STATE, EX REL. HELEN HUNT WEST, ET VIR.,
v.
ROBERT A. GRAY, SECRETARY OF STATE, J. M. LEE, STATE COMPTROLLER, AND CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE STATE CANVASSING BOARD OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS, AND ROBERT A. GRAY, AS SECRETARY OF STATE
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 denied a writ of mandamus, holding that the relatrix failed to demonstrate her entitlement to have her name certified for a party position in a primary election. The court emphasized the need for proper party resolutions and adherence to statutory requirements.
No, the relatrix's petition fails to show that the Democratic Party's State Executive Committee declared for the selection of candidates for the position by resolution, nor does it establish her entitlement under such a resolution, thus a writ of mandamus cannot be granted.
“In this case the alternative writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice because the petition for the writ fails to show that the State Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of which relatrix is a member has declared for the selection at the 1936 primary election of candidates of the Democratic Party for the party position of Democratic National Committeewoman by the adoption of a resolution to that effect in accordance with Section 389 C. G. L., 332 R. G. S., within the time required by law, nor does the relatrix' petition show that if such resolution was so adopted and filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to law, that relatrix is entitled under the law and the terms of such resolution to have her name certified to be voted on in the second primary election of June 23, 1936, in view of the allegations of the petition for alternative writ showing the results of the primary election held June 2, 1936.”
This quote explains the primary reason for denying the writ: the failure to demonstrate the necessary party resolution and the relatrix's entitlement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relatrix sought a writ of mandamus to have her name certified for the position of Democratic National Committeewoman in a primary election. Her pe…
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.
In this case the alternative writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice because the petition for the writ fails to show that the State Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of which relatrix is a member has declared for the selection at the 1936 primary election of candidates of the Democratic Party for the party position of Democratic National Committeewoman by the adoption of a resolution to that effect in accordance with Section 389 C. G. L., 332 R. G. S., within the time required by law, nor does the relatrix’ petition show that if such resolution was so adopted and filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to law, that relatrix is entitled under the law and the terms of such resolution to have her name certified to be voted on in the second primary election of June 23, 1936, in view of the allegations of the petition for alternative writ showing the results of the primary election held June 2, 1936.
The position of Democratic National Committeewoman is a party position, not a duly created public office of the State, or under its jurisdiction. The “selection” by the Democratic Party of a candidate to hold such position is not required, but simply authorized to be made, at a primary election if so declared for by the State Executive Committee by appropriate resolution duly passed and timely filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to law. The resolution not being before the Court, if there is one, no prima facie case for an alternative writ is made to appear.
*530Alternative writ denied without prejudice.
Whitfield, C. J., Ellis, and Terrell, Brown, Davis and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alexander v. Booth, 56 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1952)…r select Delegates to the National Convention, when the subject matter is not regulated or controlled by Statute. See Stanford et al. v. Butler et al., 142 Tex. 692, 181 S.W. 2d 269, 153 A.L.R. 1054; State ex rel. West v. Gray, Sec. of State et al., 124 Fla. 528, 169 So. 36; Smith et al. v. McQueen, 232 Ala. 90, 166 So. 788; State ex rel. Traer et al. v. Gray, Sec. of State, 154 Fla. 861, 19 So. 2d 311. National Committeemen and National Committeewomen and Delegates to a National Convention are party offic…