Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-09
County Election Laws.

AS the question raised by Common
wealth's-Attorney Niblett. Of L.ynenburg,
in reference to what law the voters would
vote under, in case no party nominations
we're made for county officers III a coun-
ty. and party nominations were made Tor
district officers in some magisterial dis
trict in said county, and answered by
Attorney General Montague, in Sundays
Dispatch, directly affects this (Greenes-
vlle) county, where Beefield District
alono has made party nominations
| beg leave TO reply through your col
umns 10 the Attorney Generals position,
as [ do not think it can be sustained by
the recognized rules Of construction. when
the whole OF the act OF March 4, 1895,
and amendment Of March 3, 1872, is read
in connection with the code provisions,
and Article VII. Of the Constitution. To
sustain the Attorney-Generals position
the courts would have to hold that we
have one law Tor 1897 and another for
May, 1899, and still another for Novem-
Der, 1899, and in May, 1901, the law Of
May 1891, for November. 1899. would be
again in effect, which would be the case,
il tho language OF section -, OF act or
March 4, 1896, which is quoted by the
Attorney-General, and is as follows: "In
any county or corporation where no po-
litical party dominates candidates for
county or corporation offices, the above
provisions OF this act shall not apply"
was construed literally.
And | hardly think any lawyer who
gives proper consideration to the matter
can hold that the Legislature had any
such intention, or that general law car
be in allegiance at one general election
and in force at another. The act is i'm
to
flee. State or national, to be elected by
the electors of a State or CONCESSIONS
district at large and puts them under
the booth system, and then, in drag
net" clause. puts any person who in
tends to be candidate for any office not
embraced in the foregoing in the 'booti
system" The other provisions, down e
section 49, provide the details, penalties
prohibitions, &c, for voting, and sector
10 provides for voting In incorporated
towns. &c, within any county, and sec
ton 20 follows providing that where no
party. nominations are made in those
towns. and for county offices In a coun-
". the "above provisions shall not APP
ply." The legislative intention (sectior
2O II II is 10 be construed literally
would embrace all elections save, state
and national elections TO be voted for at
large in a state or congressional district.
As they are the only elections In which
the Secretary of the Commonwealth has
TO be notified by Che candidates. what OIL
fcers are mus elected? only the Govern
or. Lieutenant-G Governor, .Attorney-Gen'
eral, congressman, and Presidential elcc
tors. Members OF the Sfnate and HOUSE
OF Delegates are not mentioned anywhere
I'm the act, or provided for, save IN Inc
"drag-net" clause OF section D, ana are
nor excepted in section 20; consequently
az the Attorney-Generars contention b'
sustained by the courts. as we have NJ
county officers to nominate in November
1879 wa cannot make party nominations OF
county officers when we nominate sena
tors and delegates, and so we must yot'
Tor them under the Anderson McCor
mick law" as set out in section 20 OF tn
act OF March 4, 1886, and in May, 1901
when all district officers are TO be elect
ed again, and no county officers, we VIII
he again forced TO hold that election un
der the Anderson Mccormick law, ana
looking backward to the May election
1897. where all OF the present justices
supervisors, &c, In the State were eject
ed under the booth system" we see that
II section % be literally construed, thel
election was void because no county OF
fcer was elected, and, OF course, coui'
not be nominated and our whole SET o
off,cars are merely "de facto." and no,
..de iurs" officers. which reduces the sec
tion 10 an absurdity and destroys ~
validity as a law. 81, a
Now IL seems TO me that as section 10
proyides specially for corporation oliios'
I'm small towns, within county limits a"e
section 20 mentions them, ana also cou..S
oe,cers that the courts could reasonably
read section 20 as applying 10 case -
which no officers within a county 81
town were nominated by politicdl par
ty: IL evidently requires the pooln sys
fem" when any town officer or any sraue'
whether Justice, councilman, or cohs'ao'e
e. nominated by any political party, and
,bare ,s no reason TO suppose that thu
legislature did not have in mind the
some thing for the county which EN-
hr,,cad the town. All OF the functions oil
the supervisors are county functions, an'
the justices OF peace and constables have
Jurisdiction all over the county, and while
designated district officers" they arr
all. save the oyerseer OF the poor, II
fact, officers for the whole county. unde
the wel-known maxim, tut res yale2
uagis guam pereat." l think the court
could hold section 20 or the act operatiy
as TO all offices within county. for q
hold otherwise would be to destroy tn
section altogether. because. taken literal
". II would prevent the use OF the "bootl
system" in all May elections In which N
county officers are 10 be elected. and u
all Of the legislative elections. which re
duces II 10 an absurd.fy. and we all know
no such result was ever intended by IN
Legls aturc:
AS the question vitality affects the cleo