Title: Turner v. Judah
Citation: 286 P.2d 317, 59 N.M. 470
Docket Number: 5926
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1955

286 P.2d 317 (1955) 59 N.M. 470 P.F. TURNER, Contestant-Appellee, v. D.B. JUDAH, Jr., Contestee-Appellant. No. 5926. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 30, 1955. Rehearing Denied August 4, 1955. *318 Morgan &amp; Morgan, Portales, Smith &amp; Smith, Clovis, for appellant. Reese, McCormick, Lusk &amp; Paine, George L. Reese, Jr., Carlsbad, Hartley &amp; Buzzard, Clovis, for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. P.F. Turner, contestant-appellee, and D.B. Judah, Jr., contestee-appellant were rival candidates for the office of sheriff of Roosevelt County. Appellee was the only nominee of the Democratic Party. He received his nomination in the regular primary election. Appellant was not nominated by the Democratic party nor by petitioners under § 3-11-7 of the 1953 Compilation and his name was not printed upon the ballots as a candidate. He depended upon the voters who desired to support him, to write his name in the blank line left upon the official ballot for that purpose and a cross in the square after his name. The county canvassing board certified that appellant had been elected by receiving a majority of the votes cast, and awarded him the certificate of election. Appellee in due time instituted an action against appellant, contesting his election. The district court resolved the issues in favor of appellee and appellant prosecutes this appeal. Where a voter desires to cast a vote for a person whose name is not printed upon the ballot, the Legislature has prescribed a specific way in which he shall do so. § 3-3-6 of 1953 Compilation so far as pertinent to the question under discussion, provides as follows: These requirements are simple, and if the voter does not comply with them the election officials cannot count the ballot that he casts. It appears from the record, that a short time before the date of the general election, on November 2, 1954, the appellant became an active candidate for the office of sheriff, and advertised his candidacy in the local newspapers, and by passing out cards throughout the county. His campaign was conducted along the lines of inducing voters to write his name on the ballots. He had printed three sets of cards, some of which bore his picture, with these words printed thereon: At and prior to said election there were living in Roosevelt County ten persons other than the appellant bearing the surname of Judah, all of whom were qualified registered electors of that county and qualified to hold the office of sheriff. One of said persons was the father of appellant who was registered as David Bruce Judah. The record discloses that ballots were cast at said election for the following persons: D.B. Judah, Jr., 1600; D.B. Judah, 151; J.B. Judah, Jr., 32; J.B. Judah, 27; Judah, 26; D.B. Juda, 16; J.D. Judah, Jr., 14; Beans Judah, 13; B.D. Judah, Jr., 11; Judah, Jr., 5; Beans Judah, Jr., 4; Juda, 4; B.J. Judah, 4; J.D. Judah, 3; two votes each for the following: Beans Judith, Beans Juda, Bean Juda, B. Judah, Mr. Judah, D.J. Judah, Jr., B.B. Judah, B.B. Judah, Jr., B.F. Judah, D.D. Judah, Jr., B.D. Judah, and Juda, Beans, Jr.; also one each for D.B. Judha, Mrs. Beans Judah, Beans Judy, Mrs. Beans Juda, Beane Judah, D.B. Beans Judah, D.B. Juddy, D.B. Judy, Jr., D.B. Juda, Jr., Mr. Judah, Jr., Judy, Judda, Juda, Jr., Juda, Mr. Juda, Jr., J.D. Judah, O.B. Judah, Jr., J.B. Juda, Jr., J.B. Judda, Floyd F. Judah, Jr., J.B. Judy, Jr., Judith, Jr. Judah, Jr., B.J. Judy, B.J. Judha, B.F. Jaudah, Jr., D.D. Juda, F. Judah, Jr., E.D. Judah, Benny Juda, B.F. Judah, W.R. *320 Judah, J.H. Judah, Jr., D.B. Judif, D.H. Juda, Jr., J.B. Judha, Jr., E.P. Judah, Jr., A.B. Judah, Jr., D.B. Judar, D.B. Judke. The county canvassing board declared that appellant was entitled to all of the above votes and counted them for him. But the district court held otherwise and found that: These being the only ballots which the court finds were cast in said election bearing the name of the contestee D.B. Judah, Jr., or Beans Judah, with sufficient certainty to show that they were