Title: State Ex Rel. Handley v. SUP. CT. OF MAR. CO., ETC.

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

238 Ind. 421 (1958)
151 N.E.2d 508
STATE EX REL. HANDLEY
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, ETC. RYAN, JUDGE, ETC.
No. 29,690.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed June 25, 1958.
*423 Smith & Yarling, of Indianapolis, for relator.
C. Richard Fulmer and Fulmer & Myers, of Indianapolis, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Relator by his petition herein requests this court to prohibit respondents from taking any further action in Cause No. C-34771 pending in such court, wherein the plaintiff seeks an order of respondent court restraining and enjoining (1) defendant Handley from becoming a candidate for the office of United States Senator at the Republican State Convention to be held on June 27, 1958, restraining defendant State Committee and defendant Secretary thereof from accepting and recognizing defendant Handley's declaration of candidacy for such office, and from permitting his name to be placed in nomination before the Convention as a candidate for the office of United States Senator; (2) temporarily restraining said defendants from such acts until a hearing can be held and thereafter temporarily enjoining defendants from such acts *424 during the pendency of this suit; and (3) directing defendant Secretary and defendant State Committee to declare that said Handley's declaration of candidacy is void.
The complaint alleges that relator herein, as the Governor of the State of Indiana, was elected for a four-year term beginning January 14, 1957, and is ineligible to be a candidate of the Republican Party for the office of United States Senator in the election to be held on November 4, 1958, or to serve in such office if nominated and elected for the reason that he is ineligible under the provisions of Article 5, § 24 of the Constitution of Indiana which provides:
Relator herein asserts that the trial court (1) "may not sit as a court of equity to determine a political question;" and (2) "the eligibility or qualification of a United States Senator is not subject to the jurisdiction of either State or Federal courts; but the sole jurisdiction of this question is in the Senate itself."
Relator, as a defendant below, filed answer in abatement asserting that respondent court "does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this cause of action," and does not have the power to grant the relief sought by plaintiff in his complaint. The plea in abatement was overruled and the action in this court followed.
We issued a temporary writ to which respondents duly filed their return. The return is devoted principally to the first question raised by relator in his petition herein and for the reasons which will presently appear, we deem it unnecessary to consider further this part of respondents' return.
*425 The question here presented concerns the construction of certain provisions of both the Federal and State Constitutions and are of grave public concern.
Because of the importance of the issue here involved and of the state-wide public interest in its timely determination, we feel that this court would be failing in its judicial duty if it did not advance this cause on the docket and expedite our decision, and proceed to decide the case on its merits, that is  Do the courts of this State have jurisdiction to decide whether the Governor of Indiana has the right to be a candidate for the office of United States Senator "during the term for which he shall have been elected" as Governor?
Eligibility refers to the qualifications to hold an office  competency to hold the office if chosen, and is synonymous with qualifications. Carroll v. Green (1897), 148 Ind. 362, 364, 47 N.E. 223; Shuck v. The State ex rel. Cope (1893), 136 Ind. 63, 70, 35 N.E. 993; 29 C.J.S., p. 663.
Relator has filed his declaration of candidacy for nomination as a candidate for United States Senator in the Republican State Convention to be held on June 27, 1958, as provided by law.[1]
Under the laws of the State of Indiana the Republican State Convention is as much an integral part of the election process as is the primary election at which candidates for the House of Representatives in Congress are nominated. It performs the same function in the nomination of candidates for United States Senator and State officers as do the local primaries in the nomination of candidates for Congress and local officers. State ex rel. Buttz v. Marion Cir. Ct. (1947), 225 Ind. 7, 20, *426 72 N.E.2d 225, 170 A.L.R. 187; Cf: United States v. Classic (1941), 313 U.S. 299, 61 S. Ct. 1031, 85 L. Ed. 1368; Smith v. Allwright (1943), 321 U.S. 649, 88 L. Ed. 987, 64 S. Ct. 757, 151 A.L.R. 1110; State ex rel. Wettengel v. Zimmerman (1946), 249 Wis. 237, 24 N.W.2d 504.
Since the State Convention is an integral part of our election process, Congress, under Article 1, § 5 of the Constitution of the United States,[2] has the same jurisdiction of Conventions for the nomination of United States Senator in Indiana as it has over the general election at which a United States Senator is elected.
The United States Supreme Court has held that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution. Smith v. Allwright, supra (1944), 321 U.S. 649, 661, 64 S. Ct. 757, 88 L. Ed. 987, 151 A.L.R. 1110; United States v. Classic, supra (1941), 313 U.S. 299, 314, 61 S. Ct. 1031, 85 L. Ed. 1368.
Under these decisions the same rules of law are applicable to a State Convention in Indiana for the nomination for United States Senator as are applicable to an election for United States Senator. Cf: State ex rel. Wettengel v. Zimmerman, supra (1946), 249 Wis. 237, 243, 24 N.W.2d 504, 507.
