The Donaldsonville chief., 1920-02-14
CONTESTED ELECTION CASE.
Court of Appeals Affirms Distric,
Court Judgment in Gonzales Vs.
Vickers and Morgan.

Gourt of Appeals Affirms District
Court judgment in Gonzales VS..
Vickers and Morgan.
The suit of Joseph Gonzales VS.. r.
is. Vickers and H. A. Morgan, where
in the former sought to have the
courts order a second primary elec-
tion for the nomination of two repre-
fsentatives in this parish; which was
decided adversely to him by the dis
trict court here last week and appeal
ed to the circuit court of appeals, was
argued before that tribunal at Baton
Rouge Tuesday, and Judgment rem
dered Wednesday affirming the de-
clsion Of the lower court.
The court of appeals gave the fol-
lowing reasons for it's findings:
"The only provision Of the primary
election law, Act IS, page Sc of the
acts of the General Assembly Of the
year 1915, referring to the mode of
proceeding where there are two or
more offices of the same character
| to be filed, is contained in the laampnd
paragr& n Of Sec. "a, page is
to the d@ that it shall bs &Gty
of each TFector to vote foS any
candidates as there are p1 be
/ filled under penalty that 81 OF
not in conformity with this IN
shall not be counted. The f
this provision is to prevent 4 is
known as ''single-shooti oting bf
the other provisions Of g6te
relate to the manner of can
lSfa r. ofS i
primary is only required insofar as
parochial and district candidates are
concerned. where no one has received
"a majority Of the votes cast in the
election. The statute further pro-
vides that at the second primary, no
oneecan be candidate except two
persons who have received the high
est number of votes for the Office for
which there were two candidates. 1t
is apparent that where nominees for
two or more offices of the same kind
or character are to be selected, these
provisions Of the statute are entirely
inapplicable. There can be no such
thing as majority Of the votes cast
in favor of an individual candidate
for one of two or more offices of the
same kind or character, though ma
jority of the electors who vote in such
electin may vote for one candidate
It is equally true that where two or
more offices of the same kind or char
acter are to be filled, a majority of
the electors might vote for more can
didates than the number Of Offices to
be filed. The returns in the present
contest illustrates these statements.
No one of the candidates could have
received a majority of the votes cast,
3748, for only 1874 electors voted;
and. if every elector had voted for
one particular candidate, that candi-
date could only have received half of
the total vote cast and he would be
short of one vote to obtain maj jority
of the votes cast On the other hand
it is seen that three Of the candidates
have been voted for by a majority of
the electors, which majority is made
up of 938, or more of the 1874 elect
ors who took part in the election. It
is then apparent that all the provis- !
ions of the law under discussion, with
the exception Of the second para
graph of Sec. "a, relate to the man !,
ner of selection of a candidate FOR a /
single office and not to the selection /
of candidates for two or more offices
of the same kind or character.
'Conceding then that the primary
election law is silent as to the entire | |
manner of selecting candidates for
two or more offices Of the same kind |
or character, we are driven to one
of the two alternatives of deciding
either that such candidates cannot
be selected in a primary election or
that the manner of such selection, not
provided for by the general assembly
remains with the committee, where it
was lodged previous to the time that
he law-making power assumed con-
;rol over primary elections. The lat
.er conclusion seems to us not only
but inevitable.
'Tt is well-known that primary
elections were at one time entirely
ynder the control Of the respective
representing political
parties; that the general assembly
gradually assumed control Of such
elections and that even under the
statutes as they now exist, these
:OmmltLeeS are Stlli TeCoSHALeu do VIC
governing authorities OF political
parties in this state. Sec. rs, Act 80
If 1916. Where therefore there is
| lapsus in the statute, we are of the
opinion that the committee, as the
authority, still retains con-
;rol over the matter which the gener-
Il assembly has failed to regulate.
is this true where the COM
nittee has violated no other provision
# the statute, and it's only action
seems to be in consonance with the.
wishes of a majority Of the electors.
The judgment appealed from is at
irmed."
The court was unanimous in its de-
.ision. All three of the judges, Paul
.eche, Stephen D. Ellis and Julian
Nouton concurring.
Walter Lemann, attorney for Mr..
Gonzales, gave notice that he would
.pply to the Supreme Court for a
writ Of review, and the case will
,e heard in this tribunal one day next
week.
Burnside Notes.
Jim Saxon has recovered from