Title: Rowland v. Theobald
Citation: 409 P.2d 272
Docket Number: 21977
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 1965

409 P.2d 272 (1965) Waid W. ROWLAND, J. D. Peterson, Wayne Bristol, Lola Mae Bristol, Helen Collard, Joa Ann Anderson, Norbert R. Blank, Gertrude Young, Richard B. Wellington, and Delia Cole Distler, Petitioners, v. Robert A. THEOBALD, Respondent. No. 21977. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 27, 1965. Richard S. Kitchen, Sr., Denver, Peter Cosgriff, Leadville, Harry M. Sterling, Denver, for petitioners. Winner, Berge, Martin &amp; Camfield, Denver, for respondent. MOORE, Justice. This action, and another entitled Theobald v. The District Court (case No. 21963), involve the same parties and the same issue of law. Each of these cases is before this court as an original proceeding in certiorari. We will confine our detailed statement to the above captioned action which relates to an election contest originally filed in the county court of Summit county. Facts which are pertinent to the question for determination are not in dispute. On May 4, 1965, an election was held for the purpose of naming a member of the Board of Education from Director District A within Summit School District Re-1 of Summit county, Colorado. Waid W. Rowland and Robert A. Theobald were the only candidates for the office; 483 votes were cast, of which Theobald received 255 and Rowland received 228. On May 14, 1965, Rowland and the other petitioners commenced an action in the county court by filing a "Statement of Intent to Contest Election" and on that date a summons was issued by the clerk of the county court. A bond was filed and approved. Summons and copy of the Statement of Intention to Contest Election were served upon Theobald. He filed a Motion to Dismiss, in which he asserted that the county court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter. Other grounds were set forth which are not pertinent to the issue now presented. Following a hearing, the county court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and entered judgment dismissing the action. Rowland, et al. appealed to the district court and, upon hearing, the district court held that the county court had no jurisdiction and the action was dismissed. This appellate proceeding was thereupon commenced under the provisions of R.C.P. Colo. 116(b) and the respondent Theobald has filed his brief in opposition to granting the relief prayed for by the petitioners. The sole question to be determined in this proceeding is whether the county court of Summit county had jurisdiction to determine the election contest commenced by Rowland. Article VI of the Constitution of Colorado in its present form was adopted by the people of Colorado in November, 1962. It brought about many substantial changes in the judicial system of the state. In the *273 preamble to the new Article VI it is provided that: Section 16, which under the foregoing declaration became effective on November 6, 1962, is in the following language: Section 17, which did not become effective until January 12, 1965, provides: During the 1964 session, the general assembly was charged with the responsibility of effectuating the new judicial article in those areas within which the legislature was given discretion. As shown by Section 17 above quoted, a wide discretion was given to the legislature to determine the jurisdiction of the newly created county courts. In fulfillment of this responsibility the general assembly adopted an act which appears as Chapter 45, Session Laws 1964, at page 409. Section 1 thereof provides: The jurisdiction of the newly created county courts was defined, and specific exclusions were mentioned in Section 5 as follows: Six classifications of legal matters are thereupon expressly mentioned with reference to which the county court "shall have no jurisdiction." Nothing concerning election disputes is withdrawn from consideration by the county courts by these expressed exclusions. This act was approved on March 30, 1964, but it was not to become effective until January 12, 1965. We turn now to a consideration of the statutes relating to school district elections. The 1964 general assembly adopted an act relating to school district directors and elections of members of school boards in school districts, which appears as Chapter 74, Session Laws of 1964, beginning at page 592 thereof. This act was approved on March 26, 1964only four days prior to the approval of the act specifically enumerating the powers of the county courts. The school district statute was by express provision made effective on July 1, 1964. Pertinent provisions of this act are as follows: "(1) The regular biennial school election in each school district having a school enrollment of seventy thousand *274 or less shall be held on the first Tuesday in May of each odd-numbered year." It is readily apparent that no election contest could arise under this legislation until after July 1, 1964, and that the first election contest which could arise under the act would follow the school election held in May of 1965, at which time the new constitutional provision, and all newly adopted statutes, would be fully operative. Section 27 of the above mentioned school district statute reads as follows: It is our duty to harmonize these statutory provisions if it can be done by a reasonable interpretation. In Burton v. City and County of Denver, et al., 99 Colo. 207, 61 P.2d 856, 107 A.L.R. 564, we find the following pertinent language: See also State of Colorado v. Beckman, et al., 149 Colo. 54, 368 P.2d 793. We hold that the trial court erred in holding that the county court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the election contest initiated by Rowland against Theobald. The judgment is reversed with directions to order the election contest between Rowland and Theobald to proceed to trial upon the merits before the county court of Summit county.