*1 Plaintiff, PORTER, William T. corpora municipal CITY, a
OKLAHOMA Mayor tion; Norick, James H. Latting, City; John Patience Harry Smith, Moran, Deu L. Dr. N. H. T. pree, Bishop, Franklin, L.A. Bill H. Ben Cook, Dowell and Rowe Members of Rorem; Council; Mr. S. Dale Inc.; Association, Taxpayers Ramey, R. District Honorable Fenton Judge; Seventh District Court of the Oklahoma; Honorable Judicial District of Mills, Judge M. Clarence said Seventh District; Judicial Harold and Albert Johnson, Jr., Defendants.
No. 43175.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Oct. 1968. Opinion Supplemental
As Corrected Rehearing 1968. Oct.
3«5 Oklahoma; the State of provides that: duty “It shall be the Bond Com- prepare uniform forms and missioner to procedure prescribe under a method *3 in all cases the laws of the State where public securities to issue or desired bonds, any county, township, munici- pality political other sub-divisions Oklahoma; and thereof of State of duty it shall be the further of said Bond pass and Commissioner to examine into issued, upon any security and such so security, by the certificate when declared said be issued Bond Commissioner to Work, City, for E. Oklahoma James proce- the forms accordance with plaintiff. provided be dure so shall incontestable un- court in State of Oklahoma Counselor, Semtner, Municipal Roy H. brought in a court less suit thereon Harbour, Municipal Coun- David Asst. M. jurisdiction within having of the same selor, for defendants. thirty days approval from date of the Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Dell Gor- G. T. ” Commissioner; by the thereof Bond don, Gen., Atty. intervenor. Asst. O.S.1961, 1910, adopted 14, and 62 also § Thweatt, Swinford, Crowe, Dunlevy, provides by hereafter that “No bond issued Thweatt, Burdick, by Harold C. & Johnson any political municipal sub-division of curiae City, appearing amicus Oklahoma be valid the cer- State shall without City Chamber of in behalf of Oklаhoma tificate of said Bond Commissioner.” Commerce. validity proceeding, contesting the This these three issues of bonds because of LAVENDER, Justice. alleged fatal the election defects in held T. original proceeding, In this William 16, City July City on of Oklahoma Porter, taxpayer and as resident bonds, 1968, issuance authorizing the City City, asks this court to of Oklahoma commenced in this court within enjoin jurisdiction original assume and O.S.1961, 30-day period prescribed in 62 City City and the individ- of Oklahoma 10, September 13. It was commenced on § body governing composing its uals 1968, subsequent issuance, on Purpose issuing ‘A’ (a) “Series General date, General, Attorney same city, Bonds of said dated as of of 1968” 1968, 1, principal aggregate Bond Commissioner of October ex-officio $32,625,000, ‘A’ (b) and “Series Oklahoma, amount of separate certificates of his Facility Limited of 1968” of Access Bonds approving each of the issues three 1, city said dated as of October being issued in accordance with $2,670,000, aggregate principal amount of Constitution laws of this State ‘A’ and Fire (c) Fire Station “Series procedure pre- the forms and method of city, Equipment Bonds 1968” of said Commissioner for the the Bond scribed aggregate dated October Copies bonds. issuance of such $365,000. principal amount of transcripts proceedings respect bonds, the Bond 11, adopted made examined Com- missioner, are a of the record before of the State of Okla- Attorney General this court. Bond Commissioner homa ex officio persons gov- whose names unknown to these transcripts disclose Those City, plaintiffs, em- but were within the body erning ploymеnt, supervision and written bids direction of received August and, defendant, bonds, County Election the three issues Board, defendant, agent Harris the bid of accepted August upon the Bank, Chicago, City, Illinois Oklahoma made Savings corrections Trust ballot, thereby altering, ‘A’ face of the official associates) “Series General for the (and defacing mutilating ballot 1968,” the official and sold Purpose Bonds of election;” bidders, as marked the voters in and ac- said to those of bonds issue and, thereon, prayed those plaintiffs Bank based First National the bid of The cepted said election City, decree Company, Okla- Trust nullity thereof to be a and a homa, of bonds results the other two issues defendant, bidder; prohibit that the success- void them to sold *4 City City, acting upon Purpose of ‘A’ Oklahoma “Series General bid the ful for authority it alleged granted to as conditioned, among other is Bonds of 1968” result the the of said election. upon delivery of bonds to things, City in the of at a named bank bidders The record before us discloses that also seventy- York, York, New “within New August 23, considering after the on sale,” days from the date of accom- five