THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. FRED H. DAVIS, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, RELATOR,
v.
R. C. HOWELL, RESPONDENT
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 election of R. C. Howell as sheriff of Putnam County following the death of the incumbent sheriff just days before the November 4, 1930 general election. The Court rejected the State Attorney General's quo warranto challenge, finding that the constitutional requirement to elect a sheriff for the vacant office was satisfied despite votes being cast in only 16 of 26 election districts.
The Court held that the election of Howell as sheriff was validly accomplished as contemplated by the Florida Constitution. The fact that the sheriff's death occurred so near the election that the office could not have been properly included on pre-printed ballots did not deprive voters of their constitutional right to vote for a sheriff by writing in the office and name and making an appropriate mark. The substantial vote cast for sheriff in 16 districts, considering the entire vote cast, satisfied the constitutional requirement.
“If the death of the sheriff occurred so near the election that under the statute the proper officers could not have had an appropriate space on the election ballots prepared for votes for sheriff, this did not deprive the voters of the right under the constitution to vote for a sheriff for the unexpired term, and they could do so by appropriately writing the office and a name on the ballots and making a proper x mark thereon.”
Establishes that proximity of the death to election day did not invalidate the election; voters retained constitutional right to write-in votes for sheriff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe incumbent sheriff of Putnam County died on October 24, 1930, creating a vacancy in an elective office. At the general election held November 4, 19…
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.
An “amended answer and plea” repeats the averments that the respondent was duly elected sheriff at the general election held November 4, 1930, to fill the unexpired term, referring to the certificate of the county canvassing board certifying the election of respondent and made a part of the answer and plea.
By replication to respondent’s amended answer and plea it appears that at the general election held November 4, 1930, votes were cast for sheriff in sixteen of the twenty-six election districts of Putnam county, the total of such votes being 357 of which the respondent received 345. The highest vote cast for any office at the election was 1194.
The constitution provides that a general election shall be'held in each county in this State on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, A. D. 1898, and every two years thereafter, for all elective State and county officers whose terms of office are about to expire, or for any elective office that shall have become vacant. Section 9, Article XVIII as amended in 1896.
The incumbent sheriff died October 24, 1930, and the general election was held under the constitution November 4, 1930. There being a vacancy in the elective office of sheriff of the county, the constitution required a sheriff to be elected at the general election. 'If the death of the sheriff occurred so near the election that under the statute the proper officers could not have had an appropriate space on the election ballots prepared for votes for sheriff, this did not deprive the voters of the right under the constitution to vote for a sheriff for the *658unexpired term, and they eonld do so by appropriately writing the office and a name on the ballots and making a proper x mark thereon.
A sheriff was not voted for in all the election districts of the county but a sheriff was voted for in 16 of the 26 election districts and the vote cast was a substantial one considering the entire vote east.
The county canvassing board canvassed the returns and declared the election of the respondent as sheriff; and it cannot fairly be said on the showing made that the election of a sheriff was not accomplished as contemplated by the constitution.
When these quo warranto proceedings were instituted the- respondent had been elected for the unexpired term, as- shown by the answer, and as more fully shown by the replication. It further appears by an amendment to the answer • that the respondent has 'qualified to hold the office of sheriff as required by Section 14, Article IV., Constitution.
By amendment to respondent’s amended answer and plea, it appears a commission dated January 19, 1931, has been issued to respondent R. C. Howell, as Sheriff of Putnam County, Florida, pursuant to Section 7, Article VIII., and Section 14, Article IV., Constitution, predicated upon his election as Sheriff of Putnam County, . Florida, at the general election of November 4, A. D. 1930.
The demurrer to the replication is sustained and the writ dismissed.
Strum, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J.J., concur..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tappy v. State, 82 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1955)…; State [ex rel. Miller} v. Hadley, 27 Ind. 496; Flatan v. State [ex rel. Edwards] 56 Tex. 93.” State ex rel. Wallace v. Callow, 78 Mont. 308, 254 P. 187, 194. Accord State ex rel. Law v. Saxon, 25 Fla. 792, 6 So. 858; State ex rel. Davis v. Howell, 101 Fla. 656, 132 So. 647. To hold otherwise would be to recognize that qualification officials have the power, on grounds wholly out of their sphere of competence, to frustrate and set at naught constitutional executive power that has been lawfully exercised.…