Case Name: State ex rel. Bancroft vs. Frear, Secretary of State
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1910-12-06
Citations: 144 Wis. 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. Bancroft vs. Frear, Secretary of State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 79–105

Head Matter:
State ex rel. Bancroft vs. Frear, Secretary of State.
October 10 —
December 6, 1910.
Primara elections: Death of candidate after ballots printed: Votes Knowingly cast for decedent not to be counted: Knowledge when inferred: General election law, how far applicable to primaries: Filling vacancies.
1. A dead man is not a “person” within the meaning of sec. 11 — 18, Stats. (Supp. 1906: Laws of 1903, ch. 461, sec. 18).
2. Votes which are in form cast for a deceased person by voters who know the fact of his decease cannot he considered as votes for or against any person, but must be regarded as so much blank paper.
.3. During a campaign in which factional lines were closely drawn, five days before the primary election, and after the ballots therefor were printed, a candidate for the nomination for the office of attorney general came to his death by drowning. The fact of his death was published generally in the newspapers throughout the state, which further stated that if he received a plurality of votes at the primary the state central committee could fill the vacancy. Such statement was repeated in certain letters sent to many parts of the state and in numerous telegrams sent to supporters of one faction, calling upon them to urge voters to vote for the decedent notwithstanding his death. Held, that from these facts (admitted on demurrer) the court would infer that of the 63,482 votes cast for the decedent more than enough to give him the plurality of 5,286 which he received were cast by persons who knew that he was dead.
4. The provisions of the general election law contained in sec. 34, Stats. (1898), relating to the filling of vacancies caused by declination, death, or other disability of a nominated candidate, are not imported into the primary election law or made applicable to primary elections, although sec. 11 — 25, Stats. (Supp. 1906: Laws of 1903, ch. 451, sec. 25), declares that the provisions of the general election law in relation to the manner “of counting the ballots and making return thereof, and all other kindred subjects, shall apply to all primaries in so far as they are consistent with” the primary election law.
■£. The death, before a primary, of one of several candidates for a party nomination at such primary does not create a “vacancy” which can be filled by the party committee either before or after such primary.
Timlin, Siebecker, and Kerwin, JJ., dissenting, are of the-opinion that under the provisions of sec. 34, Stats. (1898),. made applicable to primary elections by sec. 11 — 25 (Supp. 1906), the votes cast for the deceased candidate for nomination, under the circumstances above stated must be counted and returned, and if they are greater in number than the votes cast for any other candidate no nomination is made at such primary, but a vacancy exists which is to be filled by the party committee under sec. 11 — 13 (Supp. 1906).
This suit is brought originally in this court to compel the-defendant to certify the name of the relator to the different county clerks of the state as the candidate to be placed upon the official ballot of the Republican party for the office of attorney general, to be voted for at the general election to beheld in November, 1910. The complaint alleges that a primary election was held in Wisconsin on September 6, 1910; that more than thirty days prior to the holding of such election, the relator and Erank T. Tucker and Henry A. Gunder-son each duly filed in the office of the secretary of state his-nomination papers as a candidate for the office of attorney general; that thereafter and within the time required by law the secretary of state transmitted to each county clerk a list' containing the name and postoffice address of each person whose nomination papers had been filed in his office and was-entitled to be voted for at the primary, together with the designation of the office for which he was a candidate and the party or principle which he represented; that among the names so transmitted were those of the relator and of said Tucker and Gunderson; that thereafter and ten days before the holding of the primary election the county clerks of the respective counties caused the names so certified to be printed upon the official ballot and distributed; that thereafter, on September 1, 1910, said Erank T. Tucker died.
“That notwithstanding the death of said Frank T. Tucker,, one O. FI. Crownhart, a prominent supporter of one of the-factions in the Republican party, of which faction said- Tucker, when in life, was a member, sent one hundred and sixty-nine different telegrams, addressed to one hundred and sixty-nine different prominent supporters of said faction in different parts of the state of Wisconsin, of which the following is a sample:
“ ‘Eked E. Olen, Madison, Wis., 9 — 3—’10.
“ ‘Florence, Wis.
“ ‘Eine steam ahead. Few days more and La Eollette will sweep state. Eight hard for legislature and state officers. We can win complete victory. Urge votes for Tucker. Committee can fill vacancy. Get evidence of any corruption for use later. Reports are fine. Telegraph this message to active workers every precinct. C. H. Crowniiart.’
“That before the holding of said primary, and especially and particularly on September 2 and 3, 1910, it was generally stated and published in the different newspapers throughout the state that said Tucker was dead and that in case that he received the greatest number of votes at said primary, the Republican state central committee could fill the vacancy, and that such statements were, in substance, also recited in circular letters, which circular letters were addressed to many parts of the state, and a true and correct copy of said circular letters is in the words and figures following, to wit:
“ ‘PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN.
“ ‘La Crosse, Wis., Sept. 2nd, 1910.
