Court Opinion

ID: 9865141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:25:07.846394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:33.611504
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Knous
dissenting.
In my opinion the judgment below should be affirmed.
Even if it be conceded, and Mr. Justice Hilliard thinks otherwise, and about which I am without conviction, that where an election for mayor in a city of the second *469class, results ■ in á tie, the municipal canvassing board created by section 191, chapter 163, ’35 C.S.A., by the reference made therein, may determine the result by lot as provided by section 246, chapter 59, ’35 C.S.A., (amended S.L. ’41, p. 405, §18) relating to the canvass of elections for precinct or county offices, the record, nevertheless, demonstrates that herein there was no lawful canvass and -that if a tie existed between the parties, it has not' been determined which of the two candidates was elected as provided by either of the foregoing sections of the statutes, or at all. The trial court so found and held, and such appears affirmatively from the exhibits made a part of the complaint of Mr. Dick, whom the majority has adjudged the elected candidate. The correctness of these exhibits is conceded by Mr. Mosco’s answer. Obviously, facts admitted by the pleadings must be accorded a probative effect at least equal to evidence introduced at the trial; hence, the stipulation with respect to the latter, quoted from in the majority opinion, cannot be considered as being either exclusive or conclusive within the factual area involved.
As pleaded by Mr; Dick, the “Abstract of the Votes,” showing that each of the parties received 626' votes for mayor, contains the following certificate:
“We, the undersigned, Board of Canvassers of the Election Returns of an Election held in the City of Walsenburg, in the State of Colorado, on Tuesday, the third day of April A.D. 1945, for the election of a Mayor, City Clerk, a City Treasurer, two Aldermen from Wards numbered 1 - 2 - 3 - 4, for a term of two years do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct abstract of the votes cast at said Election, as shown by the returns from the several voting precincts in said City of Walsenburg, Colorado. Witness our hands and seals this eleventh day of April, A. D. 1945.
Attest: Thomas M. Wilson, Clerk
Thomas M. Wilson Fred I. Barron, J. P.
City Clerk. Herman Mazzone, Mayor.”
*470On its face, this certificate discloses that the purported board of canvassers was not constituted as required by section 191, supra, which governs the canvassing -of the returns of municipal elections. That section, in addition to the portion thereof quoted in the majority opinion, provides that in making' such canvass, the city clerk “shall call to his assistance the mayor of the corporation, or if there be no mayor; or the mayor shall have been a candidate at such election, then any justice of peace of the county.” Although, it clearly appears therefrom that a municipal canvassing board shall consist of but two members, three participated in the canvass herein.
It is certain that Mr. Mazzone, who signs as mayor, was not a “candidate for any office at such election.” This being so, under the procedure fixed by the statute, if he then was Mayor of Walsenburg, the clerk possessed no authority whatsoever to call in Mr. Barron, the justice of the peace. On the other hand, if Mr. Mazzone was not the mayor he was entitled to no place on the canvassing board. Obviously, in either contingency, the board was not constituted as the law directs.
Continuing, the same section specifies that the clerk “shall, in his presence [that is, of his single associate, either the Mayor or a Justice of the Peace], make out an abstract and ascertain the candidates elected, in all respects as required by law for the canvass of the returns of county elections.” The statute pertaining to county elections (section 246, supra), requires that where a tie vote is discovered the canvassers “shall immediately determine by lot which of the two candidates shall be elected.” This the canvassing board herein, if such it was, did not do. Instead, they formally certified an abstract showing a tied vote for mayor and disbanded.
On April 18, one week to the day after the certification and filing of the abstract, the old, as distinguished from the newly elected, city council, proceeded to its *471consideration. Whereupon, as appears from the records of the council as pleaded by Mr. Dick, the following occurred. (emphasis supplied):
“Alderman Dr. C. A. Brunelli announced that before the adoption of the canvassing board [report], he wished to present the following resolution:
“ ‘Whereas, a Municipal City Election was held on the third day of April, A. D. 1945, in the City of Walsenburg, Huerfano County, Colorado, for the purpose of electing a Mayor, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer, and two (2) aldermen for each of four (4) Wards within the City of Walsenburg, Colorado; and
“ ‘Whereas, a canvass of the votes certified by the canvassing board of said election shows a tie vote for the office of Mayor; and
“ ‘Whereas, in compliance with Section 246 of Page 108 of the election laws of the State of Colorado, being the. only law regarding tie votes and the qualification of candidates who- received such tie votes, in substance to determining by lot; and
“ ‘Whereas the City Council of the City of Walsenburg sees fit to comply with the method of deciding a tie vote, being the fair and equitable way of determining the elected candidate.
“ ‘Now, Therefore be it Resolved, That the City Council of the City of Walsenburg'hereby authorizes and directs the City Clerk, and a Justice of the Peace, being members of the canvassing board, to cast a lot for the purpose of determining the elected candidate, and that such lot be cast in the presence of the City Council, and in such manner as the City Council shall determine.’
