McCormick v. Bd. of Elections

5 Citing cases

  1. Griffin v. Burns

    570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1978)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that `due process is implicated where the entire election process — including as part thereof the state's administrative and judicial corrective process — fails to afford fundamental fairness'

    No opinion was filed with the April 27 order of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, but six months later the court issued a comprehensive written opinion. McCormick v. State Board of Elections, R.I., 378 A.2d 1061 (Oct. 20, 1977). The Rhode Island Supreme Court, with two of its five members dissenting, interpreted the absence of express reference to party primaries in the statute authorizing absentee and shut-in voting as a clear indication that such ballots were not legally authorized in primaries.

  2. Dias v. Portsmouth Water & Fire District

    534 A.2d 178 (R.I. 1987)

    "The electors of this state who, for any of the reasons set forth in § 17-20-2, being otherwise qualified to vote are unable to vote in person[,] shall have the right to vote, in the manner and the time provided by this chapter, in all general and special elections and primaries." In McCormick v. Rhode Island State Board of Elections, 119 R.I. 384, 378 A.2d 1061 (1977), this court examined the history of § 17-20-1. We ruled that the statute, as written, is clear and unambiguous and leaves no room for construction.

  3. Devine v. State of R.I.

    827 F. Supp. 852 (D.R.I. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court had held that although the absentee and shut-in ballots had been distributed in accordance with past practice, there was no statutory basis for the casting of such ballots in a primary election. See McCormick v. State Board of Elections, 119 R.I. 384, 378 A.2d 1061 (1977). In my view, the record before the Court in this case does not provide the kind of specific evidence necessary for the Court to find, as a matter of fact, that the confusion surrounding the official Sample Ballots and the actual ballots affected the outcome of the election.

  4. Navedo v. Acevedo

    752 F. Supp. 523 (D.P.R. 1990)   Cited 11 times

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that there was no basis under Rhode Island law to allow absentee ballot voting in primary elections. McCormick v. State Board of Elections, 119 R.I. 384, 378 A.2d 1061 (1977). The results of the primary were reversed, and a new winner was designated.

  5. Gomes v. R.I. State Bd. of Elections

    120 R.I. 951 (R.I. 1978)   Cited 10 times

    Berberian v. Town of Westerly, 119 R.I. 593, 597, 381 A.2d 1039, 1042 (1978). See also McCormick v. State Board of Elections, 119 R.I. 384, 387, 378 A.2d 1061, 1063 (1977); Nugent ex rel. Manning v. LaFrance, 91 R.I. 398, 402, 164 A.2d 230, 232 (1960), citing Brown Sharpe Manufacturing Co. v. Dean, 89 R.I. 108, 116-17, 151 A.2d 354, 358 (1959); State v. Duggan, 15 R.I. 403, 409, 6 A. 787, 788 (1886). We must give a literal effect to § 17-12-11.