Reed v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Deason

    88 So. 2d 674 (Ala. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    Not being so listed the electors had the right to write in the name of a person in the proper place on the ballots. Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498. Fite Wilson, Tweedy Beech and Hoyt Elliott, Jasper, for appellee.

  2. Sorensen TV Sys. v. Superior Court of Guam

    2006 WL 3826971 (Guam 2006)   Cited 5 times

    o canvass election returns.") (citations omitted)); Ex parte Krages, 689 So. 2d 799, 805 (Ala. 1997); (noting that "[t]he duty to canvass election returns and certify a winner is ministerial in nature" and explaining that, in a situation where the law required a municipal governing body to canvass election returns and issue a certificate of election, "the judiciary may not order a municipal governing body to disobey or disregard its clearly expressed statutory duty") see also Kumalae v. Kalauokalani, 25 Haw. 1 (1919) (stating that "the duty of the canvassing officer in the matter of canvassing the returns . . . is purely ministerial."); Goff v. Kimbrel, 849 P.2d 914, 917 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993) (stating that "the canvassing board had a duty to certify the election results as they were certified by the election judges on the returns, and since its canvassing duties are ministerial in nature, mandamus is proper when a canvassing board refused to perform its duty to certify an election."); Reed v. State ex rel. Davis, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498, 500 (Ala. 1937) ("It is well settled that the duties of election inspectors are purely ministerial, and that mandamus is the appropriate writ to compel them to perform their duties . . . .").IV.

  3. Miller v. Burley

    155 W. Va. 681 (W. Va. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    State v. Canvassing Board, 85 W. Va. 440, 102 S.E. 104. See Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498; Sanner v. Patton, 155 Ill. 553, 40 N.E. 290; McCrary on Elections, 4th Ed., Sec. 700. "We conclude that a legal voter may cast a ballot for any qualified and eligible person by writing the name of such person on the official ballot at such place and in a manner that the intention of the voter is indicated as to the person and office for which the vote is cast."

  4. Morgan v. State

    194 So. 2d 820 (Ala. 1967)   Cited 16 times

    State ministerial officials cannot question the validity of a state statute. Reed v. State ex rel. Davis, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498; Dillon v. Hamilton, 230 Ala. 310, 160 So. 708. Code, Tit. 51, Section 613, contains a legal and valid conclusive presumption which must be given effect by the State Department of Revenue. People v. La Crosse, 5 Cal.App.2d 696, 43 P.2d 596; City of New Port Richey v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md., 105 F.2d 348, 123 A.L.R. 1352; In Re Conorer, 163 Misc. 599, 297 N.Y.S. 577; Id. 252 App. Div. 917, 300 N.Y.S. 1357, 162 A.L.R. 517. A constitutional issue can be presented only by a party adversely affected thereby.

  5. Reid v. City of Birmingham

    274 Ala. 629 (Ala. 1963)   Cited 31 times
    Noting that, if there is no controversy, or "conflicting interests," between the plaintiff and a defendant, " โ€˜the case is likely to be characterized as one for an advisory opinion, ... and hence not justiciableโ€™ " (quoting E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 29-30)

    An objection to the form of ballot not raised until after the election comes too late to be available. 29 C.J.S. Elections ยง 173, p. 248; Oncken v. Ewing, 336 Pa. 43, 8 A.2d 402; Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498; Bolt v. Cobb, 225 S.C. 408, 82 S.E.2d 789. A general law will not repeal by implication a local law โ€” a law affecting a limited territory, although in form a general law.

  6. Homan v. State

    89 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 1956)   Cited 10 times
    In Homan v. State ex rel. Smith, 265 Ala. 17, 89 So.2d 184, this court upheld the order of the Circuit Court of Colbert County, granting the mandamus.

    38 C.J. 721; 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, ยง 50, p. 84. Town Council of Guntersville v. Henry, 222 Ala. 474, 133 So. 5; Gordon v. State ex rel. Cole, 237 Ala. 113, 185 So. 889. The proceeding is properly brought in the name of the State on the relation of one or more interested persons. Marshall County Board of Education v. State, 252 Ala. 547, 42 So.2d 24; Gray v. State ex rel. Garrison, 231 Ala. 229, 164 So. 293; Kendrick v. State, 256 Ala. 206, 54 So.2d 442; Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 493. LAWSON, Justice.

  7. State v. Stacy

    82 So. 2d 264 (Ala. 1955)   Cited 7 times

    Write-in votes are authorized by statute. Reed v. State ex rel. Davis, 234 Ala. 306, 308, 174 So. 498; Code 1940, Tit. 17, ยงยง 155, 162, 193. To be elected to office it is not required that a person receive a majority of all votes cast, but that he receive a majority of the legal votes cast. Reed v. State ex rel. Davis, supra.

  8. McCoy v. Fisher

    136 W. Va. 447 (W. Va. 1951)   Cited 10 times

    State v. Canvassing Board, 85 W. Va. 440, 102 S.E. 104. See Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498; Sanner v. Patton, 115 Ill. 553, 40 N.E. 290; McCrary on Elections, 4th Ed., Sec. 700. "We conclude that a legal voter may cast a ballot for any qualified and eligible person by writing the name of such person on the official ballot at such place and in a manner that the intention of the voter is indicated as to the person and office for which the vote is cast."

  9. Walker v. Junior

    24 So. 2d 431 (Ala. 1946)   Cited 17 times

    Our election law does authorize an elector desiring to vote for a person whose name does not appear upon the official ballot to do so by writing the name of such person in a proper place thereon, ยง 162, Title 17, Code 1940, but this character of voting presupposes the distribution and use of an official ballot, viz., in this case, a ballot provided or caused to be provided by the mayor as the law directs. Of such import are the decisions in Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498, and Garrett v. Cunninghame, 211 Ala. 430, 100 So. 845, and in each case it was indicated that an official ballot, namely, the ballot caused to be printed and distributed by the persons authorized by law so to do, was used and the decisions must rest on this theory. As to the mere irregularities in the preparation of that ballot by such officials, it was aptly observed in the Reed case [ 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 500], "the right of the electors could not be restricted by the error of the official upon whom the law imposed the duty of preparing and having printed the ballots for the election," and in the Garrett case [ 211 Ala. 430, 100 So. 854], that such ballots may not be rejected if that conduct (of the election officials) did not prevent "a fair, free and full exercise of the elective franchise as to the office in question."

  10. Brannon v. Perkey

    127 W. Va. 103 (W. Va. 1944)   Cited 32 times
    In Brannon v. Perkey, 127 W. Va. 103, 31 S.E.2d 898, this Court held that Brannon was not entitled to be inducted into the office of city attorney of the City of Weston even though he had been elected to the office since he failed to take the oath of office within the time prescribed by the council of that city.

    State v. Canvassing Board, 85 W. Va. 440, 102 S.E. 104. See Reed v. State, 234 Ala. 306, 174 So. 498; Sanner v. Patton, 155 Ill. 553, 40 N.E. 290; McCrary on Elections, 4th Ed., Sec. 700. We conclude that a legal voter may cast a ballot for any qualified and eligible person by writing the name of such person on the official ballot at such place and in a manner that the intention of the voter is indicated as to the person and office for which the vote is cast.