Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout114aRESOLUTION NO. 114a BE I T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF PUEBLO: That after full consideration of the petition of Alex Marks and A. F. Cowan, contestors, of the recent election held November 8, 1921, and the opinion or the City Attorney in relation to said contest, it is hereby decided that no further action will be taken by the council in the matter, and that the petitioners be notified in accordance herewith. INTRODUCED BY, John Jackson December 5, 1921 TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PUEBLO, PUEBLO COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. Come now Alex Marks and A. F. Cowan, contestors herein and for cause of contest state; 1. That the contestors, Alex Marks and A. F. Cowan do hereby give notice of their intentions to contest the office of water commissioner for Water District, No. 2, City of Pueblo, County of Pueblo, State o f Colorado, and more particularly the alleged election of one W. K. Dudley and one . W. S. Marble. 2. That your petitioner Alex Marks is a citizen and qualified elector, within the County of Pueblo, City of Pueblo and State of Colorado, and has been such more than forty years prior to the filing of this petition and was at the City election held at the City of Pueblo on November 8th, a candidate for election to the office of commissioner of water District No. 2, City of Pueblo, County of Pueblo, State of Colorado. 3. That your petitioner A. F. Cowan is a citizen and qualified elector within the City of Pueblo, County of Pueblo, State of Colorado and has been such for more than 17 years prior to the filing of this petition and was at the city election held at the City of Pueblo on November 8th, a candidate for election to the office of commissioner of Water District No. 2, City of Pueblo, County of Pueblo, State of Colorado. 4. That at a meeting of the council of Pueblo called for the purpose of canvassing results of said election your honorable body sitting as canvassing board, after making such canvass, certified results of said election to the offices of commissioners of Water District No. 2 to be as follows First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Total Foster 684 86 48 818 Yeager 447 99 64 610 Long 811 129 60 1000 -2- Williams 1287 111 72 1470 Marks 986 81 64 1131 Davis 660 111 57 888 Dudley 1117 70 53 1240 Cowan 958 91 48 1097 Marble 1023 94 55 1172 Manning 182 94 69 345 Halcomb 352 71 69 492 Whitney 713 94 64 871 5. That thereafter the council of the City of pueblo erroneously declared that one W. K. Dudley and one. S. Marble the contestees above named, two alleged candidates for the office of commissioner of Water District No. 2, at said election, had been elected to said office of commissioner of Water District, No. 2, and did at the meeting on November 14th, A. D. 1921 issue a certificate of election to them to said office. 6. That the said certificate of election should not have been issued and the said contestees were not elected to said office of Water Commissioner, for the following reasons, to -wit: 7. That in precinct 19 wherein contestee Dudley is credited with thirty -six votes and contestee Marble credited with thirty -three votes and contestor Marks credited with eighteen votes and contestor Cowan credited with twenty -two votes, your petitioners believe and upon information and belief and allege the fact to be that the count should be as follows, to -wit: Dudley, twenty -four votes, Marble, twenty -two votes, Cowan, twenty -seven votes, Marks twenty -three votes, and that on the face of the returns of said precinct, the returns are fatally defective in that the official tally sheet shows that contestee, Marks, received two more votes than the official tally sheet shows, and that the tally sheet shows that contestee Marble received one less vote than the official count credits him with. 8. That in precinct 20 the returns show that there were no -3- second and third choice votes counted and your petitioners and contestors are informed and believe that they received some second and third choice votes in said precinct 20 and also that there were the following illegal votes cast in said precinct 20: Mary Cassick, voted from 315 Park St. and resides at 310 Spring. Matt and Francis Krist, who reside at 1041 Elm St. and not in precinct 20. Mike Gregovich voted from 321 palm, when he resides at 525 Moffatt. J. H. Robak voted from 118 Spring when he resides at 216 Spring. Peter Jaber, voted from 817 East B St. when he resides at 801 East B Street. Joe Kochevar, voted from 426 Park and resides at 426 Rush. E. Kirvan, voted from 600 East B St. left town on Sept. 23, 1921. Martha Kirvan, voted from 600 East B. St. resides at 22 Block Q. Andy Kochan voted from 426 Palm, and resides at 426 Park. John A. Kassel voted from 810 East B St. resides at 429 Palm. Rose Lesar, who voted from 516 Moffat, resides at 434 S. Santa Fe. Avenue. Stephen Miloviks, voted from 212 Plum, resides at 716 E. Abriendo Mat Novak, voted from 539 Stanton, resides in country and receives his mail R. R. #1, Box 5. Anton Pretesnik and Agnes Pretesnik voted from 427 Palm and reside at 1009 East B. St. Joe Pattagar voted from 412 Spring and resides at 313 Spring. Jacob Papish and Jacob J. Papish voted from 413 Palma and reside at 313 Palm. John Perko voted from 317 Palm and resides at 513 Moffatt. Louis Raspet and Francis Raspet voted from 738 Moffatt and reside at 521 Moffatt. me Anton Stepnik, voted from 425 Park resides at 415 Park. Katie and John Tonsik voted from 422 Palm and reside at 607 Moffatt. John and Mary Trontel voted from 317 Park and reside at 812 C