Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1910-02-03

| who did not appear at the polls ana
vote at the last general election,
thereby reducing the number To less
| than one-third of the voters, and also
refused TO consider the petitions
from two townships because the affi.
davits were signed by two affiants;
and i'll this case, there being no dis
pute about the facts, and it appearing
that the board did not make the de.
termination from the face of, the peti.
tion as required by the statute, it
having been determined that the
| board had no right to strike off the
names of those not voting at the last
election, mandamuS was issued by
! the Circuit Judge to reconvene and
/ submit the question, and the action
of the Circuit Judge in making said
order was affirmed in the Supreme
| Court. No return seems To have been
made upon the part OF the board and
no opinion was written by any Jus.
tice OF the Supreme Court 1t does
plainly appear however that the rec.
ord of the board showed that il took
! improper action in striking off the
names of those not voting at the last
election, If person is shown to be
a voter by the affdavits. he is en-
titled to have his name counted
: whether he voted at the last election
or not
In the unreported case of Attorney
General vs.. Board OF Supervisors OF
Cceana county, the board refused to
submit the matter, naming among
other reasons that in five town
ships more than one petition
was circulatcd that Transcript,
of the poll lists were not
procured and no reason given fof
not procuring the same, and in that
case the Circuit Judge refused man
damus but his action was reversed in
the Supreme Court but no opinion
was written and we have no way OF
knowing the reasons therefor 1t
did appear, however, in this case. that
some of the reasons given by the
/ board were not such as are authoriz
ed by law There is no objection to
the circulating OF five petitions in a
township or any number of petitions
if all are united when copies are
posted and when filed. The board
had no right TO question the reasons
why the poll lists were not furnished
as the law plainly says that where
affidavits are filed they need not be
/ furnished.
So far as ! have been able to learn
| these are the only cases where any
/ question analogous to the one raised
/ here has been passed on, and the re.
/ ported cases cited above do not de.
/ eide the question because in each OF
them the board submitted the ques-
/ tiOn while our board refused TO sub.
NIT it. The unreported cases cited
above do not furnish any more light
/ because in each of them the board
/ placed the refusal upon a ground not
( tenable under the statute and the
record of the board showed this up.
on its face in each case
In the case at bar, the record OF
I the board shows that the board re-
/ fused to submit the question basing
that refusal. first. upon the PROPOSE.
+ tion that the petitions were not legal,
/ ly authenticated and second, that
/ the submission had not been PRAYED
| for by the requisite number of elect.
ors. 1t will be seen that the board
/ here passed upon the identical two
| questions which the statute says they
/ shall pass upon, and that it kept with
! in the statute, and that the records
/ do not show that the board has done
! anything that the statute does not
permit it to do. No names have been
rejected because they did not agree
with the poll lists nor have any other
reasons been assigned, such as we
find in the two unreported cases cit
ed above, which are not within the
terms of the statute
In Wernstcin vs.. Calhoun Super.
visors. i56 Michigan. 63. decided only
last March. Ostrander. J., in his opin
ion says that in several counties Of
the state mandamus proceedings
were instituted at about the same
time. and after determination by the
Circuit Courts applications were
made to review such determinations
in the Supreme Court. and that writs
OF certiorari were issued in cases
where it appeared to be claimed that
the record of the board itself showed
a failure or refusal to observe and
obey statutory requirements. but that
it was not intended to change the
rule in the cases of Friesncr, Covert
Thomas and the Van Buren case Gall
cited above) in each OF which cases
he says. 1T is held that the courts
may not review the determination of
the board as to the sufficiency of the
petitions and the requisite number OF
electors signing the same In the
matter now before us. it appears
from the record of the board that
such a determination was made "
And in that case the writ OF man
damus was refused, upon the ground
that the petitions having been laid
/ before the hoard ~ ,soc rauuirad ~