STATE EX REL BROWNE v DIST COURT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13076 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 THE STATE OF MONTANA, e x re1 JUANITA BROWNE , Petitioner, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE THIRD F JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE OF F MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE C U T O O NY F POWELL AND THE HON. ROBERT J. BOYD, DISTRICT J U D G E , Defendants . ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel o f Record: For P e t i t i o n e r : W i l l i a m R. T a y l o r a r g u e d , Deer Lodge, Montana Greg J. S k a k l e s a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana F o r Defendants : Hon. R o b e r t J. Boyd, Anaconda, Montana Ted L. Mizner a r g u e d , Deer Lodge, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : 9 J G 8 9975 P J u l y 1 5 , 1975 All G 8 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . I n t h i s o r i g i n a l proceeding p e t i t i o n e r J u a n i t a Browne s e e k s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h i s Court t o s e t a s i d e t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , county of Powell, d e c l a r i n g S t a n l e y N. Smith a s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e a t t h e e l e c t i o n f o r t r u s t e e of t h e Board of T r u s t e e s , Powell County High School D i s t r i c t . These undisputed f a c t s a r e t h e b a s i s of t h i s p e t i t i o n : O A p r i l 1, 1975, an e l e c t i o n was h e l d i n Powell County n f o r t h e e l e c t i o n of a t r u s t e e t o t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of Powell County High School D i s t r i c t . P e t i t i o n e r was s e e k i n g r e e l e c t i o n t o t h e o f f i c e and h e r name, and h e r name a l o n e , was p r i n t e d on t h e o f f i c i a l b a l l o t . C o n t e s t a n t S t a n l e y N. Smith, M.D., conducted a w r i t e - i n campaign f o r t h e o f f i c e of t r u s t e e . The board of c a n v a s s e r s f o l l o w i n g such e l e c t i o n , r e t u r n e d J u a n i t a Browne a s t h e s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e , h o l d i n g t h a t s h e r e c e i v e d 437 v o t e s a s compared t o 424 v o t e s c a s t f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith. Subsequent t o such e l e c t i o n S t a n l e y N. Smith f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r recount which a c t i o n was l a t e r dismissed. Thereafter, Smith f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o c o n t e s t p e t i t i o n e r ' s e l e c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h e e l e c t i o n judges and t h e board of c a n v a s s e r s ignored and r e f u s e d t o count f o r him approximately 25 w r i t e - i n v o t e s i n t h e name of D r . Smith, D r . Stan Smith, D r . G. Smith and D r . M. Smith, i n s t e a d of S t a n l e y N. that the court Smith. The p e t i t i o n prayed d e c l a r e t h e e l e c t i o n of J u a n i t a Browne v o i d and t h a t a c e r t i f i c a t e of e l e c t i o n be i s s u e d t o S t a n l e y N. Smith. J u a n i t a Browne f i l e d an answer, r a i s i n g two a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s : (1) That even i f t h e 25 v o t e s were counted f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith, he would s t i l l n o t be e n t i t l e d t o t h e o f f i c e of t r u s t e e , a s a number of i l l e g a l n o t e s were e r r o n e o u s l y counted f o r him, which number i f taken from h i s t o t a l count would reduce h i s number of l e g a l v o t e s below t h e number of v o t e s given J u a n i t a Browne and t h e r e f o r e h e r e l e c t i o n could n o t be s e t a s i d e under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 23-4764, R.C.M. S t a n l e y N. 1947. (2) That Smith was n o t e n t i t l e d t o such o f f i c e because of v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 23-4753, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : "It s h a l l be unlawful f o r any person a t any p l a c e on t h e day of any e l e c t i o n t o a s k , s o l i c i t , o r i n any manner t r y t o induce o r persuade any v o t e r on such e l e c t i o n day t o v o t e f o r o r r e f r a i n from v o t i n g