Court Opinion

ID: 9865345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:32:23.830956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:30.526521
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bock
dissenting.
I regret my inability to concur. The trial court’s primary basis for dismissing the petition of plaintiff in error was that he was without jurisdiction because that pleading contained no allegation of fraud. It is admitted that there is no statute providing for election contests of initiated or referred measures. In my opinion, we settled the question of jurisdiction of such contests in the carefully considered and well-reasoned opinion in the case of People ex rel. v. County Commissioners, 6 Colo. 202. There was no indication in that case that fraud was involved. In the instant case the facts were submitted to the trial court as set out in the pleadings, with the stipulation that, if it was deemed necessary, the court might order proof of any fact in issue thereunder. The acts alleged in the petition as violative of sections 237 and 238, chapter 59, ’35 C.S.A., were charged as having been done recklessly, carelessly and intentionally. Under these circumstances, and in so close an election, the court should at least have heard the evidence -relative thereto, which, in the first instance, would not have required a recounting of the ballots. It is not in harmony with the strict vigilance to be exercised to protect the purity of elections, to follow the easier and erroneous course of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. In the very nature of the unlawful manner alleged in counting the ballots in the case at bar, it is virtually impossible to say in advance how many illegal ballots were cast. That the illegal method followed in this case is very prevalent is indicated by this record. The court should have heard testimony on this phase of the case and thereafter determined whether, in its discretion, the ballots should have been recounted. Gray v. Huntley, 77 Colo. 478, 486, 238 Pac. 53. The taking of such evi*416dence should not be regarded as a “fishing expedition,” but rather as the affirmative exercise of judicial pro: cesses to keep inviolate the elective franchise from unlawful practices.