The Lynden tribune. [volume] (Lynden, Wash.) 1908-current, 1912-09-26
The JUDICIARY
ELECTION CASE.
Judge Joiner of Skagit County
Passes on Primary Law
Provision.

PROVISION.
The ruling of the attorney general
on the Whatcom county judiciary
election squabble has not yet been re
ceived, SO that the tangle appears to
be as complicated as ever.
Judge Joiner, of Skagit county, in
Seattle on Saturday in the superior
court, held that candidate for judge
cannot be declared a preferential NOM
inee unless he receives more votes
than were cast for all the other can
didates. This decision not only rem
ders it impossible for any of the non-
inees of September 10 to obtain prefer
entail places on the November judi
ciary ballot, but nullified the effect of
the nonpartisan judicial law passed
at the last session of the legislature,
and an appeal will be Immediately car
ried to the supreme court for an in
depreciation of the phrase majority
of all votes cast" on which the ques-
tion was determined by Judge Joiner.
Attorneys claim that the Whatcom
county case in which Judges Hardin
and Kellogg and Mr.. Pemberton, the
nonpartisan primary candidates, are
interested, is not at all cleared up by
Judge JOiners decision.
The auditor of King county brought
suit against all the candidates for SUI
peror Judge to show cause why he
should not be permitted to open the
boxes and count the number of bal
lots cast in the nonpartisan judiciary
primary as, from the returns from
the precincts, he was unable to de-
termine who, if any, should be plac-
ed on the November ballot as ma
| jOrty nominees.
! A similar case has occurred in
Pierce county, where the auditor in
stituted similar proceedings in that
county and without opposition OBJ
tanned an order from Superior Judge
Clifford authorizing the recount In
King county, however, opposition to
such procedure developed.
|
| One of the judiciary candidates
Humphries, in King county, at the
first suggestion of recount in the
judicial ballots, called upon the aud
itor. and with a written protest inter.
posed a formal demurrer. His demur
rer along the lines that there was nc
warrant IN law for opening ballot
boxes except in cases of contest and
read voluminously from a dozen OF
more authorities. With him, and wait
ing to make arguments, were three
other candidates, one of whom car
red with him a motion to Quash the
proceedings on the grounds of uncon
stitutionality of the act should Hum
phries fail in his demurrer.
Judge Joiner decided to hear the
county attorney before listening
to objectors. In the midst of argument
the court asked the prosecution what
construction he placed on the ma
jority of the votes" clause in the law.
The act provides that where any
candidate for any such office shall
receive a majority of all votes cast al
such primary election for such office
the name or names of such candidates
receiving such majority shall be print
ed separately on the general election
ballot 1t would mean that of any
candidate for superior judge received
81 per cent of all the judicial ballot
cast he would be entitled to go upon
the ticket as majority candidate.
The court held that in order for p
candidate to have his name printed
upon the ballot as majority nominee
he would have to receive 81 per cent
of all votes cast. In other words.
there being 2S candidates in King
county for superior judge, before any
one candidate could be preferred on
the ballot he would have to receive
more than the total number of votes
cast for all other candidates.
This literal construction of the acs
of 1911 virtually destroys it, said
I the prosecuting attorney later for
it is an impossibilty for any one man
!. to have received such vote. Under
our constructor, all persons receiving
a majority of the ballots cast would
be entitled to preference as major
ity nominees. Under Judge Joiner'a
ruling, the county auditor will count
the total of each candidate and if any
one candidate shall receive more than
the aggregate of these totals his name
will be placed upon the ticket as ma
jority nominee.
The point in question was not
raised by any of the objectors, but
was suggested by the court during the
argument in SUPPORT of the petition.
= We shall carry the case to the su-
preme court and seek the construc-
tion we believe proper"
------O----------