Court Opinion

ID: 9866072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:15:14.664665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:09:07.026450
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
The record shows that a few days prior to August 3d, 1936, under the sponsorship of the Vernon Parish Prohibition Club, of which Mr. V. O. Craft was chairman, petitions for a local option election had been circulated in said parish and these petitions had been signed by what was thought to be 25 per cent, of the voters of the parish. In order to determine whether or not these petitions contained the necessary number of qualified voters, they were presented to the Registrar of Voters for checking, who, together with Mr. Craft and other members of the club, checked the names on the registration rolls, and, according to the registrar’s certificate, these petitions contained the names of 2,040 persons, of whom 384 were found to be disqualified, leaving a total of 1,656 qualified electors on said petitions. There were then 7,037 qualified voters in the parish from which it is clear that, in order to have the required 25 per cent., there should have been not less than 1,760 on said petitions. The petitions were therefore short 104 of the required number. The check of the petitions was completed shortly before the police jury was to meet on August 3, 1936.
Mr. Craft, who was secretary-treasurer of the police jury as well as chairman of the Prohibition Club, states in his testimony that it was decided by him and the members of the club not to present the petitions to the police jury at its meéting of August 3d, and he thereupon went to the office of the registrar and got the petitions, rolled them up in a newspaper, and threw them in a locker in the registrar’s office, telling the registrar at the( time that he would call for the petitions later. Craft’s office as secretary-treasurer of the police jury, adjoined the office of the registrar. Mr. Craft further testified that when he obtained possession of these petitions in the registrar’s office before the meeting of the police jury, the registrar was at his desk preparing to-write his report to the police jury on the petitions, and that he (Craft) told the registrar that he was withdrawing the petitions and that they would not be presented to the police jury that day; tha(^ the registrar told him that he would have to make a report to the police jury anyway.
The registrar testified that he did make out a report on these petitions for the police jury at its meeting on August 3d, which report was made on his own volition and at the request of no one. There is no evidence that these petitions were ever presented to the police jury at its meeting of August 3d by any one, nor was any request made of the police jury at that meeting to take any action on these petitions.
Notwithstanding the-fact that no one had requested him to report to the police jury on these petitions which had been presented to him for checking, the registrar of his own free will made a report to the police jury showing that the petitions lacked 104 of the necessary 25 per cent, of electors. The minutes of the police jury of August 3d' show that the following action ‘took place at that meeting:
“V. O. Craft, Chairman of the Vernon Parish Prohibition Club, stated to the Police Jury that as representative of the above named Club, he had authority to report to them that the Vernon Parish Prohibition Club had withdrawn the petitions and were not now asking for an election.
“Moved by Mr. Mitcham and seconded by Mr. James; Resolved, etc.; that since the petitions asking for an election to take the sense of the voters of Verhon Parish on the question of the legal sale of intoxicating liquor, hasn’t the required percentage of names, the election be not ordered.
“Resolved further, that new petitions must be circulated and that no election will be ordered until such new petitions have been circulated, that no election will be ordered, until such new petitions have been presented to the Police Jury.”
After this action of the police jury, supplemental petitions were circulated and 191 additional names secured thereon. The registrar refused to check and certify these new petitions unless requested to do so by the police jury.
*471At the meeting of the police jury of September 8, 1936, the plaintiff presented these petitions, including the supplemental ones, to the police jury and requested that body to pass the proper resolutions to request the registrar to check the petitions to ascertain if the necessary number of qualified voters were thereon for a local option election. The minutes of the police jury for that date show that the body refused to refer the petitions to the registrar for checking and certification.
 As the registrar refused to check and certify the petitions unless ordered to do so by the police jury and as that body refused to make such an order, it is obvious that the sponsors of the petitions were powerless to proceed further without the intervention of the courts. As the police jury had no petitions before it and no requests for any action thereon at its meeting of August 3d, it is manifest that its action of that date, wherein it undertook to pass on the petitions and refuse the election until new petitions were circulated and presented, was of no effect or validity whatever, Nor can the action of the registrar, in refusing to check the supplemental petitions without an order from the police jury, be legally justified. His duty to check these petitions does not depend on an order of the police jury, but the duty is imposed on him by law. The judgment correctly ordered the registrar to perform a purely ministerial duty imposed on him by law.
If the certificate of the registrar shows that there aro sufficient qualified voters on these supplemental petitions to make up the required 25 per cent., it would then be the plain and mandatory duty of the police jury to call the election asked for in the petitions. We do not understand that counsel for the police jury is contending that the police jury has any discretion in ordering the local option election, if the petitions contain the requisite number of qualified electors; but he is contending that, as this body legally and properly refused to call the election on August 3d for lack of sufficient qualified voters on the petitions, it has a right to refuse to again act on the matter until new petitions are circulated and presented. This position might be justified had these petitions actually been presented to it on that date with a request for action thereon, but, surely, the police jury could not preclude the sponsors of the election by acting on petitions not before it and on which no request for action was made.
The checking and certification of the names on the original and supplemental petitions should be as of September 8, 1936, the day on which they were presented. If these petitions show that they contain at least 25 per cent, of the qualified voters of the parish on that date, the police jury has no option but to call the election under the provisions of Act No. 17 of the First Extra Session of 1935. In affirming the judgment we desire it understood that the checking and certification of these petitions should be done as of September 8, 1936. We mention this, without amending the judgment, in order that there may be no confusion or misunderstanding on this point.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.