Court Opinion

ID: 9826194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:32:03.255266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:56.223471
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Woods.
7 concur in dismissing the petition on the ground that there was no notice of protest served on J. L. Zeigler, respondent. I dissent, however, from the conclusion that there was a substantial compliance with the statute in filing the statement. The statutory requirement is that the statement made after the election shall include and embrace “all further moneys spent or provided” by the candidate in the election. In limiting the statement to money spent and not including money provided, I think Mr. Zeigler did not comply with the statute, and it seems to me to' hold that the variance was not substantial opens the door to evasion of a statutory provision vitally affecting the purity of elections.