Court Opinion

ID: 9670960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:28:56.546803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.451454
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
Elections will come and go and office holders are but straw blowing in the winds of time but the integrity of elections, upon which a free people are dependent for the blessings of liberty, may only be maintained by observance of the law. Kurtenbach and Scholten did not comply with the election laws. Thus, I join the majority opinion and, in so doing, vote for legal principle and not their personal popularity at the polls.
Popularity wafts in the wind. Principle does not. Principle is like a great mountain in a violent storm. Though the lightning and thunder crash upon it with great fury, the mountain, after the storm, stands craggy, undefeated and as a symbol of strength. Legal principle cannot proudly hold its head aloft with illegal backdated verifications on petitions.
A writ of quo warranto is an archaic writ still in practice, which was developed from the English law. It was formulated as a writ of right for the king against any who claimed or usurped an office or liberty to specifically inquire into by what authority that person supported his claim of right. Essentially, the writ of quo warranto commands a person to show by what warrant he exercises such office or liberty, never having had an original grant of the right. Black’s Law Dictionary 1131 (5th ed.1979). Quo warranto is an extraordinary proceeding and is prerogative in nature. Essentially, it is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 53 S.Ct. 721, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933). Here, although defendants won the election by popular vote, their assertion of the office is unlawful for their failure to sign the circu-lator’s verification. The gravamen of defendants’ legal plight is epitomized and emphasized by testimony on June 1, 1982, at Brookings, South Dakota, in a court trial resolved against the present petitioner. Following are questions by Attorney Fite on behalf of plaintiff Burns in that action and answers thereto by Mr. Bonaiuto, the school’s business manager.
Q. When you examined these nominating petitions on May 17th, did you note any omissions from the form captioned, “Certification by Person Circulating Petition”?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you notice about that?
A. That three of the four petitions did not have that portion of the petition filled out.
Q. And were there any entries in any of the blanks?
A. No.
Q. And what candidates’ names were on those three nominating petitions?
A. Aelred Kurtenbach, Benjamin Kan-tack, Marvin Scholten.
*640So in other words, there was neither the signature of the circulator nor the officer administering the oath on those nominating petitions? «©
That’s correct. <1
What did you do after discovering that this form had not been filled out? O*
The superintendent and I discussed this issue, and Mr. Mickelson was contacted to check the legal precedent, if there was any in this area, and what we should do to proceed.
And following contacting Mr. Mickel-son, what action did the school district take? <y
Mr. Mickelson submitted a letter to the superintendent, and the school district felt that this, based on Mr. Mickelson’s opinion, was a' correctable omission, and that we had the candidates come into the office and sign the verification portion of the petition, correcting the error or omission of this section.
Did the school district then contact these three individuals: Mr. Kan-tack, Mr. Kurtenbach, and Mr. Schol-ten? <y
Yes, to my knowledge, that’s true. <¡
And do you recall when the verification was executed on behalf of those three individuals? Gr-
I believe it was the 18th. To the best of my recollection, it was the 18th.
And the filing deadline for nominating petitions is what date? ey
Friday, the 14th of May, 5:00 p.m.
So the verification would have been added after the filing deadline on those three petitions?
Yes. >
Now, I note that those verifications are not dated when they were actually signed, are they? «©
No.
Q. What date appears on those petitions?
A. The date appears as the date that the petitions were handed in before the deadline.
Q. So in other words, the verifications were backdated to reflect the date the petition was actually submitted to the business office?
A. Yes.
The defect in the nominating petitions were not mere technical defects as the provisions of SDCL 13-7-6 are mandatory. Hornbeck v. Askin, 286 A.D. 1114, 145 N.Y.S.2d 628, aff’d, 309 N.Y. 850, 130 N.E.2d 648 (1955), is excellent authority for our holding herein for, in that case, it was held that improper authentication could not be excused and the statutory requirements could not be altered.
Perhaps this decision will be viewed as being harsh. Its impact must be weighed against the safeguards which the statute provides, namely to prevent any type of fraud in the election process. I am not suggesting that defendants perpetrated fraud but there here existed a serious irregularity that went to the heart of the election process. The advice of the business manager and, later, the advice of the school district’s attorney to change the verifications, is not an excuse for noncompliance with the statute. See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Bd., 82 Wis.2d 585, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978), where a candidate for circuit court judge learned alas, alack, that he could not rely upon false information as a basis for a theory of substantial compliance and substitute same for the mandatory requirements of a statute.