# Baggett v. State Election Board

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 5, 1972 · 501 P.2d 817

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550108

## Case

- **Full name:** Bryce BAGGETT, Petitioner, v. STATE ELECTION BOARD of the State of Oklahoma, Composed of Edna Mae Phelps Et Al., Respondents, J. Ted Bonham, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 5, 1972
- **Citations:** 501 P.2d 817; 1972 OK 132
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jackson
- **Judges:** Irwin, Jackson
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9550108

## Opinion text

JACKSON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
In our system of government elections are called and conducted so the people themselves can determine who will be selected for holding public office. Our Constitution declares that all political power is inherent in the people, Art. 2, § 1, Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 3, Okla.Const., provides that no power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the exercise of the right of suffrage by those entitled to such right.
In the instant case neither civil nor military authorities have interfered with the right of suffrage, but 104 unauthorized voters have. That is, a majority of the qualified Democrat voters of the district had the right to determine who they would have for their nominee, but the 104 unauthorized voters have made it difficult, if not impossible, to determine where the majority lies. This results from the secret ballot required by statute. This poses the question “How do we find out who received a majority of the votes of the qualified voters ?” The answer can not be found in the ballot box, in voting machines, nor in recounts. The answer lies only with the unauthorized voters. If they are called as witnesses to testify for whom they voted they expose themselves to the penalties provided by 26 O.S.1971, § 475.
Since these unauthorized voters could remain silent and not give evidence against themselves, 5th U.S. Amendment, there is no satisfactory way to determine who won the nomination. In such circumstances it would be illogical to impose an impossible burden of proof on either of the candidates or those who supported them. Fortunately there is time to call a special election so that the qualified electors may select their nominee. I concur in the issuance of the order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550108. Public record. Not legal advice.