Opinion ID: 2232325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Laun Annexation.

Text: The trial court held that this ordinance was invalid because an insufficient number of electors signed the petition. Two separate problems are raised in connection with this annexation petition: (a) Whether the total number of electors should include 11 persons who qualified as electors but who had not registered to vote. (b) Whether six persons who signed the petition under the heading of owner but not under the heading of elector could also be counted in the latter capacity. The trial judge held that the 11 nonregistered electors qualified as electors but that none of the six electors who signed only as an owner could also be counted as an elector. Sec. 62.07 (1) (a), Stats., requires the signatures of a majority of the electors in such adjacent territory. Sec. 6.01 sets forth the qualifications for electors; registration is not one of the qualifications. The relevant statutes are unambiguous and simply do not require an elector to be registered; we are unable to restrict the word elector by adding the requirement that he be registered to vote. We are unanimous in our conclusion that the trial court properly refrained from excluding the nonregistered persons who otherwise qualified as electors. The members of this court are equally divided in regard to the question whether those who signed as owners may also be counted as electors even though they signed in the former capacity only. Three of the justices (Mr. Justice CURRIE, Mr. Justice FAIRCHILD, and Mr. Justice HALLOWS) believe that a single signature on the petition is adequate to commit the signer to support the petition in both capacities, if in fact the signer is both an owner and an elector. Three other justices (Mr. Chief Justice BROADFOOT, Mr. Justice BROWN, and the writer) believe that each petitioner had a right to choose the form of classification with which he desired to be identified in the petition, and that when a petitioner signs only as an owner the court cannot infer the intent of such petitioner also to sign as an elector. Under the rule that an equally divided court results in affirmance of the court below, we reach the result that the Laun territory ordinance is invalid. Hagenah v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. (1908), 136 Wis. 300, 116 N. W. 843; Jacobs v. Queen Ins. Co. (1905), 123 Wis. 608, 612, 101 N. W. 1090.