ARK:] . BIGGS V. STOUT. 809 BIGGS V, STOUT. Opinion delivered May 4, 1925. 1. LEVEES—MODE OF SELECTING DIliECTOkS. — The office cif levee district directors . is within the control of . the Legislature, which may appoint the 'directors; as was done by Acts 1893 . , .p. -24, or prescribe any other method for their selection. 2. LEVEES—ELECTION OF D ' IRECTORS. —B y. the express terms of . Sp: Acts 1919 p. 200, §2, an ' election of a director of the St. Fi.aneis LeVee District is' null and 'void where' naice 'of' the election was not, published by the election commissioners. Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Colirt ; . E.' D. Rob, .ertson, -Judge ; affirmed. ..Norfleet & ,, Norfleet, for appellant. C. W. Norton and Mann & MeCniloch, for.appellee..., SMITE, J, Appellant filed a petition in the circuit court of St. Francis County against appellees, who are the . election Commissioners for that county,. praying that a writ of mandamus be awarded directing appellees to certify .appellant's election as a member of the boar4 of directors of. the . St. Francis Levee District. . Appellant 'alleged the following. facts That be is a citizen of St..Francis County, and possesses the qualifications required by law to be a director' of the St. Francis Levee District. That in that. part of said eounty,lying wilfin St. Francis Levee District, hereinafter referred to as the district, there are as . many as a hundred persons who possess the qualifications required by law to vote at an election for levee director, and within that part of.St. Francis County lying within said district there are seven
810 Blocs. v. STOUT. [168 polling. places, which were named,,where it is customary to-hold elections for State and county officers, but' it had been the custom, in electingi levee, directorS, to hold an election at net more than' two of such places; and freqüently in. only one. That Only 'a Small part of the qualified electors have ever voted at' the election-of a levee director, and Joseph Mewbern, whose term of office had expired and to whose place the petitioner was elected, was elected at an election held at only one of such usual voting places, and at :such electien received only eleven votes, which . were. all . the, Votes • cast, , at: the election at which the said Mewbern was elected. . It was further 'alleged that- November 13,- 1923; was the day fixed by la* for electing a. levee director fOr St. Francis County, bUt the election CommiSsioners 'failed to issue and publish the notice Of 'such eleetien:required by law, and did not aPpoint judges and . clgris to hold such election, but wholly , ignored and disregarded their duty to call such election . and to fix the places for . holding same. 'That, notwithstandingthis' • failtire, , ' certain citizens of St. Francis County, • Wile 'Were' qUalified" as electors to . vote- for a levee direetor for that county, asseMbled at . 11eth, one of the usn'aI voting 'places' in' said district, and elected three of ' their-number as judges' and tWO as clerks, and . said judges held an . eleCtion; at which eleven , qualified votes were polled, all-of . which . Were cast for appellant, and no votes were cast for any- Other per-kin, and no election was held at any other 'voting , Place in said district in St. Francis-County. The: vetes cast for appellant at such election were duly certified by- the election officers as required by -the statute 'authoriiing such election, but aPpellees, constituting the board of election COmmissionerS, have refused to , certify the result thereof or to issue to appellant a certificate showing his election. ' There was a prayer that' . • appellees be required to certifY the returns of the . electron and to isSue 'to appellant a proper certificate-showing his election 'as a director of the said district.