stipulations parties, the evidence ad- of the non-litigation as by a of panied certificate date, hearing duced at a that and held on bonds; the and delivery of date of of the parties, the briefs the district court of the the other two the successful bids for that “(1) found that the issues were that the conditioned, among is other bonds issues of July illegal election of is because upon delivery of the bonds things, ballots muti- used at such election were Oklahoma, “on bidder, City, in Oklahoma lated, 16, 1968, (2) July that the election of 1968,” accompanied or before October illegal it through is was because conducted litigation. of no by a similar certificate voting the that machines, (3) use and of 16, 1968, July illegal the election of also discloses that The record before us posted because the outside each certificates action, 1, 1968, an numbered August place correctly precinct polling did not in 183,721, commenced the District was in precinct,” reflect the votes cast and such County by Dale Court of Oklahoma S. was held that the the court evidence before individual, Rorem, Tax- an and Oklahoma ac- not sufficient constitute a cause of to Inc., Association, corporation, as payer’s plaintiffs any judg- tion or the to entitle City against thе of plaintiffs Oklahoma ment the in the action. defendants the municipal corporation, and City, a motion appears, plaintiffs’ It also that those Board, County as de- Election Oklahoma September for new trial overruled on that, the fendants, alleging voting after at 3, 1968, they gave open and notice 16, 1968, had July election the bond of appeal their this court. intention to completed polls and been the closed However, opinion, date this the results of polling at each appeal such court has not been County city place in certified to perfected. involved, an Election Boards error proceed- printing respondents present official discovered places polling applicant’s ing deny “ballots” used at contentions сon- County, cerning invalidity which error caused an of the bond election Oklahoma bonds, join appli- tally of votes cast at said and of with the incorrect Proposition (which jurisdic- in- in asking cant this court assume Facility questions bonds tion and of law volved the Limited Access to determine that above); “that, applicant. They the dis- raised also ask mentioned covery court, proceeding, incor- issue writ printing error described, tried judge rect votes hereinbefore of certiorari the district July polling places all within case No. the above-mentioned County, of Oklahoma District Court County, are within the election certify this court all commanding him to is void because held in things conflict with all in that the records part of Article III of the Con- court, Section 6 of thereto, by this for review pertaining stitution Oklahoma which the two consolidate provides people that “In all elections immediately, determine, all of causes the vote shall be that, ballot.” if presented, so law questions of for not invalid the bonds are it, Although, as we understand plaintiffs in two reasons asserted being machines are to the suc- causes, may be delivered County pres- and' Tulsa at specified time within bidders time, cessful ent authorizing the statutes their use respective bids. their O.S.1961, (26 following) provide 271 and § for their use in all of the counties of the respondents connection, al- In this (26 271). state municipal bond of the the trend lege that is, that, if been, constitutional market city readver- ity necessary authorizing of the statutes the use of becomes machines, authorized their thereun use tise for bids because such July der, grеat is of statewide concern the election of finally public importance determined people *5 litigation has not delivery specified questions presented dates the prior the The other state. de- be applicant bonds cannot and the the herein arise out of the these bonds required certificates voting the use of machines at bond election livered with the concerning pending litigation ques at the the there is no issuance of bonds in the bonds, interest cost the total tion herein was authorized. is of Time bids, finally new would city, provided determining ques for under the these essence undoubtedly authority from three and one-half Sublett v. The tions. On be Okl., than City (1965), dollars more et to four million of Tulsa al. 405 P.2d million 185, juris for the bonds bids we have determined to assume under successful therefore, hеrein; that, purpose deciding diction for importance and of public questions presented by original extreme law is of law necessity questions applicant that the herein. urgent proceeding and presented in this However, neither District Court case be fin- above-mentioned judge thereof nor quickly as determined, by court, as ally is, tried case therein a obtaining such