Case Title: Recall Bennett Com. v. BENNETT

Citation: 196 Or. 299, 249 P.2d 479

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1952-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed October 8, 1952.
*304 Leo Levenson and Arthur M. Dibble, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Duane Vergeer, of Portland, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Vergeer & Samuels and Charles S. Crookham, of Portland.
Before BRAND, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, LUSK, LATOURETTE, WARNER and TOOZE, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
BRAND, C.J.
This is a suit for a declaratory judgment commenced by the "Recall Bennett Committee" by and through Dave Goldman, and by Dave Goldman individually, as plaintiffs. The defendants are J.E. Bennett and the following public officers: Will Gibson, City Auditor of the city of Portland; James Gleason, Registrar of Elections of Multnomah county; and Guy H. Pace, County Clerk of Clackamas county. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the name of the defendant Bennett should not be placed upon the ballot for the purpose of seeking re-election on November 4 and that he is not qualified to serve the balance of the unexpired term of the office from which he was ousted by recall "and/or resignation followed by said recall." The complaint also seeks injunctions against the defendants in their official capacity to restrain them from placing the name of the defendant Bennett on the ballot for the November 4 election. The facts relating to the merits of the controversy are not in dispute. The defendant Bennett was elected to and held Position No. 2 as a commissioner of the city of Portland, *305 his term of office extending from January 1951 to January 1955. On 16 May 1952 an election was duly called and held within the city of Portland to determine whether the voters would recall the defendant Bennett from said office held by him. At said election the majority of the votes were in favor of the recall. On the day following the election the defendant Bennett tendered his resignation to the city council, which resignation was accepted on 20 May 1952. On 23 May the results of the recall election were formally declared and certified. On 28 May 1952 the council appointed Nathan A. Boody to fill the vacancy created by the resignation and recall of the defendant Bennett. On 26 August petitions were filed with the defendant Gibson for the purpose of procuring the placement of the name of the defendant Bennett upon the ballot for the election to be held on 4 November 1952 as a candidate for election to fill the vacancy in Position No. 2 on the city council for the balance of the term formerly held by the defendant Bennett, that is to say, until January 1955. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant Bennett is, by virtue of his recall from office, barred from seeking re-election to the identical position rendered vacant by his recall and that he is disqualified as a matter of law from holding said position for the balance of the term from which he was removed. The nominating petitions are such as would require the defendant public officials to place the name of the defendant Bennett upon the ballot unless by reason of the recall he is disqualified from becoming a candidate for, or being elected to, said position. Defendant Gibson, as city auditor, has certified the name of the defendant Bennett to the county clerk of Multnomah county and to the county clerk of Clackamas county on 28 August 1952. The defendant Gibson prays for a decree dismissing *306 plaintiffs' complaint. The defendant Gleason, as Registrar of Elections, received the name of the defendant Bennett as that of a candidate entitled to have his name appear on the ballot for election to Position No. 2 and states that unless restrained by the court he will cause the name of the defendant Bennett to be placed upon the ballot and submitted to the voters. He declares himself uncertain as to the rights and status of the defendant Bennett and prays for a declaratory judgment concerning his duty under the law. The defendant Pace, who is county clerk of Clackamas county wherein a portion of the city of Portland is located, admits the allegations of fact in the plaintiffs' complaint and joins in a prayer for a declaratory judgment. The defendant Bennett, on the basis of admitted facts, prays for a declaratory judgment to the effect that he is entitled to be a candidate for the office of commissioner in Position No. 2 for said unexpired term and that he is eligible for election. The trial court allowed a motion for dismissal as to the defendant Will Gibson upon the ground that as to him the controversy is moot. All of the other parties to the controversy moved for judgment on the pleadings. The decree declares that the defendant Bennett "is disqualified from seeking reelection to the position vacancy resulting from, and created by, said recall", and that such disqualification continues for the duration of the term of office for which he was elected and which terminates on 1 January 1955. The other defendants were enjoined from placing the name of the defendant Bennett upon the ballot for the November election and the defendant Bennett was enjoined from seeking re-election to the office for the term from which he was recalled.
