Court Opinion

ID: 9542678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:19.522356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:39.255702
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: In this action the school district seeks to have the Supreme Court construe the meaning of K. S. A. 25-2201 (b). Resort to the election board for an authoritative ruling would have been futile. If the statute is construed as the appellant insists it should be construed, the assessment of direct election expenses on the facts in this case by the county election commissioner was erroneous and beyond his statutory authority.
The extent of the state election board’s administrative power does not encompass the power to make an authoritative ruling on the construction of the statute in controversy.
The county election commissioner is authorized under the statute to send statements for election expenses only to governmental subdivisions responsible for election expenses under K. S. A. 25-2202. A statement for election expenses sent to one not responsible for *53such expenses would be beyond the authority or jurisdiction of the county election commissioner.
In Capland v. Board of Dental Examiners, 149 Kan. 352, 87 P. 2d 597, the corut held:
“While courts are not permitted to substitute their judgment for that of administrative bodies, they are definitely charged with the duty of determining whether the judgment rendered is unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive, discriminatory or in excess of administrative powers.” (Syl. f 2.) (Emphasis added.)
Butler v. Rude, 162 Kan. 588, 178 P. 2d 261, is directly in point. There the court relied upon the rule above quoted and discussed the relationship between administrative agencies and courts. It permitted a direct attack upon the authority of the State Board of Embalming to adopt certain rules. A request was made for a construction of the statute in the petition and the court sustained the district court’s order overruling'a demurrer.
The provisions of K. S. A. 25-2204 do not compel a different result. They have no application to these proceedings. The scope of administrative review prescribed therein, extends only to matters of apportionment, which matters are not in issue in this action. The appellant is not objecting to the appellee’s arithmetic, but to the appellee’s jurisdiction. A problem of the same statutory nature was encountered in Tompkins v. Rinner Construction Co., 196 Kan. 244, 409 P. 2d 1001. (See dissenting opinion of Schroeder, J., at page 249.)
By denying the school board the right to raise the jurisdiction of the county election commissioner to assess what it conceives to be an illegal charge as a defense to the action, the court has side stepped the issue presented.
It is respectfully submitted the court should construe the statute in question and decide the legal issue before the court.