Case Name: WILLIAM CRAIG et al., Petitioners, v. L. H. BROWN, Secretary of State, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1896-10-08
Citations: 114 Cal. 480
Docket Number: S. F. No. 709
Parties: WILLIAM CRAIG et al., Petitioners, v. L. H. BROWN, Secretary of State, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 480–481

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 709.
In Bank.
October 8, 1896.]
WILLIAM CRAIG et al., Petitioners, v. L. H. BROWN, Secretary of State, Respondent.
Mandamus—Elections — Nomination of Presidential Electors—Designation oe Party—Misleading of Voters.—Writ of mandate upon petition of the electors nominated by the Democratic party of the state of California, to compel the secretary of state to certify the nomination of other electors upon petition of voters without the designation of “National Democratic Party ” adopted by them as being false and misleading to voters, refused, on the ground that such designation is not calculated to deceive.
Petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to the Secretary of State.
The writ was sought upon petition of the nine “Bryan ” electors nominated both by the Democratic party and by the People’s party of the state of California, to compel the secretary of state to certify their nomination as electors representing both of those parties conjointly and in one group, and to compel him to. certify to the county clerks the nomination of the nine “ Palmer and Buckner ” electors, whose certificate of nomination was filed upon petition of voters so as to omit the designation of the “National Democratic Party” adopted by them, on the alleged ground that said “ Palmer and Buckner ” electors “ do not represent the Democratic party, and that the use of said name by them, or on their behalf, to designate the party or principle which they represent, is wholly misleading and false,” and that they had no “ right, license, or authority whatever to appropriate and take said name, and to permit the use of the same will tend to confuse the voters of this state, and cause a great many votes to be cast for said nine electors lastly named, which the voters by whom they will be cast intended and desired should be cast for your petitioners, viz., for the representatives of the regular Democratic party.”
W. W. Foote, Patrick Reddy, Garret W. McEnerney, E. R. Taylor, William Thomas, and R. Y. Eayne, for Petitioners.
W. F. Fitzgerald, Attorney General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court.
We are of opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied, holding that the designation " National Democratic " is not calculated to deceive. Henshaw, J., Van Fleet, J.,
Harrison, J., Temple, J.