f o r any c a n d i d a t e * *." The m a t t e r came on f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Judge of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Every b a l l o t c a s t was s t i p u l a t e d i n t o evidence by s e g r e g a t i n g i n t o s e p a r a t e groups b a l l o t s c o n t a i n i n g s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and each t h e n b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d an e x h i b i t . The 434 v o t e s c a s t f o r J u a n i t a Browne were n o t a t i s s u e ; S t a n l e y N. A s a part Smith's candidacy was by w r i t e - i n v o t e . of h i s campaign, s t i c k e r s were p r i n t e d and d i s t r i b u t e d which c o n t a i n e d t h e name S t a n l e y N. Smith, M.D., box w i t h a s m a l l x p r i n t e d i n s i d e t h e box. and c o n t a i n i n g a O t h e day of t h e n e l e c t i o n , A p r i l 1, 1975, t h e e l e c t i o n committee s u p p o r t i n g ' S t a n l e y N. Smith, parked a t r u c k approximately 300 f e e t from t h e Deer Lodge p r e c i n c t p o l l i n g p l a c e b e a r i n g two s i g n s r e a d i n g " S t i c k e r s f o r Doctor smith" o r words t o t h a t e f f e c t . Of t h e v o t e s counted f o r Smith, approximately 180 b a l l o t s c o n t a i n e d t h e s t i c k e r r e f e r r e d t o above and were n o t placed over t h e name of J u a n i t a Browne and c o n t a i n e d no X o r mark by t h e v o t e r . I n a d d i t i o n , 10 b a l l o t s counted f o r Smith con- t a i n e d h i s name w r i t t e n i n by hand b u t c o n t a i n e d no X i n t h e box i n f r o n t of t h e name of J u a n i t a Browne o r S t a n l e y N. These b a l l o t s counted f o r S t a n l e y N. Smith d i d n o t conform t o t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 23-3606(2), ( 4 ) , R.C.M. provide : Smith. 1947, which "(2) He s h a l l p r e p a r e h i s b a l l o t by marking an I X I i n t h e square b e f o r e t h e name of t h e person o r persons f o r whom he i n t e n d s t o vote. "(4) The e l e c t o r may write i n t h e blank s p a c e s , o r p a s t e over any o t h e r name, t h e name of any person f o r whom he wishes t o v o t e , and v o t e f o r t h a t person by marking an ' X I b e f o r e t h e name. I I A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g proposed f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclus i o n s of law and memorandum i n support were submitted by both parties. O June 3 , 1975, Hon. Robert J. Boyd i s s u e d h i s n f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law holding t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n judges impmpei!lycounted S t a n l e y N. t h e v o t e s r e f e r r e d t o above f o r Smith; t h a t he r e c e i v e d a m a j o r i t y of t h e v o t e s c a s t a t such e l e c t i o n and was e n t i t l e d t o t h e o f f i c e of t r u s t e e . He then ordered t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law c o n s t i t u t e d t h e judgment i n such m a t t e r and ordered t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of Powell County High School D i s t r i c t t o f o r t h w i t h i s s u e t o S t a n l e y N. Smith a c e r t i f i c a t e of e l e c t i o n . Here, p e t i t i o n e r a s k s t h i s Court t o determine whether or n o t t h e s t i c k e r w i t h a premarked "x" i s a l e g a l marked ballot. Defendant d i s t r i c t c o u r t argues t h i s Court must determine and c a r r y i n t o e f f e c t t h e expressed w i l l of t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e l e g a l v o t e r s , a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r v o t e , n o t r e g a r d i n g techn i c a l i t i e s o r e r r o r s , and c i t e s Heyfron v. Mahoney, 9 Mont. 497, 24 P. 93 and Peterson v. B i l l i n g s , 109 Mont. 390, 394, 96 P.2d 922. I n Peterson t h i s Court noted: "'1t has always been h e l d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t i f t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e v o t e r can be f a i r l y a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e b a l l o t , though n o t i n s t r i c t conformity w i t h t h e "' law, e f f e c t w i l l be given t o t h a t i n t e n t i o n . * *. F u r t h e r , defendant argues holding t o s t r i c t