Before entering upon the merits of the controversy we must consider certain procedural issues raised by *307 the defendant. In his brief the defendant Bennett makes two contentions; first, that a declaration of rights cannot be had prior to election; and second, that the complaint does not contain sufficient facts showing a present justiciable controversy and that the court therefore did not have jurisdiction. Upon the first issue the defendant cites one case only, Dietz v. Zimmer, 231 Ky 546, 21 SW2d 999. As will later appear, that case is distinguishable. The action was brought by residents, taxpayers and electors, seeking a declaration that certain candidates for election were disqualified by reason of violations of the Corrupt Practices Act. The defendants were nominees at a previous primary election. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and entered judgment. On appeal, the judgment for defendants was affirmed. The court refused to consider the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which would have raised issues of alleged criminality. It cited the provisions of the Declaratory Judgments Act which are the same as those appearing in the Oregon statute and which reads as follows:
The court said:
It was held that the action would not lie. It will be observed that the court carefully guarded its decision by pointing out the absence of any duties on the part of the plaintiffs, the existence of which might place them within the confines of a controversy with the defendants. In other words, the plaintiffs were not public officers seeking a determination as to their duties relative to the election of the defendants.
*309 1, 2. We turn now to the defendant's second contention as above set forth, since his first point is embraced in the second. The general rule established by judicial decision is that a suit or action for a declaratory judgment will not lie unless there is an actual controversy existing between adverse parties. Oregon Creamery Manufacturers Association v. White, 159 Or 99, 78 P2d 572; Hickey v. City of Portland, 165 Or 594, 109 P2d 594. It remains to be determined whether there was such a controversy in the pending case. In Webb v. Clatsop County School District No. 3, 188 Or 324, 215 P2d 368, this court held that a justiciable controversy existed when voters sued members of a district boundary board to test the validity of a school election. It is argued that no justiciable controversy exists because the defendant Bennett may not be elected and will therefore have no duties to perform. It is therefore said that the litigation is premature. Our attention has been directed to 16 Am Jur, Declaratory Judgments, sections 18 and 19, pages 292-293 which relates to the refusal of courts to declare future rights where the interest of the party is merely contingent. But the immediate issue in the pending case relates to matters which precede the date of election and relate to present rights. The question is whether his status is such as to entitle him to have his name placed upon the ballot. This presents an immediate issue as to which there is no contingency. If the defendant, by reason of the recall, has become ineligible to become a candidate, we would suppose that such ineligibility affected his legal rights and established a legal status and therefore that the power of the court to declare rights, status and other relations would exist. OCLA, § 6-601. Such rights and status are certainly affected by relevant *310 statutes and provisions of the municipal charter. OCLA, § 6-602.
In Wingate v. Flynn, 249 NY Supp 351, the plaintiff was elected to office in November 1925. On the same day amendments to the New York constitution were adopted relative to the term of the office in question. The statute directed the defendant secretary of state, before each general election, to issue a certificate stating "each officer * * * who lawfully may be voted for at such election". The question was whether the plaintiff was one who could be voted for at the November 1931 election, the plaintiff's position being that he had been elected for only six years and therefore could be a candidate at the 1931 election. The complaint alleged and answer admitted that the defendant did not intend to certify that the plaintiff was one who could be voted for at the 1931 election, the claim of the defendant being that plaintiff was elected for 14 years or until January 1940. Plaintiff asked for a judgment declaring whether he was elected for six or for 14 years and whether it was the duty of the defendant to certify the plaintiff as a candidate at the 1931 election. The court held that an actual controversy exists and said:
It was held that the plaintiff was elected for six years. The case was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate *311 Division, 250 NYS 917 and by the Court of Appeals, 256 NY 690, 177 NE 195.
In Progressive Party v. Flynn, 400 Ill 102, 79 NE2d 516, the Progressive Party and others sought a declaratory judgment against the election board to the effect that the party was entitled to participate in the primary election immediately following the nomination of officers. The defendant secretary of state denied the right of the party to participate and contended that there was no jurisdiction because a purely political question could not be adjudicated by a declaratory judgment. The court said:
It was held that the court had jurisdiction to declare rights.
