People Ex Rel. Martin v. Worswick
Before: McFarland
Synopsis
Quo Warranto—Validity of Election for Mayor—Registration of Voters—Insufficient Complaint.—A complaint in quo warranto, to determine the validity of an election for mayor of the city of San Jose, which merely alleges that copies of an old great register were used at the polls instead of copies of a new one required by law, but which does not aver that the names of all the voters were not on the new register, does not state a cause of action.
Id.—Neglect of Officers of Election-—Qualified Voters not Affected—Constitutional Law.—Qualified voters, who were properly registered, could not be deprived of their votes because the officers of election neglected to perform the ministerial and directory duty of having the proper register before them for examination, and any provision of law having that effect would be unconstitutional.
In.—Municipal Election—City Charter—Copies of Last Completed Great Register—New Registration not Completed.—Under the freeholders’ charter of the city of San Jose, copies of the last completed great register are to be used at .a general municipal election held in said city, besides a supplemental list of all voters who have registered since the time of the last completed great register; and a new registration commenced in January for the year 1902, which was not to be completed until September, was intended only for the general state election in November of that year, and war not required to be used at a municipal election held in said city in the month of May, 1902.
Id.—Qualification of Voters—Object of Registration—Construction of Registry Law.—Registration is not a constitutional qualification of voters 5 but is simply a reasonable method of identifying qualified voters. A registry law should not be construed so as seriously to impair the practical working of a city government, and leave it without a legislative department, unless clearly imperative.
Id.—Ballots Improperly Cast—Insufficient Averment.—An averment in the complaint that one hundred and twenty-four ballots were cast by voters who were registered after the commencement of forty days next preceding the general election is not sufficient, where there is no showing in the complaint that such ballots, if improperly received, could have changed the result of the election.
McFARLAND, J.
The defendant was elected to the office of mayor of the city of San Jose at a general city election held on the third Monday in May (May 19), 1902, and after-wards qualified and took possession of said office. The present proceeding is in the nature of
quo luarranto,
brought in the name of the people of the state, on relation of Charles J. Martin, to have it adjudicated that said election was illegal, null, and void, that said Worswick be ousted from his office, and that the relator, Martin, who was the immediate predecessor of defendant in the office, is entitled to said office upon the ground of his right to hold the same until the legal election and qualification of a successor. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained in the court below; and plaintiff declining to amend, judgment went for defendant. From this judgment plaintiff appeals. There are two counts in the complaint, but the second incorporates nearly all the material averments of fact contained in the first, and there-is no substantial difference between the two counts.
[73]
It is averred that at the said election of May 19, 1902, 4,694 ballots were cast, and that as to 2,857 of the persons who cast said ballots “the only great register or register of voters used by and for said 2,857 persons casting said ballots, as aforesaid, was made, arranged and in the office of the county clerk of said Santa Clara County prior to the first day of January, 1902”; and that the names of said 2,857 voters, “were upon the great register of the said county of Santa Clara, before the first day of January, 1902, and the said great register containing the said 2,857 names was by the county clerk of the said county of Santa Clara made and arranged for each election precinct of said city of San Jose during the year 1900, and before the first day of January, 1902.” These are the main material averments of the complaint ; and appellant contends that the charter of the city of San Jose provides that city elections shall be conducted under the general election laws of the state, and that under those laws as they existed at the time of said city election no one could legally vote at such election who had not been registered forty days before such election on the new register which the clerk commenced to prepare on January 1, 1902. No fraud is alleged; and it is not averred that any legal voter was denied the right to vote, or that the 2,857 persons were not, independent of the question of registration, qualified voters, or were not on a legal register, or that the rejection of these ballots would have changed the result. Therefore, even if the correctness of appellant’s theory that no one was a legal voter at such election who was not on the new register be conceded, still the complaint is fatally defective because it is not averred therein that the 2,857 voters were not on such new register. The averment is only that copies of the old register were used at the polls instead of copies of the new register. But if the said persons were otherwise qualified voters, and had caused their names to be properly registered, they did not lose their votes because the officers of the election neglected to perform the ministerial and directory duty of having the proper register before them for examination. If there were any provisions in the registry laws which clearly contemplated the disfranchisement of a qualified voter for such neglect by the election board, it would be unconstitutional.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)