appears that possible. It made, party original pro has been a ques- all of those final determination of ceeding, Simpson, State ex rel. and, time, obviating the tions, the same at County Attorney, et v. Chickasha Cotton al. city (which cost to interest additional 472, 433, 45 146 (1915), P. Oil Co. course, ap- adversely affect this would, of paragraph held in the first property in the plicant and all owners syllabus: its exempt City which is City of Oklahoma “The or tribunal whose action officer reason levies), is sinking fund reviewed, possession and in is to be whose action his applicant commenced remains, of such action is record Court in the District than this court rather authority proper legal to make return to County. pro- writ such a of certiorari to review proper are therefore ceedings, and contends, among other applicant This necessary parties defendant thereto.” machines, rather that, because things question of considering the wheth- Without separate ballots for printed, than usual party is er successful the election of voter, at were used
389 492, Opinion Judges, 7 Me. “In a writ of certiorari seek party to proper that the ‘word “bal- 495, the court stated decline we procеedings, to review opposed may considered as lot” be ap- respect to jurisdiction assume * * by signs,’ *. by word or vote herein for respondents plication pointed distinction is The same out certiorari. writ of 535, Mead, Temple page 4 541. v. Vt. III Constitu- Article 6 Section of Stein, “In the case of 38 Williams v. Oklahoma, involved tion of State 89, points Am.Rep. 97, 10 Ind. the court provides in proposition, first plaintiff’s distinction, holding that the out same part that: pertinent secrecy, in of ballot essential vote people the- “In all elections may elector exercise order Legislature by ballot be shall pleases, as he uncontrolled franchise ballot kind of ticket or provide the shall any person power. unquestioned by regu- all such other and make be “The same been an doсtrine has necessary to detect lations as Richards, in Ritchie 14 nounced v. purity fraud, preserve punish 345, 670; Utah, Cleary, 47 P. Brisbin v. * * ballot; *.” 107, 825; People 26 Minn. 1 N.W. ex that, provision Cicott, first note unlike rel. 16 Mich. 97 Williams v. e 141; that was Constitution the Massachusetts rel. Smith Stat ex Am.Dec. 1; Anderson, relied case involved in the Fla. 8 So. Ex Voters, v. Board of Elec- plaintiff (Nichols Arnold, herein Parte Recorder Commissioners, 768, 1036, 196 Mass. tion Mo. 33 L.R. S.W. L.R.A.,N.S., 280), the Okla- St.Rep. A. 82 N.E. 49 Am. 557. provide does not
homa Constitution “In the filed behalf exhaustive brief In votes.” shall be “written interesting of the relator an discussion is of Ohio the annotations to given English Parlia- of the ballot Machine Co. Registering ex rel. Automatic *6 literature, ment, the ballot 121 (1929), Green, Director of Finance history of the ballot both in other coun- reported in N.E. as St. 168 Ohio times in Ameri- tries and also colonial that, states 66 A.L.R. thе annotator ca, that, which shows while ballot in which the jurisdictions all of kept a ball con- originally was which was Illinois, (citing Indi- had arisen cases it cealed in hand and used without Montana, Iowa, Minnesota, ana, Michigan, voted, the being known how the voter Island, York, Ohio, and Wash- New Rhode practically universal derivative that courts have concluded ington), meaning the term now is method ma- voting authorizing the use of statutes or, part 2 voting, as stated in of secret consti- are in contravention of chines Encyclo- 1 Cassell & Co.’s volume of requiring all votes provisions tutional that pedic Dictionary page ‘secret (1884), “ballot,” theory that the shall be opposed open voting.’ literal in its word “ballot” was not used manifestly impossible for the “It was sense, designat- only purpose of but for the forе- framers of Ohio Constitution conducting which ing a method of elections developments the mechanical see secrecy integrity will insure * * * so the age. modern our the ballot. Constitution could framers of the Ohio voter, a the time when Supreme not well foresee case, the In the cited Ohio Ohio lever, mark by manipulating a could Court, that arriving conclusion at the split straight a ticket or a ticket either provision requiring the constitutional “ballot,” exactly the same definiteness mere- voting meant expression he marks individual as when secrecy the essential ly to relate to * * choice, ballot in his hand. said: indication of voter’s city eligible Propo- of the were perceive nothing in 6 of to vote on Section We sition No. Constitution which related to the issuance Article III of Oklahoma facility voting to some method of the limited access would limit involved which herein, qualified property-tax-pay- indi but under which each voter or methods