Culpepper v. Mathews

McCulloch, C. J. This appeal involves a contest over the Democratic nomination for the office of sheriff: of Grant County, appellant and appellee and another person being the rival candidates. Appellee was returned as the successful candidate, and a certificate of nomination was awarded to him. Appellant instituted the contest, alleging fraud in the issuance of poll-tax receipts and in counting the returns of the votes cast, and he filed with his complaint the supporting affidavit of twelve persons, purporting to be reputable citizens of the county and members of the Democratic Party. Appellee filed a special plea, challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the supporting affidavit was not made by ten persons qualified under the statute, in that some of them were not members of the Democratic Party. The case was heard by the court on oral testimony concerning the political status of the persons signing the affidavits, and, after hearing the evidence, the court sustained the motion and dismissed appellant’s complaint. There were twelve persons who signed the affidavit, and there was evidence tending to show that four of them were not members of the Democratic Party, but, on the contrary, were members of the Republican P'arty. While there was some testimony to the effect that these men, or some of them, were at times permitted to vote in the Democratic primary, there was evidence tending to show that they had openly declared themselves to be Republicans and affiliated with that party, some of them having voted for the Republican candidates at the pre-‘ ceding election, and others having attended Republican conventions and served on committees in the organization. of that party. The evidence was legally sufficient to warrant the finding by the court that each of these four men were Republicans and not Democrats. There was another one of the persons whose political status was challenged as a Democrat — a man named Jeff coat — and it was claimed that he was a Socialist, and not a Democrat. The testimony against him is manifestly weaker in degree than that against the others, and we need not discuss the question whether or not the evidence is sufficient to show that he is not a Democrat. We have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding that the four persons alleged to be Republicans were, in fact, members of that party, and, since the elimination of their names reduces the number of the affiants to eight, which is below the statutory number required, it is unnecessary to determine whether any more of the affiants were lacking in qualifications. The statute (Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 3772) provides, in substance, that the complaint in a contest for a nomination “shall be supported by the affidavit of at least ten reputable citizens, and shall be filed within ten days of the certification complained of.” We decided in Simmons v. Terral, 145 Ark. 585, that the word “citizens ’ ’ as used in the statute is synonymous with the word “electors,” and in Ferguson v. Montgomery, 148 Ark. 83, we held that the language used in the section of the statute referred to clearly implies that the affiants must be members of the same political party with the contestant. In Logan v. Russell, 136 Ark. 217, it was held that the filing of the supporting affidavits within ten days, as required by statute, was essential in order to give the court jurisdiction to entertain the contest. At the trial of the case there was introduced in evidence a copy of the rules of the Democratic Party, and it appears therefrom that § 2 of the rules provides that membership in the party “shall consist of all eligible and legally qualified white electors, both male and female, who have openly declared their allegiance to the principles and policies of the Democratic Party, as-set forth in the platform of the last preceding Democratic National and 'State convention, who have supported the Democratic nominees in the last preceding elections, and who are in sympathy with the success of the Democratic Party in the next succeeding' election.” This is a very broad definition, and we think the court was warranted in finding that the four persons named as being Republicans were such, in fact, and that they were not Democrats within the qualifications prescribed by the rules of the party. It will be observed that, in order to become qualified to vote in a Democratic primary, a person must not only be a qualified elector and shall have supported the Democratic nominees in the last preceding election, but must also be one who has openly declared his allegiance to the principles and polices of the Democratic Party, and must be in sympathy with the success of the party at the next succeeding election. We decided in Ferguson v. Montgomery, supra, and in Crawford v. Harmon, 149 Ark. 343, that the rules of the party are controlling in determining the political status of one who claims the right to vote, or to sign the supporting affidavits in a contest. There being sufficient evidence to support the finding of the court, there is no error in the proceedings, and the judgment must be affirmed.