*1 GLASCO V. STATE ELECTION BOARD territory amply supported evidence, `been a resident of the embraced. and the years, within the s-1ate for two and of the hereby same is affirmed. territory comprising his district at least one NICHOLSON, J., BRANSON, year, prior election; shgll to his and he lawyer HARRISON, MASON, PHELPS, been a licensed some court of rec- LES- ord, judge OLARK, JJ., or shall have been a of some court TER. HUNT and record, lawyer judge, or both such §2834; years preceding Note.-See 2 11. C. L. Or four next his during p. 194; Supp. p. 433; and shall reside iu his district 1 R. C. L. 4 R. C. L. Supp. 96; Supp. term of office. * ~`~" 5 R. C. L. And section 24 of article 7 of the Consfi-~ judicial that district court comprise district. No. 14 shall the counties Cleveland, Garvin, McCtain, Murray. GLASCO v. STATE ELECTION BOARD adoption With the of the Constitntiou and years at four Opinion Filed July 9, the Fourteenth district court No. 17546 district, composed of the aforemen- oou'nties, judge. tioned elected one district Ninth; 1923, Legislature, regu- Judges-Constitution- at l15 1. Elections-District session, by chapter ality Dividing lar 35 of Session Laws of Act (cid:127) Disfrict Into Nomi- nating 1923, provided Districts. that said district should elect judge, an additional and also divide the Section 9 of article 7 of the provithng judge into two districts. one a district "shall be a composed citizen of the United States and shall have of the counties of Cleveland territory composed been a resident embraced and McClain and the other to be Murray. the statebr two and of the of the counties of Garvin a'nd territory comprising his district least one Glasco, plaintiff herein, year prior election," pra- B. B. a resi- to his does not dividing judi- applica- hil:it dent of McClain tion with the State Election Board to have cial district into twoOs more requiring printed upon districts judge condidates for distoict nominating lu~ name the ballot in all four to be residents constituting of the counties a candidate for the Democratic nomination said district as judge Constituj~ionai for dishdct upon in such ao oe \Toted Law-Statutes-Construe- tion-Persuasive Force of Practical Con-- election to be held on August 3, by Lcgislaturc~ 1926. The State Election Board struction printed upon refused to have his name placed The construction on statutes or con any county stitut;ional ballots in of the district other McClai'n, noniina"ing partment government than Cleveland and of the state resident, period district of which he is a and Mr. when such construction ha.s long acquiesced in, con- Glasco has filed this action in the trolling, highly persuasive ¶~ against this court the members o~ the reaching a conclusion as to the Board, praying for a writ of man- constructdon thereon. damns, directing place them to his name upon the ballot `in all four of the oorunties constituting the diatrict. E. E. Gltis~'o the State Election Board and the members thereof for writ of ma'ndamus. Writ denied. It `is the contention of Dudley, Blanton, J. B. J. T. B2n F. Wil- Legislature dividing act of the the Four- liams, Roy Glasco, plaintiff. judicial teenth repugnant George Short, Atty. Gen., by `is violative of and F. W. U. Constitution, particu- Murphy, Atty. Gen., the larly Asst. for defendants. 7, snpra, of section 9 of article in that MASON, Section 9 of article 7 of tbe `prescribes qnallfiea'tions additionSl of Oklahoma judge candidates ~ordisfrict to those enunm- 7, supra, by law, erated in section 9 of article "Until otherwise requires him to live within a certain `nomi- shall be divided into 91 tricts electors in each of nating judicial district; district of the while the said districts shall elect a is the contention of the defendants that herein, districc 35 of Session Laws judges the (cid:127)Thirteenth two the district into' two be elected. Such tricts, reality prescribe any States, does not in ad-' citizen of the United and shall have *2 121 qualifications person appointed ditional “No found in the or those shall elected to any possessed to state, Constitution, office in -this unless it should even if qualifications of the an elector.” -of it) qual- that found ifications, additional provid- the same are not unreasonable and ing that: permitted. are words, as In law other it is the of that police “Each the officer of member and requirements all the of limitations as Slates, force shall of the United citizen prerequisite a trict holding to office of citizen, the and the' able of a resident for three city appointed, in in and lan- laid section shall 9 of he English to write the re’ad and article while it is the contention guage.” that fendants to authorized is qualifications other in addition to act This artacked was Constitution, pro- those in being enumerated as provisions of the