compliance w i t h t h e law was e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i c i t l y overruled by Peterson and t h a t Peterson holds t h e method of marking t h e b a l l o t i s d i r e c t o r y and n o t mandatory, f o r i t allowed b a l l o t s t o be counted which were n o t only " ~ d "o u t s i d e t h e square b e f o r e t h e candidate!k name, b u t a l s o counted b a l l o t s marked w i t h a V I1 mark. I1 Peterson and two e a r l i e r c a s e s c i t e d a s b e i n g e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i c i t l y o v e r r u l e d , Dickerman v. Gelsthorpe, 19 Mont. 249, 47 P. 999; Corwile v. Jones, 38 Mont. 590,101 P. 153, d i s c u s s e d t h e marking o f t h e b a l l o t and i n each t h e r e had been a d i s t i n c t marking of t h e b a l l o t by a v o t e r . Here, t h e mark on some 180 v o t e s was t h e mark of a p r i n t e r . The 1969 Montana l e g i s l a t i v e assembly enacted Chapter 368, whereby t h e e l e c t i o n laws of t h e s t a t e were r e w r i t t e n . The laws were n o t copied nor taken from a n o t h e r source o r s t a t e . Chapter 368, Laws 1969, enacted t h e s e s e c t i o n s of t h e Montana code r e l a t i v e t o t h e manner i n which an e l e c t o r c a s t s a v o t e o r marks a b a l l o t : R e g i s t r a r t o provide p r i n t e d ballots--marking "23-3506. by e l e c t o r s - - o t h e r b a l l o t s i n e f f e c t i v e . Except a s o t h e r wise provided i n t h i s a c t : 11 (1) The r e g i s t r a r s h a l l provide p r i n t e d b a l l o t s f o r every e l e c t i o n f o r p u b l i c o f f i c e r s . He s h a l l p r i n t on t h e b a l l o t t h e names of a l l c a n d i d a t e s , i n c l u d i n g c a n d i d a t e s f o r c h i e f j u s t i c e and a s s o c i a t e j u s t i c e s of t h e supreme c o u r t , and judges of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s ; n " ( 2 ) A e l e c t o r may w r i t e o r p a s t e on h i s b a l l o t t h e name of any person f o r whom he d e s i r e s t o v o t e f o r any o f f i c e , b u t must mark i t a s provided i n s e c t i o n 233606. When t h e b a l l o t i s marked i n t h i s manner i t must be counted t h e same a s though t h e name i s p r i n t e d upon t h e b a l l o t and marked by t h e v o t e r ; "(3) B a l l o t s o t h e r than t h o s e p r i n t e d by t h e r e g i s t r a r s may n o t be c a s t o r counted i n any e l e c t i o n . II "23-3515. Stub, s i z e and c o n t e n t s . (1) The b a l l o t s h a l l be p r i n t e d on t h e same l e a f w i t h a s t u b , and s e p a r a t e d by a p e r f o r a t e d s t u b . "(3) Upon t h e f a c e of t h e s t u b s h a l l be p r i n t e d , i n type c a l l e d b r e v i e r c a p i t a l s , t h e following: his b a l l o t should b e marked w i t h an "Xu "(a) i n t h e square b e f o r e t h e names of each person o r cand i d a t e f o r whom t h e e l e c t o r i n t e n d s t o v o t e . The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n blank s p a c e s , o r p a s t e over a n o t h e r name, t h e name of a EeEson f o r whom he wishes t o v o t e , and v o t e by marking an X i n t h e square b e f o r e t h e name. ' 9 ~ " ,. "23-3606. Xethod o f v o t i n g . (1) O r e c e i p t o f h i s n b a l l o t , t h e e l e c t o r must immediately r e t i r e t o one of t h e booths and p r e p a r e h i s b a l l o t . "(2) He s h a l l p r e p a r e h i s b a l l o t by marking an I X ' i n t h e s q u a r e b e f o r e t h e name of t h e person o r persons f o r whom he i n t e n d s t o v o t e . (4) The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n t h e b l a n k s p a c e s , o r p a s t e over any o t h e r name, t h e name of any person f o r whom he wishes t o v o t e , and v o t e f o r t h a t person by marking an 'x' b e f o r e t h e name. 11 " I n Dunphy v. Anaconda Co., 151 Mont. 76, 79, 438 P.2d G60, t h i s Court d i s c u s s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t a t u t e s and h e l d : "9; c ; ' +< In c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e : L e g i s l a t u r e i s c o n t r o l l i n g . + 9: -'- Although v a r i o u s r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n have been developed and employed i n d i v e r s e c a s e s t h a t have come