Salter v. City of AnnistonSalter v. City of Anniston
Thе bill in the instant ease presents the single question whether or not the ballot used by the electors in еxpressing their preference for and against the proposed bond issue (an outline of which with a copy of the ballot, appears in the report of the case), sufficiently meets the requirements of section 222. of our Constitution. The following cases have dealt with this constitutionаl provision: Coleman v. Town of Eutaw,
Appellant relies upon Coleman v. Town of Eutaw, supra. In Realty Investment Co. v. Mobile,
In that case the form of the ballot did not meet the litoral requirement of the constitutional form, as the printers’ brace was such as to make one statement of the chаracter of the bonds serve for both the affirmative and the negative of the question submitted to thе voter, whereas an exacting pursuit of the constitutional form would have required that the statеment be literally repeated.
In the instant case the ballot presented but a single issue as to which the voter was to express his choice, containing first instructions to the voter as to the рroper method of expressing his choice; second, a full and concise statement of the subject-matter of the election put in the form of a query, followed by a drawn line, immediately below which are the “cross mark” brackets where the voter expresses his choice. There the amount of the bond issue of the city of Anniston is designated, and the period for which they arе to run, but it is insisted there should have been further designation of the purpose for which they are issued оr for which the funds are to be devoted. But we think the designation of the bonds in the cross-mark lines bears so definite a relation to the language of the query immediately preceding, as to all prаctical purposes amount to a reference thereto. The arrangement is such аs “to the eye and the understanding” of the voter, in the exercise of the most ordinary care аnd observation, to .indicate clearly that the query and the characterization in the crоss-mark line had reference to the one subject and each constituting in effect a pаrt of the other. Though differing somewhat in form, the arrangement, in substance and effect, differs not matеrially from that in the Mobile Case, supra.
The purpose of the Constitution should be kept in mind, “to prоvide security for intelligence of choice and its easy expression.” The general nature of the election" may be presumed to have been made known to the voters by the advertisement required by the statute (Dent v. City of Eufaula,
The ballot in the Colemаn Case, supra, dif. fers in material respects from that here considered. There, in the cross-mark line, no designation or characterization of the bond was given, and it may readily be seen thаt, to have sanctioned so flagrant a nonobservance of the constitutional form, would have led to gross abuse and in effect to its ultimate nullification.
But here the voter, in the line where he marks his choice, is informed that the city is to issue bonds, the amount thereof, and the duration of the issue, such a characterization as doubtless 'a business man dealing in such matters would make, and immediately preceding and in such close proximity as to necessarily fall also within his vision the eleсtor is informed of the full purpose of the issue.
We are persuaded that the authorities herein cited, with particular reference to Realty Investment Co. v. Mobile, Thomason v. Court of County Com’rs, and Dent v. City- of Eufaula, supra, fully support the conclusion that the form of the ballot here in question is a substantial compliance with section 222 of our Constitution, and that the demurrer to the bill was properly sustained. Let the decree be affirmed.
Affirmed.