violative viding qualifications such additional lim- qual- or prescribing Constitution and additional any do in itations manner conflict police with ifications for members prescribed toy Constitution, an-jr those provided Constitution, to that the court complained contend that constitutionality, say- upheld act no conflicts with or interferes with the ing: or, rights of either the candidate the voter express provision Constitution o-fthe “The guaranteed to' him the person is elector shall that a Constitution. any appointed or office elected state. to Now, implication is unless question is, disposed sole The here qualifications person thac who- provision whether the section eligible any office to an elector shall be of Session Laws in conflict state, in the conflict between no there or violative of section 9 article statute Constitution, defining Craig (Ind.) N. E. In Hartford v. judges, conclusion on a state under consideration had question disposes question very under similar of facts Constitution here. Section 5 of article Constitution 3 of the provided: that state provides that: county, township town officers “All pro-* shall enact laws respective coun- their shall reside within system, viding primary mandatory townships ties, towns.” provide which shall all nomination of state, a measure enacted elections for candidates all And trict, cc-unty, municipal officers, all providing that: *” * * political parties. person coun- the office of shall hold “No section And Consti- unless, cilman that: from which ward he he is elected.” resident authority as attacked vio act was when rightful subjects legislation, extend Constitution, lating specific any grant authority subject upon whatsoever, any restriction, limitation, or work Leg- competent is, however, “It upon exclusion authority impose additional islature any or ever.” subjects or whatso- any ex- in conflict nor. restrictions press provision the Constitution.” clearly It will thus was toe seen that question considera- under A similar was duty under the Con- People (Colo.) Darrow tion 661. stitution sys- to enact a appears tem for the nomination of all candidates for that state that: office, including judges, and that elector, except person, “No duty having -performed by any appointed to civil elected or shall be ture, stand, its work must unless we can military state.” or office the, say goes beyond the limitations a measure enacted prescribed by the Constitution. payment viding taxes was membership In qualification Ohio necessary at- a situation was similar the one at The act bar aldermen. board grounds was before the court. It seems tacked article 15 of that with the of the Constitution conflict valid. Glasco State voters ly voted for (W. Likewise, Va.) nominated and State McAlester large, following the state at S. creating provision fol-_ “No entitled citizens Legislature in example lowing the any appointed vote shall be elected judi creating Criminal Court of office.” early Legislature, *3 cial Legislature passed re- an act —and the practically 1913, session quiring council members of provided certain therein, the court freeholders judicial and nominating in both districts not the act violative of the present districts, until at senatorial the Constitution. than six dis have no less time we Officers, lays page 22, Mechem Public many dis senatorial almost as tricts and rule that: separate into tricts which are subdivided seen it “Where, however, Thus qualifications, not it dis right province substantial fixed and trict become a has to declare what what primary system part terms di our right conditions confer- by rected And, red. has where goes, and, legality our information so far as provision, but exclusive some has ones, Legislature may others add such questioned, been ac been has never Citing proper.” reasonable and departments quiesced by state 102, Ohio v. 29 ample government, au defendants cite People, Darrow v. Colo. 8 that, sustaining their contention thorities Officers, 82, Throop page on Public time, long period where, for the ex a states gov departments ecutive and general rule is that ernment provision have construed a constitutional power prescribe qualifica- manner, ture full in. holding office, in tions for to those addition it, placed upon though construction thus prescribed provided any, by if persuasive. controlling, highly Betts reasonable, they are Commissioners, 64, v. Land Pac. Okla. 110 27 opposed provisions, to the constitutional 355, Higgins Brown, 766; Okla. v. 20 spirit 703; Long-Bell Territory Pac. Lum Upon these con- authorities defendants City Co., 890, 911; ber Pac. Okla. tend even Commissioners, Council prescribes quali- Pac. Colo. may for fication those who hold the office citing Coyle Smith, Also 28 Okla. they this eighth! paragraph 113 Pac. in the qualifications, not the sole or syllabus court, speaking