Court Opinion

ID: 9680939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:41:22.730607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.492960
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent and concur in the dissenting opinions of Morgan, C. J., and Simeone, J. To those dissents I add the following.
*463The principal opinion is internally contradictory. The statute cited therein, sec. 126.-061, which sets forth the manner by which signatures must be obtained, also sets forth those “irregularities” which shall not invalidate the petitions (signatures) and those are “clerical and merely technical errors”. It would seem obvious, therefore, that the clear legislative intent and purpose is that if the “irregularities” are not “clerical or merely technical” the petitions (signatures) are invalid and cannot be received or used by the Secretary of State as valid petitions. They are simply nonfileable. The facts as set forth in the principal opinion and the dissents tell what the factual deficiencies were and all opinions recognize them to be substantial in number and totally contrary to sec. 126.061.
The principal opinion says at p. 453 that it is important to note that “dishonest devices [were not] used to obtain signatures on the petitions.” Yet that same opinion points out that the petitions upon which the names of Betty Miller and Sue Fellows appear as solicitors are petitions on which none of the signatures were obtained by either Fellows or Miller, and it is further a fact that the notarization was also a fraud. Sue Fellows was regional coordinator for Freedom to Work Committee in Kansas City. She still held that position when her deposition was taken and, as such, refused to answer questions with respect to her work as coordinator of that committee on the grounds that her answers may incriminate her. These petitions numbered 427 and contained 2857 signatures. On the face of the principal opinion, these signatures were admittedly obtained by illegal methods — they were not obtained in conformity with sec. 126.061; but somehow the principal opinion concludes that although totally illegal it was not dishonest and, therefore, it not being dishonest, although illegal, it becomes relatively unimportant. If there is a valid distinction, whatever it may be, it hardly seems applicable here. That is because the act of obtaining signatures in the way Fellows and Miller did it is, on its face, illegal. Even if “dishonesty” is a subjective matter, it is perfectly obvious that Fellows and Miller knew they were acting illegally and, therefore, dishonestly because they attested to an act they knew they had not performed. Now that is dishonesty by any standards and for the principal opinion to say it is not so is to simply, by edict, say that black is white. It just does not make it so.
Furthermore, the facts as stated in the principal opinion conclusively show that the persons who signed petitions upon which the names of Fellows and Miller appear as circulators actually and knowingly did participate directly in the illegality. This is so because the very petitions (signatories) they signed contained the attesting clause of the solicitor which said the signatory “signed his name thereto in my [solicitor’s] presence.” (Emphasis supplied.) Each person who signed the petition knew at the time of signing that he or she was not signing in the presence of Fellows or Miller or anyone. How the principal opinion can conclude that the signatories themselves did not participate in the explicit dishonesty when the facts as recited in that opinion demonstrate complicity in the illegal conduct is beyond me.
This fact is not only of importance with respect to the petitions containing the names of Fellows and Miller as solicitors but is also of importance when deciding the question of whether fraud was practiced by the group seeking to get the proposition on a ballot, as compared with merely technical irregularity. As noted, Fellows was regional coordinator of the interested group. She solicited signatures through the mail in violation of the procedure required by sec. 126.061. The dissenting opinion of Morgan, C. J., points out the pervasiveness of this committee’s willingness to commit any fraud necessary to get signature petitions filed by the deadline of July 6,1978, and the attitude of its officials in the Jefferson City, Missouri, office.
It was necessary for the petitions to be in apparent compliance with the statute in order for them to be filed. The Secretary of State would not accept petitions which did not show apparent compliance. 1538 *464petitions containing 12960 signatures from the 4th, 5th, and 6th congressional districts were not in apparent compliance with the statute as they did not contain any attestation by a notary and, therefore, would not have been received by the Secretary of State. In order to make it appear that these were valid petitions, Stanley I. Dale, III, falsely attested to the signature of a purported solicitor on each petition. This was done for the purpose of and with the intent to deceive the Secretary of State into believing the petitions were valid and to thereby obtain a filing of the petitions in the Secretary of State’s office. It is impossible for me to characterize that conduct as anything short of fraudulent. This fraud was necessary in order to accomplish a certain advantage. That advantage was that the proposition appearing on the petitions would go onto a ballot. In so doing, the Freedom to Work Committee, by practicing this fraud, did obtain the initial filing of petitions which could not otherwise have been filed and had they not been filed the proposition would not have had sufficient initiative signatures. It would not have even gotten to step two — Secretary of State’s verification of petitions — much less have gotten onto the ballot. The other important advantage gained by this fraud was to, in effect, delay the day for filing valid signature petitions from July 6 to whenever a court would conclude that the signatures were genuine. This (being able to file invalid petitions), changed the criteria for their validity from compliance with sec. 126.061 to simply determining if the signatures were valid, according to the principal opinion. By this method the interested committee was able to evade the law which requires the filing of valid petitions by a certain date.
