# Heleringer v. Brown

> Kentucky Supreme Court · May 7, 2003 · 104 S.W.3d 397

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9659399

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert L. HELERINGER, Appellant, v. John Y. BROWN III in His Official Capacities as Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Chairman of the State Board of Elections of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; State Board of Elections, Commonwealth of Kentucky; Kentucky Registry of Election Finance; Ernie Fletcher; And Friends of Ernie Fletcher, Appellees
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 7, 2003
- **Citations:** 104 S.W.3d 397; 2003 Ky. LEXIS 97; 2003 WL 21049094
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stumbo
- **Judges:** Lambert, Johnstone, Keller, Stumbo, Wintersheimer, Cooper, Graves
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9659399

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that election laws should be liberally interpreted so as to allow the candidate to stand for election

## Opinion text

STUMBO, Justice,
concurring.
I concur fully with the opinion by Chief Justice Lambert but write separately to emphasize the point that to grant Appellant the relief he seeks would result in the disenfranchisement of those who would have voted for the Fletcher slate.
In Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 , 92 S.Ct. 849 , 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972), the United States Supreme Court struck down a candidate filing fee system due to the barriers it created to assess to the primary ballot. The Court therein stated:
In approaching candidate restrictions, it is essential to examine in a realistic light the extent and nature of their impact on voters....
[T]he rights of voters and the rights of candidates do not lend themselves to neat separation; laws that affect candidates always had at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters.
Bullock, supra at 143-144 , 92 S.Ct. 849 .
Realistically viewed, the situation here is this: remarkable efforts have been made to gain political support by all of the candidates in the form of money spent on advertising and other contact with voters; the ballot order has been determined and ballots printed; and, absentee ballots have already been cast and the primary election is a matter of days away. To, at *405 this point in the process, eliminate a choice from consideration in the Republican primary, would clearly have more than a theoretical effect on the voters. Their contributions, physical labor, even their absentee ballot, if already cast, would be rendered a nullity. To lose a vote because your candidate is defeated is one thing; to lose a vote because a candidacy is voided due to technical reasons is another entirely. The effect would be real and must be acknowledged, just as our predecessor court acknowledged the rights of the voters in cases in which a candidacy has been challenged. In Queenan v. Mimms, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 380, 382 (1955), it was noted that: “It is a fundamental principal that the courts will construe election statutes liberally in favor of the citizens whose right to choose their public officers is challenged. Greene v. Slusher, 300 Ky., 715 , 190 S.W.2d 29 (1945).” The right of the qualified voter to cast an effective vote is among our most precious freedoms.
In holding that the disqualified member of the Republican slate may be replaced, this Court honors in practice that important principle.
JOHNSTONE, J., joins this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9659399. Public record. Not legal advice.