ARK.] BIGGS v. STOUT. 811 • A demurrer to this . petition was . filed and sustained and the cause, dismissed, and this appeal questions the sufficiency of the complaint to . state a cause' of ,action entitling appellant to the relief prayed... The . St. Francis Levee District was created by . a special act passed at the 1893 session of . the General Assembly. Act 19, Acts 1893, p. 24. 'The act &eating the diStrict named three directors for eaCh county:lying wholly or in part in said district; .whose terms oP,office were fixed at one, two and three years, respectively, and it , was provided that, u'pon the expiration of these respecl: tive terms . of ,office,, successors , to!. the directors whose terms had'expired shoald be appOinted .by , .the,Governor, and such director,,thereafter :served for three years; so., that, the terms, of office of one-third of, the directors. expired each -Year, and vacancies! , were• filled . on the expiration of' 'the! terms . qf : office by the GOvernor 's apPointment: -- Th'e directors of the , ; district were thts , appointed from the time , :of the ' , creation of the district . in 1893 until' proVision was made by act . 117 of the Acts of 1911 for the election of the directors. Acts 1917, vol. 1, p. 623., This act 'Of 1917 prescribed the qualifieations of direeters and 'Of 'electors to vote for directors, and the? tiine for holding tlieelectidn, 'an'd imposed On the board of eleetion cominissioners for each of the' counties .lying wholly of in part in' said district the duty of . appointing'. judges 'to hold the election and that of e'anvassirig :and certifying the returns. The various provision§ of the act . need nOt be Set out,. and it will suffice to 's ' ay that the act provided a method'whereby the directors * should thereafter be elected. ' This , act was construed in: the caSe of McDaniel v. As1worth/ 13 7. Mk: 280, *here it was held that the .act had deprived the Governor of the power to make 'appointments, and that the existing directors held office u'ntil their Successors should be elected and qualified, and that. bY.The terms of the act, three directors were to he elected'
812 . BIGGS v. STOUT. [168 • in each county. in 1918 who should hold office, for one, two and three years, respectively, and that the next election should be held in 1920, when two directors were to be elected, one to fill out the unexpired term beginning in 1919 and the other for a full term of three years, and that thereafter one director should be elected each year for a full term of three years. . The act of 1917, supra, was amended by act 116 of the Acts of 1919. Special Acts 1919, page 200. By this amendatory act the time for holding the election of directors was fixed on the second Tuesday of November, of each year. By § 2 of the amendatory act of 1919 it was made the duty of the election commissioners to publish notice of the election in some newspaper in each of the counties for not More than twenty nor less" than ten days before the date of the election, but, after so providing, it was further provided : • "That should any board of election commissioners of any county within said levee district fail, refuse or neglect to .give notice of said election 'as herein provided for, each member of said board of election commissioners for said county shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars. Provided, that any election held or attempted to be held in any county within said district for the purpose oL electing said directors shall be null and void unless the notice of said election has been given as provided for in this act." It will be observed that the petition alleges that the election commissioners of St. Francis County failed to give the mitice required by this amendatory statute. But appellant insists that this failure could not, and did not, operate to deprive the electors of the right to elect a director at the time appointed by law for holding the election. In support of this contention counsel for appellant cite cases holding that, where the Constitution or a valid
MIK.] BIGGS v. STOUT. 813 statute prescribes the time, place and manner for the election of a particular officer, or for the determination of a specific question by the qualified voters, and a statute requires certain officers to give notice of the election, such statutory requirement is merely directory, and neither irregularity in the notice nor an absolute failure to give the notice will invalidate the election. This rule has been given recognition and has been approved• and adopted by this court ; but it has no application here. Wheat v. Smith, 50 A,rk. 266 ; Hildreth v. Taylor, 117 Ark. 465, 470 ; Hogins v. Bullock, 92 Ark. 67, 70. The office in question is that of director of the St. Francis Levee District—an office completely within legislative control. It was within the power of the Legislature to appoint the directors itself, as was done when the district was created, or to prescribe any method it saw fit for • their selection. It was the duty of the election commissioners to call and to arrange for the holding of the election, and they might, by mandamus or other appropriate remedy, have been required to perform this duty, and their failure to perform this duty was a misdemeanor. But, unless this duty is performed, there is no authority for holding. the election, and the director in office would continue in office until an authorized election was held. The statute so expressly provides, and therefore the rule stated, which applies to the election of ordinary public officers, has no application to the election of levee directors. This is true because the matter of selecting directors for the levee district is entirely within the control of the Legislature, and it is expressly provided that any election held without prescribed notice having been given is "null and void." There was therefore no authority for holding the election at which appellant claims to have been elected. That election was "null and void," according to the statute quoted from, and the demurrer to the complaint was therefore properly sustained.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.