Street. Ignace and Agues Zupancich voted from 509 Moffatt and reside at 305 East Northern Ave. 9. That all the election judges and clerks in precinct 21, 22, 23 and 24 did not take oath subscribed and required of judges and clerks, and that all the ballots cast in said precincts were net counted by the judges of election and were not tallied by the clerks of said election but that a large number of ballots were read and tallied by persons other than said judges and clerks, the names of which your petitioners are unable to give, and that in the above named precincts, the persons so calling and tallying these ballots did so in such a, manner that it was impossible for the duly appointed watcher, appointed by the City Clerk at the request of the contertors herein to watch or check the count as conducted, above mentioned and your petitioners have been informed and believe upon such information that some of these outside parties doing this calling and tallying were partisans and supporters of the said Dudley and Marble and said ballots were called and tallied not in the presence of the judges and clerks appointed for the purpose of calling these ballots, and that the votes cast for your petitioners and other candidates were not counted for the persons for whom they were cast. 10. Your petitioners further allege that the taking down of the vote or the tallying of same as alleged were not taken down on the tally sheet provided for that purpose and the figures put in the poll book taken as a result of count at the instance of these outsiders in the places provided for the results of the votes, and thereafter the tally marks were filled in on the tally sheet for the purpose of making it appear that the counting of the -5- ballots had been in accordance with the law, by the clerks on the official tally sheet. 11. That your petitioners allege upon information and belief, that they believed that in said precincts 21, 22, 23 and 24 they received a larger vote than was credited to them by the returns; that the conditions surrounding said election, the manner in which the ballots were handled and their returns made were so wholly and entirely in disregard for the law for the protection of the voters and candidates and so many opportunities existing for the altering and changing of ballots cast to make them conform to the results certified that it would be impossible to ascertain with any decree of certainty the actual result of election in said precincts, excepting by a recount of the ballots therein and therefore the results certified by the judges from the above mentioned precincts should disregard and eliminate in determining the result of said election. 12. That in precinct 25 the official count gives Alex Marks three less votes than the tally sheet shows and the said official count gives Marble five votes more than the tally sheet shows. 13. That in precinct 26 the counting was conducted in such a manner and with such disregard of the provisions of the law, for the protection of voters anal candidates in securing the purity of elections in the way the ballots were counted that the ballots in this precinct should also be recounted. 14. One Nina Bealey, a daughter of one of the candidates, Marble, and one John Burns, took part of the ballots over to one side of the room and counted the same while some other persons had another pile of the ballots in another part of the room and then at the completion of said alleged count the sums from both separate tallying and calling were added together, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the law as made and provided in such cases. W 15. That in precincts 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 35 ballots upon which voters, in order to vote for contestors mark x opposite the name of the contestors in all three places opposite the names, to -wit: in the first, second and third column, in order to make sure that their votes would be counted for the contestors; these votes were thrown out and disregarded and contestors deprived of such votes, and that in order to ascertain each votes and the number of votes received for the contestors, it will be necessary to recount ballots in each of said precincts. 16. The official count in precinct 21 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 31, Dudley 81, Cowan 36, Marble 62, when in fact the correct tally of said ballots should be as follows: Marks 41, Dudley 68, Cowan 52, Marble 49. 17. The official count in precinct 22 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 62, Dudley 129, Cowan 39, Marble 86, when in fact the correct tally of said ballots should be as follows: Marks 78, Dudley 94, Cowan 59, Marble 63. 18. The official count in precinct 23 shows the court as follows, to -wit: Marks 46, Dudley 48, Cowan 32, Marble 39, when in fact the correct tally of said ballots should be as follows: Marks 46, Dudley 48, Cowan 41 Marble 42. 19. The official count in precinct 24 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 114, Dudley 209, Cowan 75, Marble 140, when in fact the correct tally of said ballots should be as follows: Marks 121, Dudley 189, Cowan 86, Marble 124. 20. The official count in precinct 25 shows the count as follows, to- wit: Marks 70, Dudley 55, Cowan 97, Marble 60, when in fact the correct tally of said ballots should be as follows: Marks 72, Dudley 55, Cowan 94 Marble 62. -7- 21. The official count in precinct 26 shows the count as follows, Marks 87, Dudley 60, Cowan 67, Marble 102, when in fact the correct tally should be: Marks 87, Dudley 60, Cowan 67, Marble 82. 21. The official count in precinct 27 shows the count as follws, to- wit: Marks 50, Dudley 62, Cowan 65, Marble 62. 