separate ing eligible electors or choices on to vote on the cates his choice pur propositions. paper him other eleven front piece issued On the contemplates face pose. voting (seen by We hold machine method, voters) appeared printed labels,” provide a “ballot Legislature shall methods, they voting voting at to in the elections referred machine statutes, with voting even those who count or two levers for each way that not any proposition, voting proposi- votes will know how oné 'for for the tabulate the voting tion and one for particular proposi- voted. Immediately voting below one of tion. have examined the Oklahoma accompanying Propo- levers a statement of voting ma authorizing the use of statutes appeared identifying sition num- following) (26 chines and, immediately ber “2A” below that num- of, but and hold that are not violative ber, “For;” appeared and, the word with, harmony above-quoted pro are in lever, immediately voting below the other Article III visions of Section appeared and, identifying number “3A” of Oklahoma. Constitution of immediately appeared below that number proposition, plaintiff’s second “Against.” the word Each of the two the entire bond election because all void voting accompanying levers statement portion of the ballots used of each of other eleven which lies within Oklahoma similarly voting identified but each County mutilated, arises identifying had a lever different number admitted (a) print out of error in the machine, below it. Inside the there was ing large, tally columnar-ruled separate digital voting counter for each (sometimes sheets hereafter referred to as which, if voting lever the related lever had “certificate-tally placed sheets”) that are voter, down ad- turned would voting type inside each machine of digit vance when had fin- one that voter bond large ished and moved a lever that question, before voter votes curtains, opened which, with the front particular machine, face of formed a for, total number of votes cast and the total printed booth. forms *7 against, number votes cast of each and voting machine, sheets insidе the which the every proposition being voted at such on see, corresponded voter could not with the imprinted, an as the election result of machine, ballot labels on the front of the button, pushing polls a certain after the number, proper identifying with the have been closed last has arranged so set machine and (b) the n ad machine, voted on that that, polls when had been the closed and employee mitted employees action of imprinting apparatus by the activated the County Election Board Oklahoma precinct officials, total number of the votes County correcting error, such on each each registered counter would be im- on copies tally the the sheets which had printed proper space tally the on the county been returned to the election board sheets, that, respect it is admitted with places the by polling the various officials machine, total number the County. in Oklahoma registered the of votes on counter for the imprinted “2A” voting lever numbered propositions (num- separate bond Twelve space tally in the “2A” on the sheets and 12) the through were submitted to bered registered number on the total of votes the City at the election voters lever the counter numbered qualified All 1968. electors July on held
SOI space imprinted “3A” proposition “3A” was the certain or measure. However, Also, tally tally the sheets. after the see Board of Education of Oklahoma voting machines, certified et sheets from al. v. Woodworth et al. (1923), 89 proper precinct by it, as the re- officials 1077. we P. As seе portions precinct, in their had of the voting sults of election machine which count returned Election the number of by been Board votes as indicated all of County, it voters and imprint was discovered that the various totals tally on a “Against,” simply of the word sheet place word instead take “For,” appeared identifying with the num- human counters general used under the certificate-tally relating “2A” statutes ber on the sheets to elections when “For,” machines are the word instead of word not used at an election. We “Against,” appeared identifying placed hold that a mark tally with sheet or certificate-tally certificate-tally sheet “distinguish- number “3A” on the sheets. is not a ing mark” on a “ballot” within the intent It is admitted that some one more of such terms as 371. § board, employees county prоposition Plaintiff’s second must be de- felt-tipped pen, using marking made a line nied. through “Against” appeared the word plaintiff’s The' proposition is, third “2A” space on each of the certifi- extent, some proposi- related his second cate-tally printed sheets word tion. He contends that the election should space, “For” in that and drew a line be declared copy invalid because the through appeared word “For” the tally