“Alderman Dr. C. A. Brunelli then moved that the foregoing Resolution be adopted as read. Alderman James Phipps seconded said Motion.
“Thereupon, Mayor Herman Mazzone asked the City Clerk to call the roll of the Council with the following results:
*472“Aldermen Voting Aye: —Dr. C. A. Brunelli, James Phipps, Wilbur Taylor, Oscar Santi, Antonia Andreatta.
“Alderman Voting Nay: —Valentine Suspancic. ■
“The majority of Aldermen voting in favor of said motion, Mayor Herman Mazzone declared said motion approved and adopted.
“Thereupon, Alderman James Phipps moved that the candidates for the office of Mayor participate in the drawing, and that the names of James B. Dick, Jr. and Joe Mosco, Jr. be placed in a hat and that one of the two capsules be drawn from the hat, thus deciding the elected candidate, and that the City Clerk and Fred I. Barron, Justice of the Peace, members of the canvassing board conduct the drawing in the presence of the Council.
* * *
“The majority of Aldermen voting in favor of said motion, Mayor Mazzone declared said motion approved and adopted.”
Other evidence discloses that the two candidates for mayor, the City Clerk, Mr. Barron, J. P., and others were then present. Mr. Dick agreed to the procedure proposed by the resolution, but Mr. Mosco refused to participate therein or to be bound thereby. Mr. Mazzone, who, as mayor and as a member of the canvassing board, had signed the certification to the abstract of votes, was there, presiding over the council, but did not participate in the pseudo drawing. The capsule containing Mr. Dick’s name was drawn from the hat by either the City Clerk or the Justice of the Peace.
“Thereupon, Alderman James Phipps introduced the following resolution,” (which by majority vote was adopted):
“Whereas, the City Clerk and Justice of the Peace, Fred I. Barron, by authorization and direction of the City Council had cast a lot to determine the elected candidate for mayor as the result of a tie vote, and
“Whereas, as the result of such determination James *473B. Dick, Jr. was chosen and elected to qualify as Mayor of the City of Walsenburg, Colorado.
“Now, Therefore be it Resolved, That James B. Dick, Jr. be and is hereby declared elected to the office of Mayor of the City of Walsenburg, Huerfano County, Colorado, * *
As I view, the foregoing recitals establish beyond question that, as the'trial court concluded, the city council, and not the canvassing board, assumed to determine who was elected and that the council, not the canvassing board, declared the result. No statute gives the city council such authority. The attempt had no more validity than would have resulted from the council’s nomination of two spectators as its agents to perform the manual operation of drawing a name from the hat. Further, it seems certain that section 246, supra, from which flows the inferential authority of a municipal canvassing board to “immediately determine by lot,” which of two tied candidates shall be elected, confers discretion on the canvassing board to devise and prescribe the procedure by which the lots shall be cast, such as whether it be by the drawing of straws or by other means. Not even a court can command a board of canvassers in matters of discretion. Orman v. People ex rel., 18 Colo. App. 302, 308, 71 Pac. 420. How, then, could a city council lawfully accomplish the direction herein attempted?
To climax the incongruities attending, it would seem certain, as the trial court determined, that the terms of office of the aldermen, who, as the city council, purported to act as aforesaid on April 18, all had expired at midnight on the .preceding April 15. See section 1, Art. XII of Colorado Constitution; sections 90 and 94, chapter 163, ’35 C.S.A., and People ex rel. v. Shaffer, 90 Colo. 432-435, 9 P. (2d) 612.
Section 191, supra, the municipal canvassing statute, further requires that when the canvassing board has ascertained the winners, the city clerk “shall, * * * make out a certificate as to each candidate so elected, *474and cause the same to be delivered to him * * Up to the time of the trial, at least, no certificate of election had been delivered to Mr. Dick. It is not to be presumed that the clerk would have been guilty of this omission if, in fact, the purported canvassing board, as such, instead of the city council, had acted in resolving the tie.
Simply then, as the facts indubitably proclaim, we have a situation wherein, because of .noncompliance with the law, the tie between the parties, if such there was, remains to this day legally unbroken and unresolved. It is elementary that unless legal provision is made for determining who shall be declared elected in the event of a tie vote, there is no election. 29 C.J.S., p. 354, §244. Patently, even though, as here, machinery therefor is provided, the same state of vacuity obtains until the tie formally is broken by its legal operation. In default of such, the newly elected council had the right to declare a vacancy and designate Mr. Mosco as Mayor under section 92, chapter 163, ’35 C.S.A., as it did.
In the form of this proceeding and through the dearth of essential parties, questions directed to the right of the canvassing board to reconvene for the purpose of completing its work; the power of a court to so direct or the effect of the failure of the new council to call a special election as suggested by its resolution appointing Mr. Mosco to fill the vacancy, obviously may not be considered herein.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Hilliard concurs in this dissenting opinion.