Thus it is clear that the facts conclusively demonstrate that actual fraud was engaged in by the officials of the group seeking to get the proposition on the ballot; that the fraud went directly to and caused the acceptance of invalid petitions by deceiving the Secretary of State into believing the petitions were valid, and further without that fraud the petitions would have been rejected and not accepted for filing. It is important to note that there was no “clerical or merely technical errors” here. Each move was calculated to produce the desired result — an acceptance of invalid petitions by the Secretary of State.
The cases of State ex rel. Voss v. Davis, 418 S.W.2d 163 (Mo.1967), Kasten v. Guth, 395 S.W.2d 433 (Mo.1965), and Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 20 S.W. 101 (1892), are cited by the principal opinion but they do not, in my opinion, support the result reached there.
State ex rel. v. Davis, supra, presented a purely legal question. The petitions were admittedly valid in all respects and the question was whether the original petitions for amendment to the Kansas City Home Rule Charter could be supplemented in accordance with the order of the Board of Election Commissioners. There were no irregularities, mistakes, or fraudulent acts involved at all and the facts of the case bear no resemblance whatever to the instant matter.
Kasten v. Guth, supra, was an election case and the question was whether certain ballots should be voided because the election judge or clerk had not initialed the ballots and a black sticker had not been placed over the ballot number. No purposeful or intentional misconduct or fraud appeared at all. The voter had completed his act of voting and the irregularity or deficiency was one of an election official. The instant case is not a voting case and the “irregularity” is not that of an official. Furthermore, the act of petitioning by the signatory had not been completed and would not be consummated until the petition was completed in accordance with the statute. The failure of the election official in Kasten to initial the ballot or place the black sticker over the number would, in my opinion, fall into the category of the clerical or technical errors referred to in sec. 126.-061. Even so, this court did not say that fraud would not void a ballot. To the contrary, the court said at 395 S.W.2d at 436: “While the irregularities referred to should not be encouraged, they were not sufficient *465to constitute fraud, and in the absence of fraud we will not deprive the voters of their votes.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The holding that fraud will invalidate votes, as set forth in Kasten was reiterated in Elliott v. Hogan, 315 S.W.2d 840 (Mo.App.1958), where ballots of sixteen absentee voters were disallowed because the ballots were not properly obtained from the election official by a political worker. There was no question but what the voter was qualified to vote and did in fact vote the ballot. The “irregularity” was committed by another person — the one who brought the ballot to the voter — but that person was not an official. If the issue were to turn on whether the voter was qualified to vote and did in fact vote the ballot, the vote should have been counted. That is what the principal opinion has converted the issue to in the instant case. But in Elliott the court saw the issue as relating to more than just whether the voter voted the ballot (here — whether the signer signed the petition). The issue was whether the absentee voting requirements were mandatory and whether they had been complied with. The court held they were mandatory and had not been complied with. 315 S.W.2d 847-848. There was no particular provision that declared a violation to be “fatal”, but the court did not allow the ballots to be counted. This conclusion was reached because the statute respecting absentee voting was held to be mandatory. Had the defect in Elliott v. Hogan, supra been a mistake of an election official, the irregularity would not have been fatal. 315 S.W.2d 846. In the instant case the “mistake” was not that of an election official but rather intentional deceit practiced by the group pressing to get the proposition on the ballot.
The quotation taken from Bower v. Smith, 20 S.W. 101, 103, supra, and set forth in the principal opinion that construction “of a law as would permit the disenfranchisement of large bodies of voters, because of an error of a single official, should never be adopted, where the language in question is fairly susceptible of any other” (emphasis mine) is obviously right and should be adhered to. The only difficulty is that it has nothing to do with the instant case. There is simply no contention by anyone that the deficiency here consisted of “an error of a single official”. Indeed, no one contends there were any “errors” by any officials. The “errors” here consisted of the deceitful and fraudulent acts of private persons who were attempting to get the proposition on the ballot and not of an election official.
I wonder what this court would say if petitions were presented to the Secretary of State without the signature of a solicitor or any notarization and the Secretary of State, in order to receive them so as to later determine the genuineness of individual signatures, supplied the signature of a false solicitor and the false notarization of a notary public. Would we then say there was no fraud? What of the people who had been solicited to sign and refused and the people who were not asked to sign and, therefore, did not consider signing the petitions? Are they not entitled to a reasonable enforcement of the initiative law enacted by their representatives instead of a judicial repeal of that law as accomplished by the principal opinion? And what of the signers of the contested petitions themselves? Shall we assume, as the principal opinion apparently does, that each of the 12960 people who signed these petitions authorized the people who asked the signatories to sign to proceed illegally and place false oaths and false notarizations on those petitions? I cannot assume that any or all of those people agreed that the committee, acting in the name of the signatories, could do any act, however illegal, to get the petitions filed, but that is what the principal opinion assumes. Put another way, what would be the predictable response by the individual signatories if, at the time of signing, they had been asked: Will it be all right with you if we (the committee) violate the law and cause signatures of persons who did not see you sign this document to be affixed and to swear they did see you sign it and also to cause false notarizations to be placed upon this petition? Perhaps some would agree but I doubt it. In any *466event, if they did agree they would become complicit in the fraud and their signatures could not be counted under the principal opinion and if they did not agree they would not sign it.