sheet machine, from each voting space tally “3A” on each of sheets bearing the precinct certificate printed “Against” the word in that officials, posted outside polling place space; plaintiff is admitted used, where that required machine that, corrected, certificate-tally as so by O.S.1961, 368, had not been сorrect- sheets the correct number of disclosed ed in the manner certificate-tally that the for, votes the correct number of votes sheets returned county election board against, each of the twelve corrected, and, therefore, did not voted on at that election. show the respect correct results with plaintiff’s substance, argument is, Proposition No. 1. circumstances, that in the the “ballot” con- proposition This must be denied. (a) sists the ballot labels the front right qualified of a elector to vote face the voting (b) machines and and to have his vote counted is basic and tally the re- sheets machines with fundamental. When an election has been thereon; spective imprinted total votes faith, good conducted in no elector has printing error on sheets misled, been and a true and fair return of combined with the correction thereof the entire election canvassed and the employee employees county made, present case, inas the will of election board mutilated such “bal- people, as indicated their votes at lots” and election. invalidated the entire cannot be ir defeated plain agree We cannot regularities (particularly *8 resulting those voting tiff that sheets in used from part some act or acts on the type machines of the election officials) which are not sufficient question part herein is “ballot.” change the ultimate results of the elec principles upon Under which we de tion. See: State ex Mil rel. Edwards v. plaintiff’s proposition, lar, cided 448, first Mayоr, et (1908), al. 21 96 P. Okl. means, instrumentality, by 747; is a Palmer, “ballot” or Lamb v. Treasurer secretly indicates his will or (1920), 184; Mayberry 79 Okl. 191 P. being that it choice so be recorded as et al. v. et (1923), Gaddis al. 88 Okl. candidate, 316; a certain favor of or for 213 P. Gardner (1951), v. Scott Rorem, an individual The case Dale 863; Sparks v. of S. P.2d Okl., Taxpayer’s Association P.2d and (1964), State Election Board 183,721,District City, Case No. 711. County, been ad- Court of Oklahoma ap principle would he This same by applicants versely decided plicable proposition, plaintiff’s first proc- court, presently the trial prop above, disposes of his fourth and also appeal ess to this court. by was tainted osition that the bond election case present and the The Rorem case in one precinct officials election of matter, subject facts the same both involve to re place four electors polling allowing urgency for and issues. Due to machine, having after voting turn to the determination, pro- prompt and for the pulled large lever that advances concerned, parties rights tection of the machine, digital counters inside un- thereby, should affected Proposition purpose for the authority grant a superintending der its they forgotten No. which stated had ordering a review of Writ of Certiorari booth the to vote while consolidating record in the Rorem first time. Even if it could be assumed present presented matters therein that each those four electors voted case for an immediate determination. more, all, one, of the bond favor of propositions, their votes were not sufficient OPINION SUPPLEMENTAL
tо have affected the ultimate results of con for each of LAVENDER, Justice. herein cerning the bond issues involved Subsequent opinion to our of October required majority would have in the district an action filed proposition. four less votes for the Oklahoma, County, en- court of Oklahoma the cor- plaintiff does not titled, Plain- Johnson, Jr., Albert Harold the Bond rectness the certificates of City and tiff v. The in- Commissioner concerning the municipal cor- said same officers of herein, Septem- volved issued under date of proceed- poration in this who are defendants ber except that the extent ing. brought Mr. action Johnson questions proceeding raised him in this is case No. in said district court might upon be said an attack to constitute and shall be hereafter referred to approval. Consequently, it has not num- case” or its district court “Johnson necessary us to consider all of by the Responsive application ber. proceedings bond or the correctness proceeding, in this an Order defendants Bond Commissioner’s with re- declaration Show Cause was said directed Johnson spect thereto, and we have not done so. Mills, Presiding Hon. Clarence Judge of the District of 7th It is judgment Judicial appear in this court Oklahoma to injunction prayed plaintiff here- why the district court suit and show cause be, is, hereby should denied. plaintiff should not be dismissed court be judge therein and the of said