The Donaldsonville chief., 1922-03-04
ELECTION DECLARED NJLL.,
Judge Leblanc UphoIds Contention
THas Ballots Used We're Illegal.

in the district cours last Monday
morning, Judge Sam 4. Leblanc
handed down q decision in the con-
tested town election case, in which
he upheld The contention Of the
plaintiffs the defeated Republican
candidates, that the ballots used at
said election were Illegal and there
fore the whole of GE1o election was
null anO void. The election was
held on May 7, 1921, and it will be
remembered shat the ballots on the
occasion contained the names Of
Henry Goe+te and !. J. Echeyerxia,
III the wrong order. The formers
name was printed IS The party's can
didate 2or commissioner of stress
ana parks, whereas he vas s.
candidate 1or commissioner Of &
nance, alG he latter vas made 20
appear IS the varty's candidate %or
commissioner o. finance, vheu in
Iac3 he !Tas l1e candidate Eor com
missioner o. streets and parks.
Shortly afcer the election tie
suit was filed to nave he election cse-
clareo null. anG an injunction was
sought to restrain The Democratic
candidates from, qualifying. The in
junction was bounded, and the Demo-
Gratis :ook Office. subsequently The
Injunction vas dissol.~ed. Excep~
tions were filed 70 The petition Of
the Republicans which we're over
ruled and the case taken to the
Supreme Court. The latter tribunal
affirmed the ruling o. the lower
court, and the case was tried on It's
merits last December.
The following is the decision Of
Judge Leblanc in full:
'The plaintiffs, Klebert 4. Au-
coin, 1. J. Echeverria and Henry
Goette, were the nominees of the
Republican party who were to par
tlclpate as such in the municipal
election to be held in the city of
Donaldsonville on May 7, 1921. This
suit is brought by them to have the
said election declared null and void. |
Perceptions Of no cause Of ac-
ton and to the jurisdiction of this
court have been previously tried and
submitted and both overruled. An
opinion was rendered on Sept 80,
1921, on both.
"As alleged by the plaintiffs and
as appears from the evidence their
nominations were properly certified
to the secretary Of state as the cam
dldates of the Republican party as
follows: For mayor and commits
sioner of public safety, K. A. Au-
coin; for commissioner Of finance
and utilities, Henry Goette; for
commissioner Of department of pub
lie parks and streets, L. J. Echever-
ria.
AS further alleged by them and
as shown by a sample Of the ballot
used at said election, the names of
L. J. Echeverria and Henry Goette
were not printed on the ballot as
candidates for the offices of commits
sloner of the department of public
parks and streets and commissioner of
finance and utilities respectively, as
their nominations had been certified
to, but they were printed in exactly
the reverse order; that is, Goette's
name appeared on the ballot as can
didate for the Office of commissioner
of streets and parks and Echeverria's S
name appeared as candidate for the
office of commissioner of finance.
"The contention of the plaintiffs
is, of course, that this was not a le~
gal ballot and therefore the election
cannot have been valid.
'The law seems to guard with 4
jealous eye the right of a candidate
for public Office, in any election, to
have his name properly presented to |
The voters. The ballot used in the
election is the very life of his can
lidacy, and the Supreme Court has
decided that those provi-
sions of law governing the prepara-
ion of the ballot are not merely di-
'ectory but strictly mandatory, and
where the ballot is not made in con-
,ormity to the requirements of the
aw it is not legal ballot, and if
1sed in an election, it renders the1
whole election null. Mize VS.. Nc
1lroy, Al An. 1906; Thornhill VS..
Wear, 131 La. 479; Maggiore VS..
139 La. 429: Hart VS..
oicou, lat La. 1913.
'This question as we'll as the one
If proper interest in the parties
plaintiff was carefully considered by
;he court in passing on the excep-
ion of no cause of action and fur
her study has not led me to change
he opinion I held then. On the
question of want of proper interest,
hat opinion has been further
strengthened by two decisions of the
sopreme Court since that time, viz:
Hall VS.. Godchaux, 80 So. 145 and
oaynevs Gentry, 80 So. .104.
"Since passing on the exception of
10 cause Of action, two of the plain
ifs, Aucoin and Coette, have volun-
arily withdrawn from the suit and
lave filed a motion in proper person
asking that the suit in so far as they
IRE concerned, be dismissed, and in
which they pray further that their
opponents for the offices
or which they were candidates be
elected. Counsel represent
ng these defendants contend most
trenuously that with the retirement
If these two plaintiffs the suit, in SO
ar as their clients are concerned, is
It an end and the court is bound to
leclare them elected. | cannot
.gree with these learned counsel.
The whole of the election was either
egal or the whole Of it was illegal.
Che cause which rendered it illegal
Effected the whole Of it. Moreover,
he suit as filed was that of the
hree candidates Of the Republican
party for the offices to be elected !
lnder the commission form of gov
,rnment in the whole city Of Dom