State ex rel. Shepard v. Superior Court
Citations
- 60 Wash. 370
- 111 P. 233
- 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1050
Syllabus
<p>Mandamus — When Lies — Elections — Certification of Candidates. Mandamus does not lie, as a matter of right, to compel the county auditor to place the names of candidates upon a ballot until they have been, or it is certain that they will be, certified to the auditor.</p> <p>Elections — Right to Vote — Nature. While the right to vote is a constitutional right, under Const., art. 6, § 6, providing that all elections shall be by ballot, and that the legislature shall provide a method of voting by secret ballot, it is subject to regulation by the legislature in any reasonable way not prohibited.</p> <p>Elections — Right to Vote — Regulations—Ballots—Reasonableness. Rem. & Bal.' Code, § 4893, subd. 6, providing that no candidate’s name shall appear on the ballot more than once, and that the candidate, if nominated by two or more parties, may designate the party under whose title he desires to appear, is a reasonable regulation of the elective franchise, and violates no constitutional right of the voter to vote for a candidate of his choice.</p> <p>Elections — Ballots—Statutes—Implied Repeal. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4893, subd. 6, providing that the names of candidates shall not appear on the ballot more than once, was not impliedly repealed by the amendment of 1909 (Id., § 4842), providing that the names of judges nominated at a joint convention of several parties shall appear on the tickets of all the parties holding the joint convention; since there is no such conflict between the two acts as to indicate any such legislative intent.</p> <p>Elections — Political Parties — Rights. Political parties not being protected by the constitution, they have no constitutional right to have their full tickets printed upon a ballot, and a law is not unconstitutional because it tends to destroy political parties.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[A plaintiff’s] medical bills established a presumption that those bills were reasonable and necessary for the treatment of her injuries, her medical bills were not prima facie evidence that the accident was a proximate cause of [her] injuries.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Chadwick
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.