In Daugherty v. Town of Mabscott, 131 W Va 500, 48 SE2d 342, plaintiffs brought an action under the Declaratory Judgment statute and alleged that they were elected to specified municipal offices and had taken oath of office within 20 days after declaration of the result of the election but that the incumbents refused to turn over the offices to the plaintiffs upon the ground that they had forfeited their rights by failure to take oath of office within 20 days after the election. The circuit court overruled a demurrer to the complaint and certified to the Court of Appeals the question as to whether the complaint stated a cause of action. The court held that the action for declaratory judgment would lie and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the office.
3. From Borchard, Declaratory Judgments, Second Edition, page 872, we quote:
4. The defendant Bennett places reliance upon the case of Marsden v. Harlocker, 48 Or 90, 85 P 328. The case is cited for the proposition that:
The Marsden case was decided twenty years before the Declaratory Judgments Act was adopted. Furthermore, quo warranto would not be an adequate remedy in the case at bar. As we shall show, the defendant Gleason was entitled to an adjudication concerning his duties. It can scarcely be said that Bennett would have an adequate remedy if he were permitted to place his name on the ballot, spend time and money in an effort to be elected, and then, if the vote favored him, be subjected to a belated adjudication that he never had a right to run for the office. Neither quo warranto nor the statutory procedure authorized by OCLA, § 81-1901 can be said to furnish a remedy as prompt and adequate as that afforded by the Declaratory Judgments Act, *314 which act is remedial and must be liberally construed. Our statute provides:
The provisions of OCLA, §§ 81-1901 and 81-2546 constitute statutory procedures additional to quo warranto, whereby the validity of an election previously held may be tested. Neither statute deals with the question which confronts us here, namely, the status of a would-be candidate, his right to have his name on a ballot and the duty of a public officer to place it there. McGinnis v. Cossar, 230 Ky 213, 18 SW2d 988 and Purdom v. Hays, 260 Ky 82, 83 SW2d 846, strongly support the proposition that a court may render a declaratory judgment for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a candidate before an election is held. The McGinnis case was decided before Deitz v. Zimmer, supra. Purdom v. Hays was decided long after the decision of Deitz v. Zimmer. All three cases come from the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. No reference was made in Deitz v. Zimmer to the McGinnis case and neither the Deitz nor the McGinnis cases are mentioned in Purdom v. Hays. Obviously the cases were not considered to be in conflict.
In State ex rel. Ekern v. Dammann, 215 Wis 394, 254 NW 759, the plaintiff filed a complaint under the Declaratory Judgment Act against the secretary of state. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs had taken steps for the formation of a new political party and that it was the duty of the secretary of state to file nomination papers for candidates and to file petitions for new political parties and to prepare official *315 ballots. It was further alleged that the defendant had prepared rulings which erroneously would deprive citizens of the right to form a new political party and to elect officers. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin said:
In 1 Anderson, Declaratory Judgments, the author states the rule concerning matters of public interest with even greater liberality. We quote:
In Terry v. Adams, 90 F Supp 595, the plaintiffs who were negro citizens and voters sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that they were entitled to vote at certain elections, the defendants being representatives of the governing body of the "Jaybird *317 Party." It was held that a suit for a declaratory judgment would lie and the plaintiffs prevailed. See Sheils v. Flynn, 297 NY Supp 705.
In Kelly v. Woodlee, 175 Tenn 181, 133 SW2d 473, the plaintiff sought a declaration that he was the lawful holder of an office and that the defendant claims title to this office under an appointment. The court took jurisdiction and adjudicated the rights of the parties. We think it sufficiently appears from the authorities that cases may arise in which it is proper to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under the declaratory judgment statute in so-called political cases and that declarations may be made prior to an election. We join in liberal interpretation in such cases. Friendly v. Olcott, 61 Or 580, 123 P 53, cited by defendant Bennett, was decided 15 years before the declaratory judgment statute was passed.
