People ex rel. Lee v. Prewett

California Supreme Court Mar 9, 1899 No. Sac. No. 371Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the school district election was valid despite minor irregularities in the election notice and the failure of election officers to be sworn, as these defects did not mislead voters or prevent a fair election. Consequently, the superintendent's subsequent appointment of trustees was void because no vacancies existed at the time of the appointments.

Issues

Whether an election notice for school trustees was void for failing to explicitly state that vacancies existed.
Whether the failure of election officers to be sworn as required by law renders an election void.
Whether the joinder of claims against multiple trustees in a single quo warranto proceeding is permissible.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Elections should never be held void unless clearly illegal. It is the duty of the court to give effect to them, if possible.”

“The principle underlying these decisions is that the rights of the voters should noit be prejudiced by the errors or wrongful acts of the officers of the election, unless it shall appear that a fair election and an honest count were thereby prevented.”

“The complaint alleged an election, on June 5th, of an entire board, and hence there was no vacancy on July 9th, when the superintendent appointed the defendants.”

Synopsis

Election of School Trustees—Validity of Notice.—Where no election had been held in a school district for more than three years, a notice of election of trustees for the district, given by proper authority, and for the proper time, specifying that it was for the purpose of electing trustees for the school district, implies that a full board was to be elected under the statute which determines the respective terms for which they should be elected, and is not void because not specifying that vacancies existed in the office of trustees, which were to be filled, if the voters were not in fact misled by the notice, and elected trustees for the.respective terms fixed by law.

Id.—Notice of Opening of Polls.—A notice of election for trustees of a school district, stating that “the polls will be open between the hours of 1 P. M. and 5 P. M.,” obviously imports that they would be open from one to five P. M., and sufficiently states that the polls were to be kept open for four hours, as required by law.

Id.—Great Register — Cancellation — Re-registration.—The great register, though ordered cancelled by the supervisors for the purpose of new registration, remains for all purposes required by law until the new registration is completed, and re-registration is not required1 for the annual school election.

In.—Failure to Vote—Supposed Necessity of Re-registration.—Persons who did not offer to vote at such election cannot complain that they were deprived of the privilege of voting, because not re-registered; and where no one was challenged on that ground, the general belief, or the belief of a candidate, that no one had a right to vote unless re-registered, is immaterial, and cannot be a ground for setting aside the election, or constitute evidence of conspiracy or fraud.

Id.—Delay in Opening Polls.—A delay of one-half hour in opening the polls, caused by the failure of the inspector and judges to attend, and the selection of others, and procuring a box to serve as a ballot-box, cannot affect the validity of the election, where no one was thereby deprived of the privilege of voting.

Id.—Neglect of Officers to be Sworn.—The neglect of the officers of the election to be sworn as required by law, though subjecting them to penalties, cannot affect the validity of the election, if a fair election and honest count were not thereby prevented.

Id.—Quo Warranto—Parties—Joinder of Causes.—In an action of quo warranto to determine the validity of an election for school trustees, all the defendants claiming to be elected are properly joined as defendants, under section 808 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and there is no improper joinder of several causes of action against them.

Id.—Power of School Superintendent to Appoint Trustees.—The school superintendent has a power of appointment to fill vacancies in the board of school trustees; hut when an entire board of trustees is properly elected, there is no vacancy which the school superintendent can fill by appointment.

HAYNES, C. This proceeding, in the nature of quo warranto, is brought for the purpose of ousting the defendants as trustees of Green school district in the county of Madera, and of admitting to said office Charles A. Lee, Nelson Luke, and George Hudson. The plaintiff had judgment of ouster against the defendants, and that Lee, Luke, and Hudson be admitted to said office, and from this judgment and an order denying a new trial the defendants appeal.

For more than three years prior to June 5, 1896, there had been no election of school trustees held in said district, and during all that time the county superintendent of schools had, from year to year, appointed trustees for said district. On the first Friday in June, 1896, an election was held in said district at which said Lee, Luke, and Hudson were declared elected, and within ten days thereafter they each qualified as trustees of said district.

On July 9, 1896, the county superintendent, acting upon the supposition that said election was illegal and void, appointed the defendants trustees of said school district, and hence this proceeding. The merits of the case, therefore, turn upon the validity or invalidity of said election, though there are some minor questions requiring notice.

The alleged invalidity of said election is based upon several-grounds, the first being that the notice of election was insufficient, in that it gave notice “that the annual school meeting for the election of school trustees will be held,” et cetera, and did not state that vacancies in the office existed which were to be filled.

The law provides that when a new district is organized an election shall be held at which three trustees shall be elected, one to serve one year, one for the term of two years, and the third for three years; and thereafter on the first Friday in June of each year that one trustee shall be elected to serve three years.

Appellant contends that there were vacancies in the office of trustee to be filled, and that the notice of election should have specified that fact, and cites People v. Porter, 6 Cal. 27. In that case it was held that elections to fill vacancies occasioned by the death or resignation of an officer are special elections, and that [10]the proclamation of the governor, required by statute, is necessary to the validity of a special election. In that case the county judge of Calaveras county tendered his resignation, to take effect September 1st, which resignation was received by the governor on August 34th, though dated August 13th. The board of supervisors, learning that the resignation had been made, gave ten days’ notice that a special election to fill the vacancy would be held on the day of the general election, which was held on September 5th, but this special election was not included in the governor’s proclamation, because it was not known in time. Here the question is different. . The notice of election was given by the proper authority, the trustees of the district, and for the proper time, and the notice specified that it was “for the purpose of electing trustees for said district,” which implied that a full board was to be elected; and, if so, the statute determined the respective terms for which they should be elected. I think there was no such defect or uncertainty in the notice as would make the election void, unless it were also shown that the voters were in fact misled by the notice, and because thereof had failed to elect three trustees, one to serve one year, one to serve two years, and one to serve three years. The record, however, shows that in this respect the law was complied with. “Elections should never be held void unless clearly illegal. It is the duty of the court to give effect to them, if possible.” (State v. Board of Freeholders, etc., 35 N. J. L. 277.)

People ex rel. Lee v. Prewett

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief