Opinion

Watson v. State Election Board

  • 302 P.2d 134
  • 1956 OK 270
  • 1956 Okla. LEXIS 588
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Oct 16, 1956
Status
Published
Author
Williams
On the bench
Halley, Johnson, Corn, Jackson, Carlile, Williams, Welch, Blackbird
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice

(dissenting) .

Members of the House of Representatives of the State of-Oklahoma, although state officials, represent the people living in their respective districts.

That portion of the statute quoted by the majority, at the beginning of the quotation, clearly uses the word “jurisdiction” in the sense of “geographical area.”

Then certainly the legislature, by the use thereof again in the same paragraph, yes, even in. the very same sentence, in providing that “the central committee of the political party affected, and for the jurisdiction in which the nominee was a candidate, may in writing nominate a substitute candidate; * * * ” meant the central committee of the geographical area *139 in which the nominee was a candidate, or in this case, Pontotoc County. (Emphasis supplied.)

As said by the majority, “where the language of a statute is clear and its meaning is plain and unmistakable, there is no room for construction.”

I,therefore, respectfully dissent.

I am authorized to state the Mr. Justice WELCH and Mr. Justice BLACKBIRD concur in the views herein expressed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.