JACKSON, IRWIN, J., J., C. V. C. enjoined prohibited, respectively, DAVISON, WILLIAMS, BERRY and in said matter in view further McINERNEY, JJ., concur. appeared opinion of this court’s what to be the same issues in the district involved HODGES, Justice, (concurring partiеs court action. The directed and dissenting part). October, appear day 15th I promul- concur in all matters and issues 1968,at 1:30 o’clock P.M. gated by majority opinion, except *9 October, 1968, day application which denies for a On the 14th Writ of proceeding Certiorari. defendants in this filed a Motion testimony upon the hearing conclusion Dale requested that S. it was in which transcript of the evidence was thereof Associa- Taxpayers Rorem; The Oklahoma this court. submitted to R. Ram- Inc.; Fenton tion, The Honorable the Seventh ey, Judge District Thereafter, after this court had studied Judicial Al- named District, the above as well as its it issued adduced, the record of evidence Honorable Johnson, bert Harold Rorem; Oklaho- order wherein S. Dale Jr. defend- parties be made M. Mills Clarence Inc.; Association, Taxpayers the Hon- ma recited was In Motion herein. said ant District Ramey, Judge; Fenton R. orable their entered have judges that both of and the District Court of Seventh Judi- proceeding. in this appearances general Oklahoma; and Honor- cial District of attached certificate According to Mills, Judge the said able M. Clarence mailed Motion, was copy thereof said District; and Albert Har- Seventh Judicial persons. named all of last Johnson, parties defend- Jr., old were made October, Order, ants in was Thereafter, day this matter. Said 15th October, 1968, sought day issued parties 18th fur- the defendants “ * * * appear- all ther stated that the court is of at additional defendants be made court, hearing opinion least the tentative the evidence and a before this еd which, court this adduced at hearing said sufficient held at the conclusion Harold grounds Albert to establish new or different Rorem and Dale informed S. Taxpayers Asso- declaring the bond election invalid other and the Oklahoma Johnson the issues ciation, appeared that dis- grounds than those same issues and Inc. that it suit, (in parties as well opinion).” court cussed All of the district in Mr. Johnson’s court file in this in district were further directed to briefs as the issues P.M., Rorem Dale proceeding Mr. not later than 1:30 Octo- (which involved S. Association, 21, 1968, question ber Taxpayers addressed to the Oklahoma circumstances, why, issues the same plaintiffs) were view Inc. as enjoin opinion prohibit Octo- court should not by this court’s determined the facts proceedings if were further district and that such two ber integ- court preserving aсtions. that in the interest upon those opinion rity this court’s filed only party defendant parties issues, enjoin the might the court any response to this court’s order of October in said proceeding further Ror- the defendants Dale were S. respective prohibit court suits and em, Tax- individually, and The Oklahoma proceed- in which said judges and the court Association, payers The instrument Inc. further ings pending from were entitled a filed these defendants was Johnson, Whereupon Mr. in said matters. state- it contested this court’s “Motion” and record, per- asked attorney of through his opinion original ment contained evidence mission to introduce city’s contention that if these upon the court’s consideration the dates not sold delivered on designated purpose for that this court one agreed upon, additional interest cost would such all of hear of its Referees to city. De- expense result in more and to submit same evidence Taxpayers fendants Associa- Rorem transcription of such testi- typewritten such argue tion now that evidence of no Dale Mr. S. adduced. mony increase in shown. interest rates has been Taxpayers Asso- Rorem and how, respect, the fail to see or what ciation, Inc. was invited failure affect to adduce evidence could any evidence hearing produce at also the issue mentioned in October 18 order our to be upon the issue might have parties directed to which the said determined. namely, ad- whether the evidence brief— October, day Thereafter, hearing duced at the dis- the 16th before the Referee A.M., сlosed Referee commenced issues not determined court’s at 9:30 *10 point in our wish to We also out not concerned opinion. We October why opinion inadvertent- October we juncture of the case—with —at this ly Series “A” referred to Fire Station original jurisdiction court assumed this Equipment instance, leaving Fire 1968 of said Bonds of than the first rather in 1, 1968, aggregate dated October in remedies. their court parties to $365,000.00. principal our amount of Such prior to was The contention made— July bonds involved accepted by this original opinion'—and