Court Opinion

ID: 9830907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:36:58.255585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.271806
License: Public Domain

*1055On Motion for Rehearing. ■
In his motion for rehearing, ap-pellee earnestly insists that the last ballot form enumerated in section 40, supra, is such a ballot as would have met the requirements of the situation in Ochiltree county, and should have been used in the election involved, and thát since said form was adequate, the election as held was a nullity because such form was not used. In support of this contention he says that the introductory paragraph immediately preceding the three ballot forms set out to prohibit- the sale of certain beverages, by its language, takes the word “liquor” out of the definition in section 3-a of article 1 (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — -3a), and “otherwise indicates” its alcoholic content. In other words, he says that an affirmative vote on the proposition “for prohibiting the sale of all liquors,” as set out in section 40 (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 40), would prohibit the kind of beer sold in Ochiltree county. We note that the alcoholic content of the types of liquor are expressly labeled in the first two ballots to prohibit the sale of beverages in section 40. The first indicates 4 per cent., or less. The second indicates 14 per cent., or less. The alcoholic content in each of these ballot forms is definite and certain. We think the language used in these two forms would “otherwise indicate” the alcoholic content of these two beverages. But would the phrase “all liquors” in the third ballot form indicate that beer is included when the Legislature has said in this same article that “liquor is * * * any alcoholic beverage containing alcohol in excess of 4 per cent by weight unless otherwise indicated” ?
Where is the alcoholic content otherwise indicated in such a ballot form ? Let us.'put ourselves in the position of a voter at the polls in Ochiltree county. He comes in to vote on this question. He ask's for a ballot. The presiding judge gives -,him a ballot with the exact language of the last ballot form of section 40 printed thereon. He sees the form is “to prohibit the sale of all liquors” in Ochiltree county. He knows what the Legislature says is meant by the word “liquor”; at least, he is charged with such knowledge. Furthermore, he knows that no “liquor” is then legally sold in Ochiltree county. In the event he desires to vote against the sale of “beer” in Ochiltree county, he cannot do so because the ballot does not include beer; it only includes beverages that are already prohibited by law in Ochiltree county. There is certainly nothing on this ballot to “otherwise indicate” to him that beer is included in the phrase “all liquors.”
Appellee contends that the Moyer Case, supra, is decisive of this case, and laments the fact that this court failed tó recognize the controlling effect of that case. We think that if the Moyer Case has any application here, it precludes appellee’s contention that the last ballot form in section 40 could have been used in the Ochiltree county election. Let us review that case briefly. An election was held in precinct No. 7 in Hidalgo county, in what is commonly called a wet precinct. All liquors of every description were already legalized in said precinct. The official ballot in that election had printed on it: “For Legalizing the Sale of All Liquors,” and “Against Legalizing the Sale of All Liquors.” In other words, the election was called to “legalize” the sale of liquors which were already legalized. The Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio held that that election was voidable when seasonably attacked, for the reason that the “issue to be voted upon was not to legalize the sale of all liquors, but to prohibit the sale of all liquors” in the precinct involved. The court in that case held that in wet territory a ballot form to prohibit and not to legalize .must be used, and.that in dry territory, a ballot form to legalize and not to prohibit must be used. Then, if the holding of the Moyer Case is correct, an election to “prohibit the sale of all liquors” in Ochiltree county would also be voidabje when seasonably attacked, for the reason that the county is already dry except that beer is permitted to be sold. In other words, if you cannot vote to make a precinct wet that is already wet, you cannot vote to make a county dry that is already dry. Certainly if the ballot to legalize the sale of all liquors in the wet precinct in Hidalgo county did not submit the proper issue in that election, then a ballot to prohibit the sale of all liquors would not submit the proper issue in. Ochiltree county, since no liquor was permitted to be sold in such county at the time of the election in question, and no beverage of any kind was permitted to be sold' therein except the -beer of the alcoholic content of 4 per cent, or less.
We think the strongest application the Moyer Case has on the instant case *1056is that it lays down the rule that where the Legislature has set out a definite metffi od to follow in an election on this subject, such method must be strictly pursued, and we think now, as in our original opinion, that this is a correct interpretation of the law. Inasmuch as the Legislature has definitely said that elections may be held to determine from time to time whether the sale of beer shall he legalized or prohibited in this state, but .failed to set out a form of ballot to be used in such an election, it is still our opinion that any ballot may be supplied that will sufficiently inform the' voters as to the issue submitted and at the same time intelligently express the will of the voters. Kelly et al. v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 184 La. 903, 168 So. 96, and cases therein cited; Hunter et al. v. Senn et al., 61 S.C. 44, 39 S.E. 235; 33 C.J. 630, § 283, and authorities therein cited.
There is still another reason why we cannot agree with appellee’s contention that the ballot to prohibit the sale of all liquors was the form the Legislature intended should be used in such situations as exist in Ochiltree county. Suppose such a ballot had been used in such election, and the majority of the voters had voted against the prohibition of the sale of all liquors in Ochiltree county? In other words, they voted wet on the question. What would have been the effect of such an election? Would such an election have legalized the sale of all liquors in Ochiltree county? What sort of order would the commissioners’ court of Ochiltree county have been warranted in issuing in declaring the results of such an election? Should they have declared the county wet or dry for the sale of all liquors? We shall not undertake to answer this question because it is not before us for decision, and so far as we know this exact question has never arisen in this state, but we are not unmindful of the confusion that might arise in such a situation. Of course, the Moyer Case holds that a vote on the proposition to legalize the sale of ' liquor in a wet precinct is a voidable election, and by analogy, it might be said that a wet vote on the proposition to prohibit the sale of liquor in dry territory also would be a voidable election, but we see a clear distinction in the two situations presented. In the Plidalgo precinct there was a definite ballot provided by law to meet the issue desired to be submitted. Because this form of ballot was not used, the' election was voidable. The fact that the resulting vote was dry had nothing to do with the invalidity of the election. It would have been a voidable election if the vote had been wet. It simply was not an election at all when seasonably attacked, because the ballot provided by law was not used. Under appellee’s contention, such would not be true in Ochiltree county. Appellee says that the ballot to prohibit the sale of all liquors is the correct ballot to use in Ochiltree county. If he is correct, an election using such a ballot in such a situation could not be successfully attacked on the ground that an incorrect ballot was used as in the Moyer Case, and the election upon such a ballot would be valid as far as the Moyer Case is concerned. Tins' brings us back to the question as to what should the Commissioners Court do if a majority of the voters voted wet in such an election. If such a result would authorize the Commissioners Court to declare the county wet territory for the sale of all liquors, then the petitioners for the election would be placing themselves in a rather precarious position in calling for an election. To call an election for the purpose of voting out beer, they may subject themselves to the hazard of voting in the sale of all liquors. Certainly, the majority of the voters of Ochiltree county should be allowed to have or prohibit whatever kind of intoxicants they desire, if such desire is expressed in a valid election for that purpose, but no people should be forced to submit to an unnecessary hazard to accomplish such desires, whether those desires be for or against prohibition, and we do not believe the Legislature intended any such procedure.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.