“ ‘Dear Sir: Every progressive certainly earnestly desires to see Progressive principles triumph in this campaign. To accomplish this Progressive men must be nominated to make our laws in nation and state and to enforce them as state officers.
“ ‘Herewith will be found a sample ballot on which an X is printed after the names of candidates whom we believe to be thoroughly progressive. Ho attempt has been made to indicate a choice among the candidates for county offices, all of whom are well known in the county.
“ ‘Frank T. Tucker, candidate for attorney general, is dead, apparently driven to his death by a political conspiracy against him. His name will be on the official ballot and every friend of good government should put an X after it. Ho true Progressive can vote for either of his opponents.
“ ‘Let nothing keep you from the polls on Tuesday next. Go without fail and see that your neighbor goes. You may be certain that every Tory voter will be out and that every influence which money can exert will be at work against Progressive candidates and principles.
“ ‘It is for you to decide which shall triumph, men or money. Peogeessive Republican Committee.’ ”
That on September 26, 1910, the said canvassing board canvassed the returns certified to them, and that as to the office of attorney general said board certified that the whole number of votes cast for the office of attorney general was 168,925, of which the relator received 58,196, said Gunderson received 47,187, and said Tucker received 63,482, and that the scattering votes for such office amounted to 60; that it appeared from the returns that said Tucker received the greatest number of votes cast for the office; that it further appeared from an affidavit on file that said Tucker died on September 1, 1910, and that the death of said Tucker occurred after the ballots used at said primary were printed and after the time for filing nomination papers had expired. The canvassing board then certified that there was a vacancy in the nomination for the office of attorney general, to be filled as provided by law..
The complaint further sets forth that on the fourth Tuesday in September the candidates for the various state offices and for the senate and assembly, nominated by the Republican party at said primary, together with the senators of said party whose term of office extended beyond the first Monday in January, 1911, met and formulated the state platform of said party, and that the members of said platform convention passed a resolution indorsing and recommending O. II. Orownhart as the candidate for the office of attorney general to fill the alleged vacancy; that the state central committee of the Republican party at a meeting held on October 3, 1910, nominated said O. H. Orownhart as a candidate for the office of attorney general on the Republican ticket to be voted for at tbe general election to be held on tbe first Tuesday in November, and certified said nomination to tbe secretary of state; that it is tbe duty of tbe said secretary of state to certify to tbe county clerks of tbe different counties of tbe state, not less than fourteen nor more than twenty days before tbe general election to be beld in November, tbe name of each person nominated for any office; that said secretary of state claims that there was a vacancy in the candidacy for tbe office of attorney general and that it was within tbe power and was tbe duty of tbe state central committee to nominate some person to fill such vacancy; and that said secretary has given out that be will certify to tbe county clerks of tbe different counties of tbe state tbe name of O. H. Grown-hart as the person to be placed upon tbe Republican ticket to be voted for at tbe general election.
Tbe relief prayed for is that tbe secretary of state be enjoined from certifying to tbe several county clerks of tbe state tbe name of O. H. Orownbart, or any person other than tbe relator, as tbe candidate of tbe Republican party in Wisconsin for tbe office of attorney general, and that said secretary of state be commanded to certify tbe name of tbe relator as tbe candidate for said office.
To this complaint tbe defendant interposed a demurrer on tbe following grounds: (1) Because tbe court bad no jurisdiction of tbe subject of tbe action; (2) because tbe plaintiff bad not legal capacity to sue; (3) because it appears on tbe face of tbe complaint that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Tbe cause was argued and submitted on October 10, 1910.
Eor tbe plaintiff there was a brief by Olin & Butler, and oral argument by J. M. Olin.
For tbe defendant there was a brief by tbe Attorney General and Bussell Jaclcson, deputy attorney general, and Walter D. Corrigan, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Jaclc-son and Mr. Corrigan.

Opinion:
On October 15, 1910, the following decision and dissent were filed:
Pee Curiam.
The following propositions are decided in this case:
(1) The provisions of the general election law contained in sec. 34, Stats. (1898), relating to the filling of vacancies cansed by the declination, death, or other disability of a nominated candidate, are not imported into the primary election law and hence do not apply to primary elections.
(2) Under the allegations of the complaint it must be held that the fact of the death of Mr. Tucker was brought home to the knowledge of the great mass of the electors of the state before the holding of the primary, and that the great majority of the electors who placed a cross opposite his name upon the primary ballot did so with such knowledge.
(3) Votes which are in form cast for a deceased person by voters who know the fact of his decease cannot be considered as votes for or against any person, but must be regarded as so much blank paper.
(4) It follows that under the allegations of the complaint the relator received the greatest number of votes cast at the primary as a Republican candidate for the office of attorney general, and under subd. 1 of sec. 18 of the primary law is entitled to have his name placed upon the official ballot as such candidate.
Demurrer overruled, and judgment ordered for relator for relief by injunction as prayed in the complaint.