therefore, not, election should to costs would result increased All opinion. been mentioned matters have in disposition city speedy if original to such in our conten- reference bonds of that not made. contest was No fur- opinion is thеrefore withdrawn. We justified made and we were was then tion thirty day period in ther notice that the Regard- it. assuming in correctness of the Bond rate which a be filed of however, contest less, the interest of whether approval here- increasing, take Commissioner’s declining we is in fact or involved, provided O.S. by in as Tit. 62 projects, judicial notice costs of expired. has now be ob- are to which these bond funds tained, that fur- steadily increasing which was Considering now evidence the cost delay very increase ther could well Referee, we find that adduced before taxpayers of projects to plain- persons three testified in behalf de- City. The remainder of tiff, The these Mr. first of Johnson. argu- “Motion” is concerned with fendants’ printed employee company of the which an suffiсiency effect of ment as to the certificate-tally sheets so referred to before hearing evidence adduced stat- opinion and (the in witness our Referee. printed proofs after had ed) were in de- discussing
Before that evidence approved employee tail, however, pause significance we to note that to board. fail see day September, testimony on the 18th heretofore of this have we “ * * * court, hearing Mr. at a before this people, held that will of Tax- Dale Rorem and the S. by this at such as indicated vote Association, to payers Inc., invited (partic- irregularities cannot be defeated join original proceeding in this act or resulting some ularly those stipulate upon the to be determined. issues officials) which acts of еlection They were further that time authorized at change the results are not sufficient was, file in this This briefs matter. the election.” course, long prior promulgation opinion. The Mrs. Mc- our defendants declined two'witnesses were next so, right. Again, witness Elroy Lapp. do as of course their a Mrs. The first to, and dis- precincts as we have referred Mr. checked Rorem stated she some corporate by this defendant were a difference the total votes invited covered produce “public court to before this court’s evidence shown on the counter” signa- bearing any compared Referee claim invalid- total machine as with the is the book ity proceedings the bond in our This involved tures on voters’ book. kept place opinion. polling list Not did these defendants nоt or voters’ produce any hearing, voting and during but in which evidence at they again name come they appear signs declined either his or her when they did person Notwithstanding the counsel. to vote. witnesses testified parties appear votes failure of these not check the cast for were, against all court’s or for order of October one precinct. They simply file brief again given opportunity of them one signatures re- the voters matter. The “Motion” counted the above compared ferred filed that total with the total “official” to was instead. *11 a the more activating machine one McEl- lever on Mrs. precinct. that tallied for vote and counting number is added the device her to precincts she the that roy testified possible it more entirely that was that one to one were from checked there helpers such number be added could without the official total shown on forty more votes propositions. the being the actual votes cast on signatures on than there were example, the gave He not an situation The votes of various or list. book voters’ him, according a voter uncommon where In ad- in detail. to precincts were described book, might sign the enter the booth and witness “irregularity” the dition to pull curtain, he is the then decide that not she persons, whom testified as to nine regis- going any (or only to vote one on on named, were not but who who voted they the such a two) propositions. When precinct which in the tered voters booth, opens persons names voter the curtain to leave the sаy, these is to voted—that (which one vote is added to counter prepared voters’ typed not on were appears later tallied book, apparent- votes cast or total but were written lists or in— entirely possible These for that precinct) she and is he or voted. ly by the when voter at that the voter not vote one or only “irregularities” or variances did were the on they although propositions. and more of Mr. Newman by the noted witnesses “in- completed registration their further that the they testified had not stated precinct they admitted furnished the contains book vestigation” of pre- Septem- registered names of the in that checked since voters nothing else had prior that election. day cinct as of a or so to the further stated ber 13th. witness ap- “ex- Regardless whether voter’s name not know whether she did lists, pears per- is