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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.