183 S.W.2d 39 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1944
Affirming.
This action was instituted under KRS
The sole ground of contest alleged in the petition was that the election commissioners appointed the election officers on March 23, 1944, which was 18 days before the election was held on April 10, 1944, while KRS
The court did not favor us with a written opinion giving the reasons for his judgment. It is argued in briefs that he based it on the ground that the provision of KRS
This decision by the trial judge is not only sound in reason, but there is abundant precedent to support it. We have several times written in recent years that provisions in the present local option statutes which are not jurisdictional and do not affect results of elections, but which merely provide that particular acts or things shall be done within a certain time, or in a particular manner, without declaring or indicating their performance is essential to the validity of the election, are not mandatory but will be regarded as discretionary and do not require the setting aside of an election for every slight irregularity. Skaggs v. Fyffe,
The Marion case deals with a school election wherein the officers were appointed 26 days before the election was held while the statute provided they should be appointed not more than 20 and not less than 10 days before the election. Another section of that statute recited that a failure to comply with any and all provisions of the Act should render the election void. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held the provisions of the statute which affect the result of the election are mandatory and those which do not are directory; that the premature appointment of the officers did not deprive any voter of any right, nor permit any illegal votes, nor did it affect the result of the election, therefore the provision of the statute as to the time the election officers should be appointed is directory.
To fortify our position, attention is called to KRS
It stands to reason that if the election commissioners may fail to appoint, or if vacancies in election offices on the day of election may be filled as above indicated, without invalidating the election, then this 3 day premature appointment of the election officers by the commissioners is not ground for setting aside this election.
Appellants place much confidence in such cases as Norton v. Letton,
In the Terrill and Ingram cases the statutory notice required for the election was not given, and it is immediately apparent that such notice is of the utmost importance, hence it was held to be mandatory; otherwise, citizens would not be informed as to the time, place or purpose for holding the election.
In the Norton case the local option election contravened KS 2554c-4 (now KRS
The judgment is affirmed.