registration he tra” were cast for or votes mitted vote his Identification on Voter’s propositions. upon his the affidavit. signing Card and Lapp corroboration Mrs. testified in person Other instances noted where were above McElroy concerning matters Mrs. only may recently registered with have testified Lapp further mentioned. Mrs. precinct registrar person that not “irregularities.” what called as to she have forwarded the voter’s into name elec- observing These consisted of her county election board offices. if precinct voters officials in her ask tion they receipts. tax would had voters Regarding the “differences be- so-called yes papers out of pull answer some signers regis- tween number of on not pockets the officials did their tration the total counted book and votes and that asked papers; these she “check” that in precinct, Mr. Newman stated (Secretary Mr. of the Oklahoma Newman reality any if there is in order to determine keep the voters’ Board) Election it, must one such difference or the extent he check them and affidavits so she could only appearing not names count “keep those they told her that didn’t book, registration include but must also things.” are not the affidavits of those whose names City, Newman, defendant
Mr. for the typed pointed in—he out that notwithstand- that the affidavits mentioned precinct testified ing the instructed officials available, but Lapp storage and Mrs. are in signers add the affidavits He requested to them. list, see no one this is voters’ sometimes done they not stored further testified that those one can obtain instances hearing and days prior comparison considering until a few accurate readily Mrs. signatures plus available to the affidavits book prior time. Lapp McElroy compare ap- Mrs. total the total “total pearing This witness further stated end of the counter public day. votes cast” He he in con- is obtained testified that did this precincts counter device machine nection with found three of opened reflect McElroy Lapp time the curtain Mrs. Mrs. large “extra” unauthorized vote citizens of disappeared. words, In “differences” other and in effect result in denial would justice signed total voters the book them. who believe that under signed equalled authority plus of cases ex those affidavits rel. Ross, appearing exactly Freeling total the number P. *12 Clark, Highway Warner, on the counter. Comm’rv. Clerk, justi- 85 Okl. 204 P. we are completely carefully We have granting extraordinary fied in relief in the in the record reviewed evidence premises. based made before court’s Referee and hold opinion thereon we are of Therefore order to make this court’s that the evidence of irregularity prior opinion wholly (see State effective conduct of the Trapp Chambers, election ex rel. 96 Okl. and/or of the election is not sufficient 1144), officials 220 P. 30 A.L.R. it is Ordered expressed rule within the this court Adjudged that Fenton R. the Hon. paragraph syllabus in Ramey, fourth Judge Dis- Seventh Judicial 11, 1968, opinion judicial our October invalidate trict and the District Court said or to inеffective fur- prohibited proceeding render district be from approval 183,721 made Dale ther in case No. wherein S. are voters. We of the view therefore Taxpayers Rorem Asso- ciation, the issues in the are or plaintiffs district court suits Inc. are and it is further by Ordered, were identical with the granting determined issues as an incident to the 11, 1968, opinion. plaintiffs its prohibition, parties October said parties proceeding in said and who are jurisdiction It a rule of is this proceeding defendants in this be and where this court determined once hereby, con- perpetually enjoined are from out same arising issues transaction the action, tinuing further either in with said presented issues not thereafter be by appeal from said district court or jurisdiction a court of lesser where court to cоurt. probable litigation subsequent result of such would be an between intolerable conflict Adjudged that It further is Ordered opinion court’s the decision of Mills, Judge the Hon. Clarence M. jurisdiction. court of lesser believe We District Seventh District Judicial such rule to be conducive well founded and prohibited judicial be Court of said district orderly procedure in the administration 184,- proceeding No. from further in case justice. Turnpike See Au Johnson, in which Albert Harold Jr. thority County, v. District Court of Lincoln Ordered, and, it plaintiff is further P.2d 514. writ granting an incident to prohibition, plaintiff said re of the view that to enjoined perpetually requested prohibition fuse the relief of or from continuing maintain said action injunction against maintenance way further with suits, circum under the same. record, stances as reflected would All the concur. taxpayers great wrong against work a Justices