No jurisdiction exists in or shall be exercised by any judge or court to entertain any proceeding for ascertaining the legality, conduct, or results of any election, except so far as authority to do so shall be specially and specifically enumerated and set down by statute; and any injunction, process, or order from any judge or court, whereby the results of any election are sought to be inquired into, questioned, or affected, or whereby any certificate of election is sought to be inquired into or questioned, save as may be specially and specifically enumerated and set down by statute, shall be null and void and shall not be enforced by any officer or obeyed by any person. If any judge or other officer hereafter undertakes to fine or in any wise deal with any person for disobeying any such prohibited injunction, process, or order, such attempt shall be null and void, and an appeal shall lie forthwith therefrom to the Supreme Court then sitting, or next to sit, without bond, and such proceedings shall be suspended by force of such appeal; and the notice to be given of such appeal shall be 14 days.
(Code 1876, §314; Code 1886, §407; Code 1896, §1671; Code 1907, §459; Code 1923, §549; Code 1940, T. 17, §235; §17-15-6; amended and renumbered by Act 2006-570, p. 1331, §83.)
Notes of Decisions
Drake v. Alabama Repub. Party, 209 So. 3d 1118 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “’ “As further ground for finding a lack of jurisdiction, the Court relies on Ala. Code § 17-16-44 . In that statute, the legislature has limited the jurisdiction of the courts in any proceeding ‘for ascertaining the legality, conduct or results of any election, except so far as…”
Bryan v. Hubbard, 6 So. 3d 491 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 19× “Political parties are not bound by the holdings in Roper, Wood, and Harvey , because a political party, which is clearly not a court, is not bound by § 17-16-44, Ala.Code 1975 (the jurisdiction-stripping statute).”
Working v. Jefferson Cnty. Election Comm'n, 2 So. 3d 827 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 7× “The Effect of § 17-16-⅛⅛ Although the trial court did not address the issue, Plump argues on appeal that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all but his and Bell’s third-party quo warranto action against Bowman on the basis of Ala.Code 1975, § 17-16-44. That…”
Smith v. Burkhalter, 28 So. 3d 730 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 6× “He argues that § 17-16-44, Ala. Code 1975, expressly prohibits the courts from hearing an election contest unless permitted to do so by statute, and, he says, the language of § 11-46-69 is clear and unambiguous.”
Wood v. Booth, 990 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 5× “We then noted that § 17-15-6 (currently § 17-16-44), Ala.Code 1975, "prohibits a court from exercising jurisdiction over any proceeding seeking to "`ascertain[] the legality, conduct or results of any election, except so far as authority to do so shall be specially and…”
Rice v. Chapman, 51 So. 3d 281 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 6× “” The respondents argue that the trial court’s opinion, though in their view correct on the merits, should not have been entered because, they argue, that court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Alabama Code 1975, § 17-16-44. Because the Court holds that the respondents…”
Roper v. Rhodes, 988 So. 2d 471 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 2× “449 , 103 So. 59 (1925): "`The general rule without question is that courts of equity will not interfere by injunction with the holding of elections political in character, nor take jurisdiction of a contest after the election is held.”
Ex Parte Graddick, 495 So. 2d 1367 (Ala. 1986).
“" If the word "agency" is to be broadly construed, and if § 17-16-44, which provides for rule making power in the State Democratic Executive Committee, is repealed insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, then it is apparent…”
McInnish v. Bennett, 150 So. 3d 1045 (Ala. 2014).
· cites it 11× “See § 17-16-44, Ala.Code 1975. Alabama law currently provides no express means by which a party with standing may make, outside political-party machinery, a pre-election challenge to a presidential candidate’s qualifications.”
Veitch v. Vowell, 266 So. 3d 678 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 6× “In its judgment, the trial court stated that, under § 17-16-44, Ala. Code 1975, it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief Veitch had requested.”
Veitch v. Vowell, 266 So. 3d 678 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 6× “In its judgment, the trial court stated that, under § 17-16-44, Ala. Code 1975, it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief Veitch had requested.”
Tommy Hanes David Calderwood, M.D. & Focus on Am. v. John Merrill, in his Off. capacity as Alabama Sec'y of State, & Bill English, Wes Allen, Clay Crenshaw, Jeff Elrod, & Will Barfoot, in their Off. capacities as members of the Alabama Elec. Voting Comm. (Ala. 2023).
“I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution barred the claims, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to § 17-16-44, Ala. Code 3 SC-2022-0869 1975, also known as the "jurisdiction-stripping statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.