Citation Numbers: 223 S.W.2d 180, 311 Ky. 32
Judges: JUDGE CAMMACK
Filed Date: 9/23/1949
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Affirming.
In the primary election for sheriff of Pike County in the August 6 election, Roy Conway received 4,232 votes, Moss Keesee received 3,717 votes, and L.D. Reed, 2,150. On August 15, Keesee filed a contest suit against Conway on the grounds that he had violated the provisions of KRS
In his intervening petition Reed set forth that he had not violated the Corrupt Practice Act, and that if it was found that Keesee and Conway had violated the provisions of that Act and were held to be disqualified, then he was entitled to be declared the nominee of the Democratic Party for sheriff of Pike County under KRS
It is expressly provided in KRS 122.020 that the petition in a contest suit must be filed within 15 days *Page 34
from the date of the primary election. It is further provided that the petition must state the specified grounds relied upon for the contest and that a summons must be issued thereon, returnable in 10 days. As said in the case of Dixon v. Maddox,
It follows from what has been said that Reed was in no position to assert any rights which he might have had under KRS
"In the case of primary elections, if any candidate who is a party to the contest proceedings has not violated the provisions of KRS
To have availed himself of the right given him by the statute in question, Reed would have had to take the necessary steps to make him a bona fide party to the action. As we have noted, this he failed to do.
It is charged by counsel for Reed that Conway paid Keesee $2,000 to get him to dismiss his contest suit. Be this as it may, the question is not one which addresses itself to an ordinary contest proceeding, but rather to KRS 122.210. Upon such a happening as that charged by counsel for Reed, KRS 122.210 provides:
"Any qualified voter may maintain an action to enjoin the printing of the name of a person upon the official ballots for any primary or general election, on the ground that such person has violated this section, and in such action the violation may be proved by parol evidence."
For the reasons given we think the judgment should be and it is affirmed. *Page 35