Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

253 Ala. 684

Ex parte May

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1950

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1950-06-15

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1974

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Whereas, the final returns from the Democratic Primary Election held May 2, 1950, show that Neil O. Davis, Jack M. Bridges, W. L. Horn and Grover C. Hughes and each of them were duly elected as members of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama from the Third Congressional District of Alabama for the term beginning on Monday, January 15, 1951; and “Whereas, on January 3, 1951, a subcommittee of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama rendered its finding and judgment that the said four named members and each of them were not duly and legally elected to such membership; and “Whereas, it has been proved- to this Committee that the finding of said subcommittee was arrived at by a majority of -one or a vote of three to two, and that there was no evidence to support said findings and that said subcommittee misapplied the law to the facts; that said subcommittee actually counted less than 2500 ballots cast in said primary election for the office of member of said State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama from the Third Congressional District; that no fraud, corruption or crookedness in said election were proved, to said subcommittee and that there has been no evidence of any such; that the conclusion of said subcommittee and its finding and judgment would result in destroying the sanctity of the ballot and in disfranchising the voters of the Third Congressional District of Alabama ; that such conclusion, finding and judgment is not final and binding a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Prather v. Ray

““The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to prevent the executive committees of political parties and the sub-committees thereof from proceeding in election contests, where such committees or sub-committees do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such contests. Such is the effect of Ex parte State ex rel. Bragg, 240 Ala. 80 , 197 So. 32 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Perloff v. Edington

Relies on Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Bragg

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1950-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ directed to Honorable Bowen W. Simmons, Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County, requiring him to desist from proceeding further in a matter pending in his court wherein a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ is sought forbidding the members of a sub-committee of the State Democratic Executive Committee to hear and determine a 'contest of the election of Jack M. Bridges, Neil O. Davis, W. L. Horn, and G. C. Hughes to the State Democratic Executive Committee from the Third Congressional District of Alabama.

¶2The petition filed here makes exhibits thereto the following: (1) the statement of contest filed before the State Democratic Executive Committee as to the election of Neil O. Davis, which the petition alleges is typical of the statements of contest filed against Bridges, Horn and Hughes; (2) the statement filed by the contestees with the sub-committee challenging its jurisdiction to hear and decide the contest; (3) the petition for writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ filed before the Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County by the contestees; (4) the order of said Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County commanding the members of the said sub-committee to desist from proceeding further with the hearing of the contest, or else show cause on July 20, 1950, why a writ of prohibition should not issue restraining and perpetually forbidding each of the members of said committee from proceeding further with the contest.

¶3The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to prevent the executive committees of political parties and the sub-committees thereof from proceeding in- election contests, where such committees or sub-committees do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such contests. Such is the effect of Ex parte State ex rel. Bragg, 240 Ala. 80, 197 So. 32.

¶4We hold that the averments of Paragraph 14 of the petition presented to *685the circuit court were sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction to issue the rule nisi. The averments of Paragraph 14 are to the effect that the statements of contest were not filed by the contestants with the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama, and the required sum to cover the costs and expenses of said contest was not deposited with the said Chairman within fifteen days after the result of said primary election had been declared. If such averments arc true, then the sub-committee was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the contest. In our opinion, all the other grounds of the petition presented to the Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County were insufficient to invoke its jurisdiction in the premises.

¶5The prayer for the rule nisi is denied and the petition dismissed.

¶6Writ denied.

BROWN, FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, LAWSON, SIMPSON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.
/253/ala/684 · .json · Public domain