22. The official count ire precinct 28 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 26, Dudley 45, Cowan 75, Marble 55, when in fact the correct tally should be, Marks 33, Dudley 44, Cowan 72, Marble 46. 23. The official count in precinct 29 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 52, Dudley 26, Cowan 51, Marble 30, when in fact the correct tally should be, Marks 50, Dudley 25, Cowan 53 Marble 25. 24. The official count in precinct 30 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 65, Dudley 29, Cowan 52, Marble 36, when in fact the correct tally should be, Marks 67, Dudley 24, Cowan 56, Marble 32. 25. The official count in precinct 31 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 60, Dudley 32, Cowan 83, Marble 58, when in fact the correct tally should be; Marks 62, Dudley 29, Cowan 86, Marble 37. 26. The official count in precinct 33 shows the count as follows, to -wit: Marks 137, Dudley 141, Cowan 82, Marble 128, when in fact the correct tally should be; Marks 142, Dudley 114, Cowan 112, Marble 108. 27. The official count in precinct 34 shows the count to be as follows, to -wit: Marks 45, Dudley 17, Cowan 40, Marble 89, when in fact the correct tally should be; Marks 45, Dudley 17, Cowan 43, Marble 49. 28. The official count in precinct 35 shows the count to be as follows, to -wit: Marks 130, Dudley 102, Cowan 121, Marble 112, when in fact the correct tally should be; Marks 132, Dudley 97, Cowan 121, Marble 109. 29. That the said W. K. Dudley and W. S. Marble were illegally nominated and their names should not have been placed upon the ballots for the voters to vote upon for the reason that the signers to their petitions W were not signed to before a Notary Public and Notary Public was not present and never did see the majority of the signers of the said petition, the number of which your petitioners are unable to state. 30. That on Wednesday, the 16th day of November, A. D. 1921, your petitioners met with the contestees and offered to pay all expenses of a recount and to waive all technical objections to this said offer. Said offer was refused by the said contestees although the office in controversy pays only a salary of $75, per month, which makes it necessary for your petitioners to file this contest. 31. That the said, W.K. Dudley and W. S. Marble did form a combination and hire workers at said election and jointly paid them, the said workers, which is contrary to the provisions of charter of the City of Pueblo. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that this honorable council will re -open the ballot boxes from precinct 19 to 35 inclusive, and count the ballots therein contained and to return a correct tally and count of said ballots therein contained, as expressed by the voters at said election and the contestors respectfully petition that the matters and things above set forth be inquired into, investigated and a hearing had upon proper notice to contest said contestees, and that upon said hearing and recount the declaration of election and certificates of election issued on behalf of and to the said W. K. Dudley and W.S. Marble, declaring them to be duly elected at the general City election on November 8th, 1921 to the office of water commissioners of Water District No. 2, City of Pueblo, shall be cancelled, vacated and set aside and that the council of Pueblo shall upon examination of the testimony evidence records and other matters brought before it, shall ascertain what candidates were elected to the office of water commissioner of District No. 2, at said election and shall thereupon enter proper orders and issue proper certificates declaring such persons to have been these elected to the office of water commissioners of District BE No. 2, and the council of Pueblo shall further enter an order finding and declaring contestees W.K. Dudley and W. S. Marble by reason, of violation of their part of the previsions of the charter above set forth, disqualified to hold the office of water commissioner of District No. 2, or any other office of City of Pueblo or said District as in said charter. STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PUEBLO ) ALEX MARKS and A. F. COWAN , being first duly sworn upon their oath depose and say that they have read the Foregoing petition and Know the contents thereof anD the same is alleged upon information and belief and they verily believe from such information anal belief that the matters and things therein contained are tune. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19 day of November, My commission expires To The Council of Pueblo In re Election Contest. Gentlemen:- I have carefully examined the petition of Alex Marks and A. F. Cowan, contestors, referred to me by the Council. Regardless of what such a procedure may be called, whether in the nature of quo warrants proceedings or contest of election, the proof of the allegations of this petition involves a re- canvass of the returns, a check of the returns with the ballots after opening the ballot boxes, taking of evidence as to qualifications of voters and candidates, taking of evidence tending to impeach returns of the judges as a whole in certain precincts. Neither the Constitution of the State, the Laws of the State, the Charter of Pueblo nor Ordinances enacted thereunder, impose any such duty upon the Council, and I am unable to find any authority whatever authorizing the Council to proceed in such a matter. Of course, it is understood that petitioners have a right to raise these questions in proper judicial proceedings under provisions of the statute applying thereto. Pueblo, Colorado, Dec. 2, 1921 City Attorney.