this which may the additional further through Williams, said: Mr. Justice qualifications, providing those prescribed by do not meaning pro- constitutional “If abridge prescribed doubtful, conflict with those practical vision is construction by contending by the Constitution; further will be thereof ed out follow- court, it done this if with- can doing meaning the fair violence the district used, the words tionality sustain the constitu- in no conflicts with the the statute.” prescribed by the Constitution. This con- Also, amply supported by Watonga, tention is ties. in Foot authori- Town of par Okla. in the second syllabus, agraph of When the Constitution of the state written, Supreme for construction statutes or Court provisions by districts, officers constitutional which candidates for duties, discharge near of their either at or Justice of the Court were to be enactment, been which the long its nominated in the and voted for acquiesced in, just is a medium large. the voters interpretation.” (cid:127)Immediately after the Criminal statehood sustaining defendants this contention As of Legislature was created delay also cite 9 L. in which R. C. state divided constitutionality questioning a statute Appeals judi- to three Criminal Court of following consideration, is under cial candidates for the language members is used: three court were several- prohibition by “They action for writ of must in seasonable delay Barrett, have E. 6. Hall until et al. A. O. Dis- acquiesced in to have become and assented Judge, trict writ of Alternative firmly government. aas established granted. quashed. Alternative writ ” Writ of denied. 714, it is And in 12 J.C. said: Bowling Sigler Jackson, & Farmer and & “* ** petitioners. and un- continued questioned given power by exercise Curtis, Blanton, Osbcjrn respon- & weighry is a dents. constitutionality favor exer- of such authority, provided cise of such enactments peti On March uniform.” sought prohi tioner alternative writ Therefore, we reach conclusion bition action filed when the purpose prohibiting the act com- court for the re plained case, merely spondent, follow- Honorable A. O. dis path beginning the beaten ed which had trict Garvin exercis *4 in been Constitutional Convention ing application alleged an unauthorized excessive and consistently followed the varioxis in the cause sessions of the down to the Hall, Tip Hall, Goldie Hall v. E. T. G. C. passage question, Hall, Nolan, Foster, Ella No. Joe and which has become such a well-settled county. of the district court of Garvin ' of our application based it cannot now be overturned without jurisdiction lack of court of the reason said turmoil and confusion. 23, 1925, a suit March writ is denied. E. Hall between Goldie Hall involv- G. ing divorce, subject-matter di- HARRISON, PHELPS, LESTER, alimony property, JJ.„ vision the district was filed in county, and that of Carter court BRANSON, concurs conclu- appli- pending time the this suit was sion, reasoning. but not petition- writ made. The cation er, HUNT, Hall, ,L, E. to dismiss motion dissents. G. coiunty in the Garvin district court cause (1) p. C. §29. Note.—See under 93» stated, which reason herein motion (2) §§66, 67. alleged on was half be- overruled. is further petitioners than E. G. claiming certain Hall Hall is Goldie possessed by proper- property them ty Hall, district court of E. G. HALL et al. v. BARRETT et al. appear county them of Garvin has cited appointing Opinion April a receiver No. and has made order an Filed property, restrained of their by and that unless Withdrawn, Corrected, April Refiled prohibition they will sustain a writ of July Rehearing Denied illegal great order a appointing loss virtue receiver’s said receiver and said proper- seizing thereunder said 1. Prohibition —Prevention of Interference ty. Inferior Court Onte Jurisdiction Another. An w'as alternative writ of is- day 13th on the sued to restrain Prohibition will issue March, 1926. Honor- 1926. On March proceeding ferior an action proceeding another inferior court able A. of which jurisdiction, writ Fourteenth vin which Gar- proceedings lie not where in one court will those is part, on the return interfere no wise showed alternative writ on so issued other. Hall, plain- February Goldie tiff, filed a suit in the district court of Gar- Discretionary. 2. Same —Issuance of Writ county against Hall, E. G. sum- vin caused authority, weight According to' the hearing and a mons to issue notice right, a writ of but one application temporary alimony discretion, granted sound by or withheld attorney’s fees, hearing to said held on exercising supervisory the control February hearing pe- according of each said 18th: nature and circumstances titioner, Hall, appeared G.
Glasco v. State Election Board
248 P. 642
Okla.1926Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.