cast for the contestee D.B. Judah, Jr., viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances." Appellant assigns thirty-nine errors which he argues under two points. Under point one he claims that: This point purports to raise two separate and distinct questions: (1) The refusal of the court to hear the evidence tendered by the appellant on the issue covered by the findings; and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. As to the first question the record discloses that the following transpired during the trial. At the conclusion of appellant's testimony the court said: Upon resuming the trial the court said: In response to this request appellant's counsel then stated to the court and into the record what he expected to prove by each of some sixteen witnesses, and at the conclusion of this tender, appellee's counsel moved for a judgment on the basis of the tender, and considering such evidence as might be admissible, as though it were in evidence. Then the court asked respective counsel if they would like to argue the motion. At the conclusion of arguments by counsel the court sustained the motion and announced his decision from the bench. No objection was made by appellant's counsel that the trial court should not decide the case without hearing his witnesses detail the facts stated in the tender nor did he take an exception to the action of the court in proceeding to decision on the motion at the conclusion of the tender of proof. Thus it appears that the trial court did not refuse to hear the evidence tendered by the appellant's counsel but considered the admissible parts as though the witnesses had testified and decided the case on all of the admissions and evidence offered by both parties. As to the second question, suffice it to say that we have carefully examined the record and conclude that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings complained of and they will not be disturbed. This case thus turns upon the question as to whether the ballots cast by the electors of Roosevelt county writing in the name of a person other than the candidate's name should be counted for him. The principles applicable to judicial consideration of ballots in an election case has been recently stated by us in Telles v. Carter, 57 N.M. 704, 262 P.2d 985, 989. The court below, and this court on appeal, can correct any error of law appearing on the face of a ballot which has been made by election officials in counting a ballot for a candidate which is not a vote for that candidate. In the Telles v. Carter case twenty-seven ballots were counted and canvassed for appellee which were marked with a check mark instead of a cross as provided by statute. Mr. Justice Seymour speaking for the court said: So in the case at bar if D.B. Judah is sufficient, why not any initial of the alphabet which appeals to the individual voter. It was said in McCreery v. Burnsmier, 293 Ill. 43, 127 N.E. 171, 174: We conclude, that D.B. Judah and D.B. Judah, Jr., or D.B. "Beans" Judah, Jr., are different persons; likewise the Judahs with different initials. Votes cast for D.B. Judah and for all Judahs with different initials cannot be counted by the election officials for D.B. Judah, Jr., and the district court did not err in rejecting them. Telles v. Carter, supra; State ex rel. Cremer v. Steinborn, 92 Wis. *322 605, 66 N.W. 798; Murray v. Floyd, 216 Minn. 69, 11 N.W.2d 780; Keenan v. Briden, 45 R.I. 119, 119 A. 138; Sievers v. Hannah, 296 Ill. 593, 130 N.E. 361; O'Brien v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Boston, 257 Mass. 332, 153 N.E. 553; Brown v. Carr, 130 W. Va. 455, 43 S.E.2d 401; State ex rel. Nuccio v. Williams, 97 Fla. 159, 120 So. 310. Error is also assigned in the refusal of the court to make certain requested findings of fact. The refusal cannot be sustained as error since the findings made by the court are supported by substantial evidence. Our decision set out above makes it unnecessary to discuss other points raised in the brief and argument of appellant. Finding no error, the judgment reviewed will be affirmed. It is so ordered. SADLER and KIKER, JJ., concur. McGHEE, J., dissents. COMPTON, C.J., not participating.