Milford chronicle., 1955-08-19
CHRONICLE MILFORD DELAWARE FRIDAY AUGUST 49,
Kent Election Dept.
Is Planning Fight
CONTINUED from page one)

CONTINUED from page one)
The suit attacks the validity of
the assembly's act creating the sew
en- member Kent County election
group, and names as defendants the
five Democrats and one of the two
Republicans appointed in the legis-
lative act. This bill, like those
changing control of New Castle
and Sussex Counties election de-
partments. was vetoed by Gov. j.
caleb Boggs and subsequently re-
passed by the assembly.
Old Board Contests
The plaintiffs in the Kent action
are members of the former board:
John f. Mcdonald, Republican,
president; Earle N. Faulkner, DEM
ocrat. and Howard r. Moore, Re
publican.
These were replaced by five
Democrats: w. Frank Hazel, L.
Winfred Hughes, Roland Wilkinson,
Jr., George B. Vincent, Jr-, and j.
Harry Latchum; and the lone Re-
publican, so far, Thomas Roadway.
Other defendants are members of
the Kent County Levy Court: Hen
ry T. Price, president, John t. Lo-
der and Emory N. Lynch, Jr. They
are included because, the suit
charges, they placed names of the
new" department members on the
payroll in place of the "old" board
even though demand for payment
was made by Mr.. Mcdonald.
The complaint, filed with Pro-
thonotary John p. LeFevre by David
p. Buckson, Dover attorney, charg-
es the legislative act creating the
new" agency is unconstitutional,
illegal, in effectual, null, and void.
Five reasons are listed to support
this claim, and these include the
charge of partisan political con-
siderations."
Rogers Not Named
One unusual point in the COM
plaint is that John r. Rogers, Jr.,
Republican member of the new"
department, is not named a defen-
dant since he moved from Kent to
ouSSS3 OOullly anu llitl Guy tOuiu
not qualify for being named. His
name was listed in the legislative
act.
Defending the former board
members behavior and service, the
complaint states (they) have not
been guilty of misbehavior in off
ice or of any Infamous crime, and
have faithfully performed their du-
ties.
On the other hand, the legislative
act" was motivated solely by parti-
san political considerations" and is
lone of number of purported STAT
ues introduced in the General AS
sembly which are part of a COM
mon scheme and design to rip and
remove from public office, solely
for partisan political considera-
tions, persons duly appointed to
various state and county offices
during the terms Of office of said
persons.
Five Reasons
The five specific reasons given to
support the claims of the legisla-
tons illegality and unconstitution-
atty are:
L. 1t (the bilD tries to abolish
the tOld'' department and create
new one only to remove citizens
for fixed term from pub
lie office, in violation of the state
2. Tries to remove such citizens
from office by legislative action
without resort to the constitutional |
methods provided for removal;
3. Violates rights of the plain
tiffs to keep their offices for the
appointed terms;
4. The General Assembly, in over |
riding the Governors veto, did not |
act according to the constitutional |
5. 1t is an attempt to usurp exc
cutive functions of government, i. e., |
to public office.
The court is asked for a speedy |
hearing declaring the new" depart |
ment unconstitutional and return
ing full payments to the former
members.