5, 6. It is contended in this court that the complaint states only that the plaintiff Goldman is a citizen and resident and taxpayer within the municipality and fails to state that he is a legal voter. It is therefore contended that the complaint is deficient. No demurrer was filed to the complaint and it does not appear that the issue was raised in the lower court nor was it suggested to the lower court that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. We agree that at most, it appears only by inference, that the plaintiff has any rights or interest adverse to the position of the defendant. It must also be stated that the complaint appears to be defective in that it fails to specifically set forth any contention of the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant is ineligible for the reasons stated. He then says that petitions for election were filed "by or on behalf of the defendant Bennett." We are left, therefore, to infer what apparently everyone knows, *318 that Bennett contends he is eligible to election. By his answer the defendant Bennett sets forth his contention that he is eligible and the defendant Gleason alleges that the city auditor has certified the name of defendant Bennett as that of a candidate entitled to have his name appear on the ballot and that the plaintiff contends that Bennett is not so entitled. He alleges further that in view of the controversy he is uncertain as to the rights and status of the said defendant Bennett as a candidate for said office and as to the rights and duties of the defendant Gleason under the election laws. He therefore prays the court for a declaration of rights as to Bennett and a declaration of duties as to himself. All of the parties stipulated to the facts and in effect entered into a submission of the cause. We quote the following from 1 Anderson, Declaratory Judgments, section 304, page 706:
See Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex 360, 190 SW2d 709, 172 ALR 837.
*319 7. In substance, if not in form, the defendant Gleason has raised a justiciable controversy with the defendant Bennett by his cross-complaint seeking declaratory relief. From 16 Am Jur, Declaratory Judgments, section 65, page 336, we quote the following:
8. In Tolle v. Struve, 124 Cal App 263, 12 P2d 61, the court held in substance that:
*320 9, 10. Again we quote from a recent work:
The position of the defendant Gleason sufficiently appears to be adverse to that of the defendant Bennett. In Klein v. Jefferson County Building & Loan Ass'n, 239 Ala 460, 195 So 593, the plaintiff, a stockholder in the defendant corporation, brought suit against it for a declaratory judgment. The company proposed to organize under the Savings and Loan Act. It was alleged by the plaintiff that if the act is unconstitutional, great confusion, expense and clouds on titles would result. Plaintiff then expressed "grave doubt" of the constitutionality of the Savings and Loan Act. The court said:
*322 Again, in Town of Ohio v. People, 264 App Div 220, 35 NY Supp2d 107, the court said:
14, 15. In the case at bar it is unnecessary to decide whether a private party sufficiently shows his adversary and then expressing "grave doubt" as to the validity of that contention. In the pending case a public officer, Gleason, is charged by statute with certain duties. A dispute has arisen between others as to the nature of his duty. Is he to place a name on the ballot or not? He must obey the law. He must make a quick decision. He is reasonably in doubt as to how he should act. As a public officer he belongs to a class which is peculiarly entitled to judicial guidance, for, as said in Wingate v. Flynn, supra, "Public officers should have the right to have their legal duties judicially determined. In this way only can the disastrous results of well-intentioned but illegal acts be avoided with certainty." As said in Cobb v. Harrington, supra, 144 Tex 360, 190 SW2d 709:
And see Ex parte County Board of Education, 260 Ky 246, 84 SW2d 59.
16-19. We hold that the court had jurisdiction to declare the rights of Bennett and the duty of Gleason. We do not hold that the assumption of jurisdiction was *323 mandatory. In this connection we quote from Borchard as follows:
20, 21. In exercising its judicial discretion as to the assumption of jurisdiction, the trial court was entitled to consider the fact that other, though less expeditious remedies might after election become available to test the rights of the defendant Bennett to hold office. It was entitled to consider the fact that the litigation *324 must necessarily disrupt orderly election procedures by reason of the shortness of the time between the filing of the suit and the time at which the ballots must be printed. The court was also entitled to consider the obvious fact that the shortness of available time would render difficult, if not impossible, the orderly and regular presentation of the issues by counsel and the deliberate consideration of those issues by the courts. On the other hand, the trial court was entitled to consider the bearing of the public interest upon the question of assumption of jurisdiction. If the court should refuse jurisdiction at this time, and the defendant Bennett should win election at the polls, and if then, statutory procedure or the remedy of quo warranto should be successfully invoked to oust him of office, the result would be the practical disfranchisement of all of the voters whose ballots were cast for the defendant Bennett. They would have been deprived of their clear right to choose between other candidates who were qualified. A decision adverse to Bennett and rendered subsequent to his purported election might also throw into confusion, which could be removed only by litigation, the question as to whether the next highest candidate was elected or whether a new election had become necessary. We hold that the trial court properly assumed jurisdiction.
22. We come to the merits. We consider it unnecessary to quote the various provisions concerning the recall of public officers. It is sufficient to say that the recall provisions of the Oregon constitution, Article II, § 18, have been adopted in the charter of the city of Portland. Charter, Article 2, section 3-201. The general provisions as to the "required qualifications" for an office to be filled by reason of a vacancy are not *325 relevant to the question of the eligibility of a recalled commissioner to run for the balance of the term to which he was elected and from which he was recalled.
23-25. At the general election to be held on 4 November 1952 a commissioner is to be elected to fill out the unexpired term to which the defendant Bennett was elected and from which he was recalled. The questions for decision are as follows: What were the essential characteristics of the office to which Bennett was elected? What was his tenure therein and what was the legal effect of his ouster by vote of the people? The fact that Bennett resigned on the day after the recall election but before the vote was officially canvassed is immaterial. State v. Rose, 74 Kan 262, 86 P 296. Public office has been defined as follows:
The term of office is:
Counsel for the defendant quote from American Jurisprudence as follows:
We shall assume that by inadvertence they neglected to quote the balance of the paragraph which reads as follows:
In State v. Rose, supra, the defendant was elected mayor for a term of two years ending on 12 April 1907. In September 1905 an action was brought to remove him from office for misconduct. In a civil proceeding the court ousted him from office and decreed his ineligibility for the remainder of his term. Shortly thereafter Rose became a candidate at an election held to fill the vacancy. He was elected and assumed the office. Contempt proceedings were then instituted for violation of the ouster decree. The statute pursuant to which the defendant was removed from office provided that "for a failure or neglect of official duty in the enforcement of this act, any of *327 the city or county officers herein referred to may be removed by civil action." Gen Stat Kan 1901, § 2462. There was no statutory provision concerning the eligibility of the defendant following his removal. It was held that the defendant was guilty of contempt. After citing many cases the court said:
The court cited with approval State ex rel. v. Dart, 57 Minn 261, 59 NW 190, which concerned the case of an officer who was removed from office and then reappointed to fill out his term. The opinion in the Rose case continued:
In Day v. Sharp, 128 Tenn 340, 161 SW 994, the defendant had been found ineligible to hold a county office. Thereafter the county court elected him to the same office. The court reviewed earlier cases and held the defendant ineligible. The court said:
It was held that the defendant was not eligible to hold the remnant of his original term. The ouster statute in that case provided that if the defendant be found guilty judgment of ouster shall be rendered. The proceedings were civil in nature and there was no statutory provision concerning eligibility after ouster.
In State v. Crump, 134 Tenn 121, 183 SW 505, the cases were again reviewed at length. The court said:
See also People v. Ahearn, 196 NY 221, 89 NE 930; In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 31 Fla 1, 12 So 114, 18 LRA 594.
26, 27. As we have indicated, the city charter provides for the exercise of the recall in the manner provided by the constitution and general laws of the state and the ordinances of the city. The Oregon constitution, Article II, § 18, provides that every public officer is subject to recall. From that section we quote: "If an officer is recalled from any public office * * *." In harmony with the cited cases we hold that a public office is an entity and that the duration of the term of office is a part of the entity. If he is ousted from the office he is ousted from the term to which he was elected. The grounds on which ouster is based have no bearing upon the extent of the ouster. The office was for a full term of years. The disqualification is for the same period. Under the constitution the people are authorized to remove by recall any public officer for reasons set forth in the recall petition and printed on the sample ballots. These reasons may or may not charge malfeasance in office. In the case at bar the record fails to show what reasons were set forth in the recall petition. But recall by the electors for reasons specified in the petition is no less effective as an ouster than is a removal by judgment of a court for reasons specified in a civil complaint. In the one case the ouster is by judicial decision pursuant to statute enacted by the people or their representatives; in the other it is an ouster by the sovereign people themselves under rights confirmed by the constitution. Any other conclusion might nullify the expressed will of a *330 majority of the electors in a matter touching their sovereign rights.
28. We hold that the defendant Bennett is not qualified to become a candidate for election to the unexpired term of the office from which he was recalled. By reason of his disqualification, his election, if an election were to be held, would be void. 67 CJS 155, Officers, § 26.
The injunction against the defendant Gleason was properly issued and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed. No party will recover costs.