Sturtevant v. Jordan

THE COURT.

The question involved in this proceeding for a writ of mandate was whether in the matter of the primary election to be held August 31, 1920, for the two associate justices of division two of the district court of appeal of the first appellate district, the ballot should be in such form as to show each associate justiceship as a separate and distinct office, each distinguished from the other by giving the name of the present incumbent by appointment, and to be voted upon separately; or in such form as to show the office of associate justice as a single office for which two persons are to be selected, with all candidates for the office appearing as candidates for

that office,

and not

specially

for either of the two positions to be filled at the election.

[1]

Owing to the necessity for a prompt decision, an oral decision was rendered from the bench at the close of the argument, sustaining the view last stated, viz., that the ballot for the purposes pf nomination and election should show the office of associate justice of division two of the district court of appeal of the first appellate district as a

single office,

for which two persons are to be selected, with all candidates for the office appearing as candidates for that

office,

and not

specially

for

either

of the two associate justice-ships to be filled at the election. A peremptory writ of mandate in accord with the prayer of the petition was thereupon ordered issued. This opinion is filed in order that the views of the court on the question may be of record.

The conclusion of the court is in accord with the well-settled rule and practice in this state with regard to the nomination and election of persons to public office where

[294]