This court was confronted with a question involving the qualifications of a candidate for the Indiana State *427 Senate who was nominated in a primary election, in Lucas v. McAfee (1940), 217 Ind. 534, 29 N.E.2d 403. In that case Lucas was declared nominated in the Democratic primary election to be one of the two candidates for the Indiana Senate from Lake County. He received more votes than did McAfee, who thereupon filed an action for recount and contest in which he relied on the provisions of Acts 1921, ch. 83, § 1, p. 179, being § 49-303, Burns' 1951 Replacement, which prohibits any person from holding office if he has been convicted of certain crimes, and on Acts 1935, ch. 82, § 2, p. 238 (now Acts 1945, ch. 208, § 342, p. 680, being § 29-5502, Burns' 1949 Replacement) which provides that an election contest might be had on the ground that the contestee had theretofore been convicted of an infamous crime.
This court there held that by Article 4, § 10 of our Constitution exclusive jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of a candidate for the General Assembly was vested in the respective Houses of the Legislature, that the courts have no jurisdiction thereof, and the fact that the controversy arose out of a primary election contest was immaterial. At page 540 of 217 Ind. 29 N.E.2d at page 404, speaking through Judge Shake, we said:
*428 See also: In re McGee (1951), 36 Cal. 2d 592, 226 P.2d 1. The principle announced in the Lucas Case in which the constitutional provision involved is similar to Article 1, § 5 of the Constitution of the United States, would also apply where the qualifications for a candidate for United States Senator are involved.
Article 6, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution provides:
The Constitution and laws of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution. Their obligation "... is imperative upon the state judges, in their official, and not merely in their private, capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the state, but according to the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States  `the supreme law of the land.'" Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), 1 Wheat. 304, 340-341, 4 L. Ed. 97.
Since the petition herein concerns the nomination for the office of United States Senator, we must, under the foregoing constitutional provisions and authorities, be governed by the Federal Constitution and laws in our determination of the issue here presented.
Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides, in part here pertinent, as follows:
The Constitution of the United States has delegated to the United States Senate the power to determine the qualifications of its members (Article 1, § 5, supra), and this precludes any consideration of the question by the courts. The provisions of Article 5, § 24 of the Constitution of Indiana attempt to add a qualification for the office of United States Senator to those provided by Article 1, § 3, cl. 3, supra, of the Constitution of the United States in that it provides that a person to be eligible for the office of United *430 States Senator must not, at the time he is a candidate therefor, be a Governor or Lieutenant Governor of the State.
Whenever States have attempted to require qualifications for the office of United States Senator other than those named in the third clause of § 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, they have been uniformly rejected by the State courts. State v. Crane (1948), 65 Wyo. 189, 197 P.2d 864, and cases there cited.
91 C.J.S., United States, § 11, p. 28, states the uniform rule as follows:
54 Am. Jur., United States, § 17, p. 534, states the rule applicable to Article 1, § 5, supra, as follows:
*431 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Sevilla v. Elizalde (1940), 72 App. D.C. 108, 112 F.2d 29, at page 37, which involved the qualifications of a Commissioner of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, said:
The United States Supreme Court in Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham (1929), 279 U.S. 597, 613, 49 S. Ct. 452, 73 L. Ed. 867, 871, which involved the validity of the election of a United States Senator from Pennsylvania, said:
The Supreme Court of Wyoming had before it the construction of a provision of their State Constitution identical to Article 5, § 24 of the Constitution of Indiana in State v. Crane, supra (1948), 65 Wyo. 189, 197 P.2d 864.
Article 4, § 2 of the Constitution of Wyoming provides:
In that case the Governor of Wyoming during "the term for which he was elected" was nominated as a candidate for the United States Senate. Relator therein sought to have the courts declare that the Governor was, at the time of placing his name upon the Democratic Primary Election ballot, not eligible to be a nominee for the office of United States Senator for the State of Wyoming. After a thorough and able discussion of all the decided cases bearing upon the subject, the court sustained the uniform rule that  The Constitution and laws of the United States determine what shall be the qualifications for federal offices, and State Constitutions and laws can neither add to nor take away from them.
State ex rel. Wettengel v. Zimmerman, supra (1946), 249 Wis. 237, 24 N.W.2d 504, was an original action in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to enjoin the Secretary of State and the State Board of Canvassers from certifying the name of Joseph R. McCarthy as the nominee for United States Senator of the Republican Party at the general election to be held on November 5, 1946, on the ground that as a Circuit Judge he was ineligible to be a candidate for United States Senator under Article VII, § 10 of the Constitution of Wisconsin which provides:
At page 508 of 24 N.W.2d, the court said:
While the specific question here presented is one of first impression in this State, this court, in considering whether or not a person could hold the office of postmaster and township trustee at the same time, in Foltz v. Kerlin (1886), 105 Ind. 221, at page 224, 4 N.E. 439, 440, 55 Am. Rep. 197, speaking through Judge Elliott, said:
From the foregoing there can be no doubt as to the conclusion we must reach in the case now before us *434 and, on the authorities above cited and for the reasons stated herein, respondent court is without jurisdiction to determine whether or not relator Handley is eligible to be nominated by the Republican Convention as that Party's candidate for the United States Senate in the election to be held on November 4, 1958, or to grant the relief prayed for by plaintiff in Cause No. C-34771 now pending in the Superior Court of Marion County, Room No. 1.
Wherefore, the temporary writ of prohibition heretofore issued herein is hereby made permanent.
NOTE.  Reported in 151 N.E.2d 508.
[1]  Acts 1951, ch. 7, § 1, p. 10, being § 29-3703, Burns' 1957 Pocket Supp.
[2]  Article 1, § 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides in relevant part, as follows: "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, ..."