STATE, EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL
v.
A. L. HILL, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the validity of a city election ballot in DeFuniak Springs where the same candidates appeared for both full-term and unexpired-term council positions. The court rejected a challenge that the ballot was vague and confusing, holding that a person of ordinary intelligence could understand that voting for the same person for both concurrent positions would render that portion of the ballot void.
The ballot was sufficiently clear and valid. A person of ordinary intelligence should understand that voting for the same candidate for both concurrent positions would render that portion of the ballot void because the voter has not expressed a valid choice for either specific position.
“A person of ordinary intelligence should know that his ballot could not be counted at all if he voted for one man to fill both positions when the terms to be filled by such election would run concurrently, as they did in this case.”
Establishes the standard for ballot validity and voter responsibility when voting for concurrent positions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeFuniak Springs held a city election on July 10, 1934, to elect four councilmen for two-year terms and two councilmen for unexpired terms. Seven cand…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voter Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
This is one of those cases in which the Attorney General permitted his name to be used as petitioner with the understanding that his office would in nowise be responsible for the conduct of the case in this Court or elsewhere.
The crux of the case is that an election was called to be held, and was held, in DeFuniak Springs, Florida, wherein four city councilmen were to be elected for a full term of two years and two city councilmen were to be .elected for the unexpired terms of two councilmen who had' resigned.
The record shows that petitions were filed as required by the statutes pertaining to the government of that city requesting the names of J. W. Bullard, F. E. Crooks, A. G. Douglass, Curry Douglass, A. L. Hill, W. W. Rowell, and *836Curtis Rutherford to be placed upon the ballot to be voted for the position of city councilmen for the two-year term; and petitions were also filed requesting the names of the same people to be placed upon the ballot to he voted for for the two unexpired terms of Miles and King, respectively resigned.
The names were so placed on the ballot in the following form:
“Official Ballot.
General City Election.
DeFuniak Springs, Florida.
Tuesday, July 10, 1934.
Make a Cross (X) Mark before the candidate of your choice.”
Then followed the names of candidates for Mayor, for Clerk and for Marshal, after which the following appeared:
“For Councilman.
For two-year term.
Vote for four.
J. W. Bullard.
F. E, Brooks.
A. G. Douglass.
Curry Douglass.
A. L. Hill.
W. W. Rowell.
Curtis Rutherford.
-For Councilman.
For unexpired terms of P. W. Miles ■ and Roy King.
Vote for two.
J, W. Bullard.
F. -E. Brooks. ■
A. G. Douglass.
*837Curry Douglass.
A. L. Hill.
W. W. Rowell.
Curtis Rutherford.”
These ballots were voted, canvassed and returned. Thereafter the Canvassing Board made its report and declaration. The return showed that for the two-year term Bullard received 190 votes, Brooks received 141, votes, A. G. Douglass received 224 votes, Curry Douglass received 226 votes, A. L. Hill 232 votes, W. W. Rowell 100 votes, Curtis Rutherford 162 votes and one Carpenter, whose name was written in, received 97 votes. For the unexpired terms of Miles and King, Bullard received 55 votes, Brooks 67 votes, A. G. Douglass 40 votes, Curry Douglass 58 votes, Hill 38 votes, Rowell 73 votes, Rutherford 31 votes and Carpenter 11 votes. Thereupon, Hill, Curry Douglass, A. G. Douglass and Bullard were declared elected to fill the full terms of. two years each, while Rowell and Brooks were declared elected to fill the two unexpired terms which, as we see it, was the correct determination of the matter.
The writ challenges the right of these persons so declared ■elected to hold office because it is alleged that the ballot used was so vague and indefinite that the voter could not intelligently indicate his choice and that in the casting of the ballots a great many electors voted for the same man whose name appeared on the ticket for both positions.
We do not think there is any merit in this contention. A person of ordinary intelligence should know that his ballot could not be counted at all if he voted for one man to fill both positions when the terms to be filled by such election would run concurrently, as they did in this case. His ballot would be, so far as candidates for these offices are concerned, of no effect because he has expressed no choice that *838the candidate for whom he voted should fill one place or the other. His ballot is in the same condition as one would be which being cast in,the general State election shows that the elector has marked his ballot to vote for two candidates of different parties to fill the same office.
We think that the ballot shows upon its face that it could be intelligently voted by an elector of ordinary intelligence and that it presented no cause for confusion.
The motion to quash should be granted. It is so ordered.'
Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Brown, J. J., concur specially.
(concurring).—I think the form of ballot was illegal, but that the remedy for it was mandamus to compel the preparation and submission of a legal ballot before the election was held. The election having been already held before any question was raised about it, or the declaration of its result based on the only practical way of declaring such result, I think the persons declared elected have sufficient title to the offices to withstand quo warranto.
Whitfield and Brown, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J.
(concurring).—I think the form of ballot was illegal, but that the remedy for it was mandamus to compel the preparation and submission of a legal ballot before the election was held. The election having been already held before any question was raised about it, or the declaration of its result based on the only practical way of declaring such result, I think the persons declared elected have sufficient title to the offices to withstand quo warranto.
Whitfield and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Uly O. Thompson, 120 Fla. 860 (Fla. 1935)…to seek correction of such alleged errors in the form of ballots prior to the casting by the people of the alleged irregular tickets furnished to them for voting purposes by the State. Compare: State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Hill, 116 Fla. 835, 156 Sou. Rep. 891. We pass now to a consideration of the constitutionality of Chapter 17085, Acts 1935, which has been heretofore referred to as Senate Bill No. 4. • It is urged by respondent that said Chapter 17085, supra, was neither framed nor enacted in conform…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jim Fair v. Adams, 139 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1962)…he will or not; otherwise, if he should decline, their votes will be thrown away. * * * ” Riley v. Cordell, 194 P. 2d 859. We are further buttressed in our view by the decision of this court in State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hill, 116 Fla. 835, 156 So. 891. There, in an original proceeding in quo warranto, an attack was leveled against the title to office claimed by a group of city councilmen. The ballot contained the names of seven candidates under the following heading: “For two year term Vote for…