Court Opinion

ID: 9845791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:28:22.591506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:22.107422
License: Public Domain

*340Lovins, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the conclusion reached in this case.
I am in agreement with the first point of the syllabus, to the effect that the petitioner, Hatten, had no right to be admitted as an intervenor in this proceeding, but I do not agree that the relators had a clear legal right to the relief sought by them in this proceeding.
There is no common law principle applicable to modern elections to political office. Authority for elections, primary and general, is created by statutory and constitutional provisions.
An election is not ended until the returns of the election have been canvassed and the results declared officially by a "board, or by a court authorized by law to do so. Daugherty v. Mabscott, 131 W. Va. 500, 48 S. E. 2d 342.
Various steps are provided by our statutes for ascertaining and declaring the results of an election. The first step is the counting and certifying of the returns by the precinct officials holding the election. Code, 3-5-30. The second step is the canvassing of such returns. Code, 3-5-33. The third step is a recount of ballot returns where such recount is demanded. Code, 3-5-33. The fourth step is a contest, when properly initiated, to be heard by the county court as to county officials. Code, 3-9-1, et seq. And the fifth step is a determination and judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction. Code, 3-9-3.
It is not disputed in the instant proceeding that the precinct officials in Precinct No. 31, Wayne County, failed to count the ballots and certify the results of the election held in that precinct, and that one of the commissioners of election of such precinct delivered the election returns in a locked ballot box to the clerk of the county court.
In my opinion, when the ballots and other election material were delivered to the clerk, the functions of the commissioners and clerks in Precinct No. 31 had ended and the duty of ascertaining and counting the votes cast in *341such precinct devolved upon the canvassing hoard of Wayne County.
I think that the court’s opinion in this case exalts form to an unusual degree and disregards substance. It is true that Code, 3-5-30 provides in some detail for the acts to be performed by the precinct officials of elections, but I think that the provisions of that statute are directory.
There is a basic principle in the law of elections which is well stated as follows: “In general those statutory provisions, which fix the day and the place of the election, and the qualifications of the voters, are substantial and mandatory, while those, which relate to the mode of procedure, in the election, and to the record and return of the results, are formal and directory. Statutory provisions relating to elections are not rendered mandatory, as to the people, by the circumstance that the officers of the election are subjected to criminal liability for their violation. The rules, prescribed by the law for conducting an election, are designed chiefly to afford an opportunity for the free and fair exercise of the elective franchise, to prevent illegal votes, and to ascertain, with certainty, the result. Generally such rules are directory, not mandatory; and a departure from the mode prescribed will not vitiate an election, if the irregularities do not deprive any legal voter of his vote, or admit an illegal vote, or cast uncertainty on the result, and have not been occasioned by the agency of a party seeking to derive a benefit from them.” Paine, The Law of Elections, §498.
To the same effect, McCrary on Elections, 4th Ed., Section 225, page 169: “If the statute expressly declares any particular act to be essential to the validity of the election, or that its omission shall render the election void, all courts whose duty it is to enforce such statute must so hold, whether the particular act in question goes to the merits, or affects the result of the election, or not. Such a statute is imperative, and all considerations touching its policy or impolicy must be addressed to the Legislature. But if, as in most cases, that statute simply provides that *342certain acts or things shall be done within a particular time or in a particular manner, and does not. declare that their performance is essential to the validity of the election, then they will be regarded as mandatory if they do, and directory if they do -not, affect the actual merits of the election.”
In this jurisdiction this court has held provisions of statutes relating to elections as directory. See Revercomb v. Sizemore, 124 W. Va. 700, 22 S. E. 2d 296; Hatfield v. Board of Canvassers, 98 W. Va. 41, 126 S. E. 708. Irregularities in the conduct of elections may be disregarded unless they are declared to be fatal to its validity or such irregularities change the results or render -it impossible to ascertain the same. Williamson v. Musick, 60 W. Va. 59, 53 S. E. 706.
The face of the ballot is prima facie evidence of the result and if the integrity of such ballot has been maintained, it should be counted. Stafford v. Sheppard, 57 W. Va. 84, 50 S. E. 1016. See Kirkpatrick v. Deegans, 53 W. Va. 275, 44 S. E. 465, for distinction between mandatory and directory statutes and the results stemming from violations of either.
If a fair election has been held, the mistakes and irregularities done and created by officers of election do not affect it. Morris v. Board of Canvassers, 49 W. Va. 251, 38 S. E. 500.
I do not think that the precinct commissioners and poll clerks of the election should be permitted to return the ballots to the clerk of .the county court without counting them, since they are directed to perform that act by provisions of Code, 3-5-29, as amended by Chapter 50, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1943, and upon their failure tó do so, a criminal penalty is imposed. But in the instant case the ballots have been delivered to the clerk of the county court of Wayne County without ascertaining the results of the election in Precinct 31. In that instance I think that the duty not performed by precinct election officers devolved upon the canvassing board of that county.
*343I am aware of the decisions of this court which hold that the canvassing board is a body having limited power, but it certainly has the power to canvass the returns of an election, which power is expressly given by statute, and if no certification of the result has been made by the precinct officials, it is reasonable to say that the canvassing board, by necessary implication,' has the power and authority to count the ballots. ■
In the case of State ex rel. Waggoner v. Russell (Neb.), 51 N. W. 465, 15 L.R.A. 740, it was held that a peremptory writ of mandamus would not be granted requiring precinct officials of an election to count rejected ballots after the ballots had been delivered to the county clerk and were beyond their control:
A logical application of the principle announced in the Waggoner case leads to the converse,, that the precinct "officials in the instant case, not being subject to a writ of mandamus after delivering the ballots and other material to the clerk of the .county court, would not be entitled, to a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the canvassing board and the clerk of the county court to return the ballots to them for counting, when they had ceased to function as precinct election officials.
In the case of Sanders v. Board, 79 W. Va. 303, 90 S. E. 865, this court held that “Where the ballots, poll books, tally sheets, and certificates have been stolen after being placed in the hands of the clerk of the county court and before being laid before the canvassing board for inspection, then it is the duty of the board of canvassers to examine and consider any and all reliable evidence available which will enable the board to ascertain the contents of such certificates; and for that purpose they may require the attendance of the election commissioners, poll clerks, or other persons present at the election, to appear and testify concerning the same; and any board of canvassers failing or refusing to perform such duty may be required to do so by writ of mandamus.”
Though the facts in the instant case are not exactly *344similar to the Sanders case, the decision of this court in that case plainly holds that in the absence of a certificate of results of the election, the board of canvassers may be compelled by mandamus to ascertain by any lawful means available to such board the true results of an election. In the instant case, the ballots actually cast in Precinct 31 were available for counting. Applying the rationale of the opinion in the Sanders case to the facts of this case, I can see no reason for requiring the ballots and other election material to be turned over to precinct election officers for the performance of an action which could be performed as well by the canvassing board.
There is another holding in the court’s opinion which I regard as requiring the performance of an unnecessary detailed action; that is to say, returning the ballots to the precinct where they were received and there counting them. A similar question was before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 35 L. Ed. 190, 11 S. Ct. 538, where it has held that, in the absence of a statute so requiring, votes cast at an election need not be counted at the place where such votes were cast. The statement of the general rule will be found in the following language: “In the absence of a mandatory statute so requiring, ballot boxes need not be opened and the votes counted at the place where the election was held, so that the counting of votes elsewhere does not vitiate the election.” 18 Am. Jur., Elections, §250. See 29 C.J.S., Elections, §224.
For the foregoing reasons, I would have denied the writ of mandamus prayed for by relators.