Opinion ID: 1185847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: summary judgment on one ground for challenge

Text: We next consider whether the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment against the contestors on the question of the adequacy of the notice of school bond election. Section 22-31-113, C.R.S. 1973, which is made applicable to the school bond election procedure by section 22-42-102(3), C.R.S. 1973, requires that notice of a school bond election specify the boundaries of school election precincts. The contestors allege that the published notice of election insufficiently designated the election precinct boundaries. The relevant part of the published notice provided as follows: PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to law and requisite action of the Board of Education of School District No. Re-1, Valley (the District or the School District), in the County of Logan and State of Colorado, a special school bond election has been called and will be held in the District on Tuesday, May 13, 1980. The boundaries of the school election precincts for such election (being the exterior boundaries of all of the general election precincts designated below or such portions thereof as lie within the District) and the voting places in the school election precincts are the same as those for the last regular biennial school election, held on May 8, 1979, and are as follows: Consists of School General Election Election Precinct Precinct Number Nos. Polling Place 1 14 Crook School 2 12, 13 and 15 Iliff School 3 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11 Campbell School 4 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16 Franklin Elementary School 5 1 and 2 Hagen Elementary School Absentee Central Administrative Offices 119 North 3rd Avenue Sterling, Colorado A map showing the school election precincts and polling places is on file in the administrative offices of the District for examination by all electors of the District. The contestors argue that the Board should not have designated school district precincts in terms of the general election precincts because the boundaries of the two political subdivisions are not fully coincident. Although the notice is not a model, we conclude that it is adequate. Section 22-42-105, C.R.S. 1973, specifically permits the Board to divide the [school] district into election precincts consisting of one or more whole general election precincts wherever practicable .... In Russell v. Wheeler , 165 Colo. 296, 439 P.2d 43 (1968), we held that the description of the boundaries of school precincts by reference to general election precincts substantially complied with the requirement that the boundaries of the school election precincts be set forth in the notice of the election. We added, however, that [w]here school election precincts ... are of different boundaries than the county election precincts, a problem not present here, a map outlining the school election precincts might be necessary in an election notice to adequately inform the voting public. Id. at 307, 439 P.2d at 48. There was no map in the notice published in this case. We must determine whether, in absence of such a map, substantial compliance with section 22-31-113, C.R.S. 1973, was achieved. The notice itself specified that some of the general election precincts or groups of precincts embrace more territory than the corresponding school election precincts. Thus, some parts of the general election precincts designated in the notice are not included within the school district. All those voters who resided within the district, however, were directed to their correct general election precincts and could not have been misled. The Board's designation is unspecific only in that persons residing within the designated general election precincts could not determine from the notice alone whether they also were within the school district and therefore were eligible to vote in the school district election. But any confusion in this regard could have been alleviated by reference to the map which the notice specifically stated was available for examination in the administrative offices of the district. Because the notice correctly directed all properly registered voters in the school district to their correct polling places, and advised all persons in doubt where they could learn whether they resided within the district, we hold the notice was adequate to inform the voting public and effected substantial compliance with the statute. See Russell v. Wheeler , 165 Colo. 296, 439 P.2d 43 (1968).