Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maclean v. Brodigan

April 1918

DONALD MACLEAN, RESPONDENT, V. GEORGE BRODIGAN, AS SECRETARY OF STATE, AND MAURICE SULLIVAN, AS LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR AND EX OFFICIO ADJUTANT-GENERAL, APPELLANTS.


Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Ormsby County; Frank P. Langan, Judge.

Geo. B. Thatcher, Attorney-General, E. T. Patrick, Deputy Attorney-General, and Wm. McKnight, Deputy Attorney-General (Hoyt, Gibbons, French & Springmeyer, of Counsel), for Appellants.

James Glynn, Amicus Curiae.

Warren E. Baldy, District Attorney (R. A. McKay, of Counsel), for Respondents.

By the Court, McCarran, C. J.:

This action was commenced in the district court to enjoin the appellant Sullivan, as adjutant-general, from certifying to the secretary of state any list or lists of electors now engaged in the military service of the United States, and to enjoin the appellant Brodigan, as secretary of state, from incurring any expense in the purchase of ballot paper or registration supplies for the taking of the votes of the electors of the State of Nevada now engaged in the military service of the United States, and from incurring any cost or expense therefor to the State of Nevada, and to restrain both appellants in their official capacity from doing anything whatever imposed upon them or either of them by the act of the legislature of Nevada of March 14, 1899. From the order overruling a general demurrer, an appeal to this court is taken.

1. One question only is here involved, to wit: Is the statute of March 14, 1899, entitled “An act to provide for taking the votes of electors of the State of Nevada, who may be in the military service of the United States,” now in force and effect as a mode by which citizens of this state now in the military forces of the United States may vote in our state elections? The act just referred to (Stats. 1899, p. 108) was one the original purpose of which was to take the vote of the electors of the State of Nevada who might be in the service of the United States and beyond the territorial limits of the state. It provided that the adjutant-general of the state should in due time make and deliver to the secretary of state duly certified separate lists for each county having soldiers in the service, giving the names of all qualified electors under the law of this state at the time of their enlistment, etc. By the provisions of the act, the secretary of state was required to immediately transmit duly

[41 Nev. 468, Page 473]

certified copies of such lists to the commanding officer of each of the organizations of which electors of this state might be members. The act then proceeds to prescribe for the holding of an election at a place beyond the territorial limits of this state, where electors of this state might be engaged in the military service. It designates who should be the officers of such election, how the vote should be counted and canvassed, and how the same should be returned or transmitted after the election was conducted.

By an act approved March 31, 1913, entitled “An act relating to elections and removals from office,” the act of March 14, 1899, was specifically repealed. (Stats. 1913, p. 568.)

By section 149 of an act entitled “An act relating to elections,” approved March 29, 1915, it is provided:

“Electors of the State of Nevada in the military service of the United States may, when called into such service, vote in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 14, 1899.” (Stats. 1915, p. 507.)

By section 101 of an act entitled “An act relating to elections,” approved March 24, 1917, it is provided: “Electors of the State of Nevada in the military service of the United States may, when called into such service, vote in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 14, 1899.” (Stats. 1917, p. 385.)

It is the contention of respondent here that section 101 of the act of 1917, just quoted, is without force or effect, and that the act of March 14, 1899, is not revived. We have been referred especially to our constitutional provision (section 17 of article 4), reading as follows:

“Each law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one subject, and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; and no law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only; but, in such case, the act as revised, or section as amended, shall be reenacted and published at length.”

In furtherance of respondent's contention reference is made to decisions bearing upon constitutional provisions

[41 Nev. 468, Page 474]

somewhat similar to ours, but a studied difference may be noted when comparing our constitutional provision with the provisions in states like Alabama, New Jersey, and Kansas, in each of which it is provided:

“No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred, shall be reenacted and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.