Opinion
No. 28475.
April 21, 1953.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, RAYMOND E. LADRIERE, J.
Delworth Akers, St. Louis, for appellants. Ziercher Tzinberg, Clayton, for all respondents except respondent George Vossbrinck, Secretary of St. Louis County Board of Education.
This is a proceeding in mandamus which was instituted in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County for the purpose of challenging the certification of the results of a special election upon a proposition to consolidate two school districts into one enlarged school district.
The manner of holding the election was governed by the provisions of section 165.680 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which is a part of the law enacted in 1947 relating to the reorganization of school districts. Sections 165.657-165.707 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.
The two districts to be recognized and consolidated into the proposed enlarged school district were the School District of Valley Park and Consolidated School District No. 2. both lying wholly within St. Louis County.
After compliance had been had with all statutory conditions, respondent George Vossbrinck, Secretary of the Board of Education of St. Louis County, called the election in question for October 27, 1951. The respondents other than Vossbrinck are, respectively, the judges and clerks who were appointed by the Board to serve at the two polling places — the Mason Ridge School and the Barrett School, both in Consolidated School District No. 2 — where the disputed ballots were cast.
The form of the ballot to be used in an election upon a proposed enlarged district is prescribed by section 165.680, which also provides that the Board shall supply ballots, polling books, and all other materials required in the election.
The voting at the several polling places was apparently heavier than had been anticipated, and late in the afternoon, when the judges and clerks at the two polling places in question became aware that the ballots theretofore furnished by the Board were about to be exhausted, they so informed Vossbrinck and requested that additional ballots be supplied. As a matter of fact, the same situation was also developing at other polling places in the proposed enlarged district; and at the very time the judges and clerks of the Mason Ridge School and the Barrett School polling places were making their requests of Vossbrinck, all the members of his office force were away from the office delivering additional supplies of the regular ballots to polling places other than the two in question.
In the dilemma in which he found himself with no one available to deliver ballots to the Mason Ridge School and the Barrett School polling places, Vossbrinck called the President of the Board of Directors of Consolidated School District No. 2 over the telephone and instructed and authorized him and his Board to prepare and use additional ballots conforming in all respects with statutory requirements as to language, symbols, and arrangement, but which, instead of being printed upon a printing press, should be prepared by some form of available duplicating process. This was accordingly done; and it was shown that approximately 200 of such ballots were cast and counted at the Mason Ridge School polling place and approximately 100 at the Barrett School polling place.
The returns certified to Vossbrinck from the Mason Ridge School polling place showed 4 votes in favor of and 723 votes against the proposed enlarged district. The returns certified from the Barrett School polling place showed 14 in favor of and 239 against the proposition. The total result, which included the returns from the two polling places in question, was 1431 in favor of and 1574 against, so that the proposition lost. The statute provides, Section 165.680, that a majority affirmative vote of the total votes cast shall be required for the adoption of a proposed enlarged district. It was alleged in the petition for the writ that if the returns from the Mason Ridge School and the Barrett School polling places should be corrected by the rejection of all votes cast on the ballots prepared by the duplicating process, the proposition would then have a majority affirmative vote.
The relators are qualified voters residing in the proposed enlarged school district.
The relief sought was that respondent judges and clerks be directed to reject the votes cast upon the ballots prepared by the duplicating process and to certify what would then be the result to respondent Vossbrinck, and that the latter be directed to certify to the State Board of Education the corrected results disclosing that the proposition had carried by a majority affirmative vote of the total votes cast.
It was specifically agreed that the only question in the case was that of the legality of the ballots prepared by the duplicating process under the direction and authority of respondent Vossbrinck.
The alternative writ was ordered to issue; and following the hearing of the cause, the court denied relators their relief and ordered that the writ be quashed. Relators thereupon filed their motion for a new trial, and the same being overruled, they gave notice of appeal, and by proper successive steps have caused the case to be transferred to this court for our review.
While Section 165.680 prescribes the form of the ballots to be used at an election on a proposed enlarged district, it contains no direction whatever as to the mechanics of their preparation. It does provide, however, that such an election shall be conducted in the same manner as elections for state and county officers; and when we turn to the statutes relating to the conduct of elections, we find the requirement in Section 111.400 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., that "All ballots cast in elections for public officers within this state shall be printed". Even though it is true that Chapter 111 by its own terms excludes its application to school elections generally, Section 111.010 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., its application to an election upon a proposed enlarged district is specially authorized by the reference in Section 165.680, so that for the purpose of this case it would seem that relators are at least correct in their insistence upon the necessity for printed ballots.
But even though it was obligatory that printed ballots should have been employed, it does not follow that the ballots prepared by the duplicating process failed to satisfy such requirement. It is a well-known fact that the word "printed" has a variety of meanings depending upon the connection in which it is used. In its broadest sense the term "printed" is used in contradistinction to something prepared in script. Having due regard for the purpose to be served, we are convinced that the Legislature, in laying down the requirement that ballots should be printed, was not primarily concerned with the precise mechanical process by which such result should be accomplished, but rather with the fact that the letters, figures, and symbols appearing on the ballots should be of the character of those that are commonly and ordinarily referred to as print. In this case there is no contention that the ballots in dispute did not fully conform in language, symbols, and arrangement with those which had been prepared and supplied by Vossbrinck. Instead the only criticism is that they had been prepared upon a duplicating machine from an initial typewritten form rather than by having been run through a printing press with the impression made upon the paper by contact with inked type. The ballots in question were "printed" within the meaning of the statute, and there would be no basis in law for directing that they be rejected in determining the results of the election at which such ballots were cast.
The judgment rendered by the circuit court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
ANDERSON and HOLT, Jr., JJ., concur.