c i t e d a s being e i t h e r expressly o r implicitly overruled, Dickerman v. Gelsthorpe, 19 Mont. 249, 47 P. 999; Corwile v. Jones, 38 Mont. 590,101 P. 153, discussed the marking of the b a l l o t and i n each there had been a d i s t i n c t marking of t h e b a l l o t by a voter. Here, the mark on some 180 votes was the mark of a printer. The 1969 Montana l e g i s l a t i v e assembly enacted Chapter 368, whereby the election laws of the s t a t e were rewritten. The laws were not copied nor taken from another source o r s t a t e . Chapter 368, Laws 1969, enacted these sections of the Montana code r e l a t i v e t o the manner i n which an e l e c t o r c a s t s a vote o r marks a b a l l o t : "23-3506. Registrar t o provide printed ballots--marking by electors--other b a l l o t s ineffective. Except a s other- wise provided i n t h i s a c t : 11 (1) The r e g i s t r a r s h a l l provide printed b a l l o t s f o r every election f o r public o f f i c e r s . H e s h a l l p r i n t on the b a l l o t the names of a l l candidates, including candidates f o r chief j u s t i c e and associate j u s t i c e s of the supreme court, and judges of the d i s t r i c t courts; " ( 2 ) A n elector may w r i t e o r paste on h i s b a l l o t the name of any person f o r whom he desires t o vote f o r any o f f i c e , but must mark it a s provided i n section 23- 3606. When the b a l l o t i s marked i n t h i s manner it must be counted t h e same a s though the name i s printed upon the b a l l o t and marked by the voter; "(3) Ballots other than those printed by the r e g i s t r a r s may not be c a s t o r counted i n any election. I I "23-3515. Stub, s i z e and contents. (1) The b a l l o t s h a l l be printed on the same leaf with a stub, and separated by a perforated stub. "(3) Upon the face of the stub s h a l l be printed, i n type called brevier c a p i t a l s , the following: "(a) his b a l l o t should be marked w i t h an "Xu i n the square before the names of each person o r can- didate f o r whom the elector intends t o vote. The e l e c t o r may write i n blank spaces, o r paste over another name, the name of a EeEson f o r whom he wishes t o vote, and vote ,. by marking an X i n the square before the name. ' 9 ~ " "23-3606. Xethod of voting. (1) O n receipt of h i s b a l l o t , the e l e c t o r must immediately r e t i r e t o one of the booths and prepare h i s b a l l o t . I "(2) H e s h a l l prepare h i s b a l l o t by marking an X ' i n t h e square before the name of the person or persons f o r whom he intends t o vote. " (4) The elector may write i n the blank spaces, or paste over any other name, the name of any person f o r whom he wishes t o vote, and vote f o r t h a t person by marking an 'x' before the name. 11 In Dunphy v. Anaconda Co., 151 Mont. 76, 79, 438 P.2d G60, t h i s Court discussed construction of s t a t u t e s and held: "9; ; ' c +< In construing a s t a t u t e , the intention of the Legislature i s controlling. + : 9: -'- 4b Although various r u l e s of statutory construction have been developed and employed i n diverse cases t h a t have come before t h i s court i n the past, we consider the following t o be applicable t o the instant case i n determining l e g i s l a t i v e intent. The in- cention of the Legislature must f i r s t be determined from the plain meaning of the words used, and i f interpreta- tion of the s t a t u t e can be so determined, the courts may not go further and apply any other means of interpretation. * * 9: Where the language of a s t a t u t e i s plain, unambigu- ous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , the s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f and there i s nothing l e f t f o r the court t o construe. * * The function of t h e court i s simply t o ascertain and de- c l a r e what i n terms o r i n substance i s contained i n the s t a t u t e and not t o i n s e r t what has been omitted. * * In short, it i s simply the duty of t h e Supreme Court t o construe the law a s it finds it. * it *. " In a recent opinion on the question of what constitutes the a c t of voting t h i s Court held t h a t voting i s the affirmative a c t of marking t h e b a l l o t . State ex r e l . Cashmore v. Anderson, 160 Mont. 175, 500 P.2d 921. When applied t o the school election here i n question section 75-5915, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Conduct of Election and Ballot. * * * The t r u s t e e election b a l l o t s s h a l l be substantially in the fol- lowing form: "OFFICIAL BALLOT " S C H O O L TRUSTEE ELECTION "1NSTKIJCTIONS TO VOTERS: Make an X o r similar mark i n the vacant square before the name of the candidate f o r whom you wish t o vote. * * *I' L'he s c a t u t e c a l l s for flhe vocer t o make '?is mark; an asfirmative a c ~ i s c a l l e d f o r t o s i g n i f y h i s s e l e c t i o n , not a premarked b a l l o t :uark of a p r i n t e r . W e note t h a t some 1-73 s t i c k e r s were improperly placed dn the b a l l o t which i n i t s e l f i s a f a i l u r e t o comply with t h e e l e c t i o n laws. Where s t i c k e r s a r e used section 23-3606 (4), x.C.M. 1947, provides: " ( 4 ) The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n t h e blank spaces, o r paste over any other name, t h e name of any person Eor whom he wishes t o vote, and note f o r t h a t person by marking an 'X' before t h e name. 11 !.mproprr application of these s t i c k e r s t o t k b a l l o t s renders them invalid. The provisions of ~ o n t a n a ' s e l e c t i o n laws a s t o the marking of rhe b a l l o t and t h e use of s t i c k e r s a r e mandatory and not directory. Here, while t h e voters may have intended t o vote tor Smith, t h i s Court i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o v a l i d a t e those S a l l o t s when voters f a i l t o mark them i n t h e manner provided by s t a t u t e . Having determined t h e matter on t h e above discussed i s s u e , w e firrd no need t o consider the question r a i s e d by p e t i t i o n e r a s co t h e conduct of t h e campaign on e l e c t i o n day. The findings of f a c t , conclusions of l a w and judgment of defendant d i s t r i c t court a r e ordered vacated and t h e matter r e - rurned t o t h a t court f o r e n t r y of judgment i n conformity herewith. t h i e f J u s t i c e 'l.-J." Yr. J u s ~ i c e Tdesley Zascles dissenting: L dissent. ! think t h e majority opinion is much too narrow in cor~struing the e l e c t i o n laws. I would look t o the i n t e n t m d a c t of t h e voter i n pasting on the s t i c k e r . Judge Boyd was correct i n every d e t a i l , and I would affirm. J u s t i c e . U