This points up one of the major differences between signing a petition and casting one’s vote. The signing of a petition solicited by another private citizen leaves something yet to be done — the appropriate attestation and the filing of the petition on time — -but once a vote is cast there is nothing further for any private citizen to do. It has been done and the subsequent action is by an official who is supposed to be impartial. The petition solicitor is not expected to be impartial and is not an official. The only protection the citizenry has with respect to such petitions is the statute which requires them to be completed in a certain way.
In my opinion the principal opinion in this case judicially repeals sec. 126.061 and substitutes no protections therefor. It lends itself to much mischief. The honest groups who do not cause false solicitors’ signatures to appear on their petitions nor obtain fraudulent notarizations cannot file their petitions regardless of the genuineness of the signatures but the unscrupulous can get their petitions filed by merely filling in a solicitor’s name and affix a false notarization. That is what happened here and, in my opinion, this court should do more than merely announce it does not condone such fraud. It ought to deny the committee that committed the fraud the fruits of its endeavors — we should prohibit the proposition from appearing on the ballot.
No case cited by the majority opinion deals with intentional purposeful fraud. No case need be overruled. All that it takes is for this court to recognize fraud when it sees it and, pursuant to the prior cases of Kasten v. Guth, supra, and Elliott v. Hogan, supra, act accordingly.
Although, as I have stated above, I believe the statute is mandatory, yet, even if the reasoning of the principal opinion is adopted, the opportunity for mischief would be substantially reduced if this court were to proceed as the Supreme Court of Arizona did in Whitman v. Moore, 59 Ariz. 211, 125, P.2d 445 (1942), a case quoted from and relied upon by the principal opinion. The Whitman court and the principal opinion in this case holds that if the solicitor’s or notary’s signatures are invalid the presumption that the signatures of the petitioners are genuine and are signatures of persons registered to vote when they signed the petition disappears completely.
In Whitman the court struck out signatures of persons which signatures were not followed by a date. This was done because the presumption that the signer was a qualified voter when he signed could not be indulged. It became the burden of the proponent to prove such persons were registered as of the date they signed the petition. The principal opinion in this case holds the solicitor’s oath and the notary’s attestation provide the presumption that the signatures are genuine and those of registered voters as of the date such persons signed the petition. It is that presumption that disappears according to the principal opinion and the Whitman case. The verifications obtained by the Secretary of State merely certified that, as of the time the particular county records were checked, certain persons who signed petitions were registered. This cheek in the counties began when the Secretary of State wrote to various election officials under date of July 11, 1978, six days after the deadline for filing the petitions. The petitions had been obtained at various times during the spring and early summer of 1978. The county verifications of registration were made as of dates in the latter part of July and in August but not as of the date the person signed the petition, whatever that may have been. In fact, one solicitor Helen Hudson testified she worked for the committee and was instructed by committee personnel in the Kansas City office that it would be all right for persons to sign the petitions even if they were not registered “as long as they were going to get registered to vote, you know.”
*467The depositions of about 69 circulators whose petitions were not validly notarized were taken. About four or five refused to testify on 5th amendment grounds. Another two testified at trial. A goodly number of them were asked if they believed the persons who signed were registered voters to which they replied in the affirmative. Some number were not asked questions about it. Because of the time constraints with respect to the decision in this case, not all of the depositions have been read in full. A random sampling of 23 depositions were read. Of these 10 deponents were asked whether they asked the signers if they were registered voters and they responded affirmatively. But none of them were asked what the signer’s answer was, if any. Nine deponents were asked whether, when they (circulators) signed the petitions, they were “swearing” (although none actually signed under oath) that the signers were registered voters to the best of their knowledge and belief to which they responded in the affirmative. Four were not asked questions concerning this matter. A few deponents testified, as did Helen Hudson, with respect to taking signatures from those who were going to register.
The burden of proving that the “signer was qualified in all respects” is upon the party desiring to sustain the signatures— the Freedom to Work Committee. Whitman v. Moore, supra, and the principal opinion in this case. That requires proof that the signers were registered to vote at the time they signed the petition — not at some later date.
In my opinion the evidence fails to affirmatively show that the signers were registered voters at the time they signed the petitions and, therefore, cannot be counted.
For all of the reasons set forth supra and those appearing in the dissenting opinions of MORGAN, C. J., and SIMEONE, J., I dissent.