Mareau v. Tonry 339 So.2d 3 339 So.2d 3 (Cite as: 339 So.2d 3) Page 1 Supreme Court of Louisiana. James A. MOREAU v. Richard A. TONRY et al. Nos. 58791, 58792. Oct. 22, 1976. Plaintiff brought action contesting election to select party nominee for Congress. The District Court, Parish of St. Bernard, discounted effect of irregularities and affirmed election, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal, 338 So.2d 791, reversed and annulled the election, and candidate, et al., appealed. The Supreme Court, Dixon, J., held that irregularities, in absence of showing that but for irregularities or fraud one contesting election would have been nominated, were not so pervasive that election would have to be nullified. Court of Appeal reversed and District Court judgment reinstated. Summers, J., dissented with reasons. Sanders, C.J., dissented with reasons. West Headnotes [1] Elections 291 144k291 Most Cited Cases Even if number of "irregularities" exceeds difference in votes between candidates, candidate seeking to nullify election must prove either that he would have been elected but for irregularities or fraud or that proven frauds and irregularities are of such a serious nature that voters have been deprived of free expression of their will. LSA-R.S. 18:364, subd. B. [2] Elections 158 144k158 Most Cited Cases Irregularities in election of party nominee for Congress, consisting of 43 forged signatures on precinct register and 315 more votes cast on voting machines than signatures on precinct registers, out of a total of almost 100,000 votes, in absence of showing by one contesting election that but for irregularities or fraud he would have been nominated, were not so pervasive that the election would have to be nullified. LSA-R.S. 18:364, subd. B. *4 T. M. McBride, III, Chalmette, Martzell & Montero, John R. Martzell, New Orleans, for plaintiff-applicant. Gilbert V. Andry, III, Sidney Provensal, Jr., New Orleans, Luke A. Petrovich, Buras, Gibson Tucker, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-respondents. DIXON, Justice. In this election contest the Court of Appeal reversed the district court and annulled the election, vacating the certification of defendant Tonry, the Democratic nominee for Congress, leaving the nominee to be named by the appropriate Democratic Committee. The factual findings to support the action of the Court of Appeal are: forty-three forged signatures on the precinct register and three hundred fifteen more votes cast on the voting machines than signatures on the precinct registers (out of a total of almost one hundred thousand votes). (The trial court had discounted the effect of such 'irregularities' because, among other reasons, it found only minimal differences between the number of voters on the poll lists and the number of votes cast on the machines). The Court of Appeal found that 'no inference can be made that these illegal votes were cast for Tonry.' Nothing has been proved to us to compel a different conclusion. The statutory rule in Louisiana is that an election may be upset only if the one contesting the election can show that 'but for irregularities or fraud he would have been nominated . . .' (R.S. 18:364(B)). [1] The plaintiff Moreau argues that if the number of 'irregularities' exceed the difference between the candidates, the outcome of the election cannot be determined. This has never been the law. If the candidate cannot prove he would have been elected 'but for irregularities or fraud,' our jurisprudence refers to an alternative: if the court finds the proven frauds and irregularities are of such a serious nature that the voters have been deprived of the free expression of © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 341