b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t i n t h e p a s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t o b e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i n determining l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . The i n c e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must f i r s t b e determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e can be s o determined, t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and apply any o t h e r means of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 9: Where t h e language of a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , unambiguo u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o c o n s t r u e . The f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i s simply t o a s c e r t a i n and dec l a r e what i n terms o r i n s u b s t a n c e i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been omitted. I n s h o r t , i t i s simply t h e d u t y of t h e Supreme Court t o c o n s t r u e t h e law a s i t f i n d s i t . it " 4b ** ** ** * *. I n a r e c e n t opinion on t h e q u e s t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s t h e a c t o f v o t i n g t h i s Court h e l d t h a t v o t i n g i s t h e a f f i r m a t i v e a c t of marking t h e b a l l o t . S t a t e ex r e l . Cashmore v. Anderson, 160 Mont. 175, 500 P.2d 921. When a p p l i e d t o t h e school e l e c t i o n h e r e i n q u e s t i o n s e c t i o n 75-5915, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : *** "Conduct of E l e c t i o n and B a l l o t . The t r u s t e e e l e c t i o n b a l l o t s s h a l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e f o l lowing form: "OFFICIAL BALLOT "SCHOOL TRUSTEE ELECTION "1NSTKIJCTIONS TO VOTERS: Make an X o r s i m i l a r mark i n t h e vacant s q u a r e b e f o r e t h e name of t h e c a n d i d a t e *I' f o r whom you wish t o v o t e . ** L'he s c a t u t e c a l l s f o r flhe v o c e r t o make '?is mark; an a s f i r m a t i v e a c ~ s c a l l e d f o r t o s i g n i f y h i s s e l e c t i o n , n o t a premarked b a l l o t i :uark of a p r i n t e r . W n o t e t h a t some 1-73 s t i c k e r s were i m p r o p e r l y p l a c e d e dn t h e b a l l o t which i n i t s e l f i s a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e e l e c t i o n laws. x.C.M. Where s t i c k e r s a r e u s e d s e c t i o n 23-3606 ( 4 ) , 1947, p r o v i d e s : " ( 4 ) The e l e c t o r may w r i t e i n t h e b l a n k s p a c e s , o r p a s t e o v e r any o t h e r name, t h e name o f any p e r s o n Eor whom h e w i s h e s t o v o t e , and n o t e f o r t h a t p e r s o n by marking an ' X ' b e f o r e t h e name. 11 !.mproprr a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s e s t i c k e r s t o t k b a l l o t s r e n d e r s them i n v a l i d . The p r o v i s i o n s of ~ o n t a n a ' se l e c t i o n laws a s t o t h e marking o f r h e b a l l o t and t h e u s e of s t i c k e r s a r e mandatory and n o t directory. Here, w h i l e t h e v o t e r s may have i n t e n d e d t o v o t e t o r Smith, t h i s Court i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o validate those S a l l o t s when v o t e r s f a i l t o mark them i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d by statute. Having d e t e r m i n e d t h e m a t t e r on t h e above d i s c u s s e d i s s u e , w e firrd no need t o c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by p e t i t i o n e r a s co t h e conduct of t h e campaign on e l e c t i o n day. The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and judgment of d e f e n d a n t d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e o r d e r e d v a c a t e d and t h e m a t t e r r e r u r n e d t o t h a t c o u r t f o r e n t r y of judgment i n c o n f o r m i t y h e r e w i t h . thief Justice 'l.-J." Yr. J u s ~ i c eTdesley Z a s c l e s dissenting: L dissent. ! t h i n k t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i s much t o o narrow i n c o r ~ s t r u i n gt h e e l e c t i o n laws. I would l o o k t o t h e i n t e n t m d a c t of t h e v o t e r i n p a s t i n g on t h e s t i c k e r . was c o r r e c t i n e v e r y d e t a i l , and I would a f f i r m . Justice. U Judge Boyd
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
