Case Title: BRADSHAW v. OKLA. STATE ELECTION BOARD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 100836

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
BRADSHAW v. OKLA. STATE ELECTION BOARD  BRADSHAW v. OKLA. STATE ELECTION BOARD 2004 OK 69 98 P.3d 1092 Case Number: 100836 Decided: 08/13/2004 As Corrected: August 30, 2004 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA CHARLENE K. BRADSHAW, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, Glo Henley, Chairperson, Kenneth Monroe, Vice Chairman, Thomas E. Prince, Member and Tom Cole, Respondents. ORDER ¶1 Original jurisdiction is assumed and a writ of mandamus is hereby issued. The Oklahoma State Election Board is directed to place petitioner's name on the Oklahoma general election ballot as an Independent candidate for the office of United States Representative for the 4th District of Oklahoma. The provisions of 26 O.S. Supp. 2004 §5-105 are, by their express terms, uninvocable against candidates for federal offices. ¶2 Glo Henley, Kenneth Monroe and Thomas E. Prince, to the extent that they are named in the caption hereof in their individual capacities, are not proper parties respondent. These individuals are proper parties respondent only in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma State Election Board. ¶3 Petitioner's request for costs and an attorney's fee is denied. Rule 1.191(j) of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules. ¶4 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2004. /S/CHIEF JUSTICE Watt, C.J., Opala, V.C.J., Boudreau and Edmondson, JJ. and Simms, SJ., concur; Hodges, Hargrave and Kauger, JJ., dissent; Lavender, J., not participating; Winchester, J., disqualified. OPALA, V.C.J., ¶1 I concur in today's assumption of jurisdiction and in the issued command that the State Election Board place the petitioner's name on the general election ballot as an Independent candidate for the U.S. Congress from District No. 4. ¶2 The question presented by the petitioner's writ quest is whether she is a qualified candidate for the congressional office she seeks. The State Election Board ruled her disqualified by the provisions of 26 O.S. Supp.2004 §5-105(A),1 finding that she fails to meet that statute's requirement for an independent office-seeker who must be "a registered voter in . . . [her] party for the six[-]month period immediately preceding the first day of the filing period prescribed by law." ¶3 The body of public law that governs qualifications of a candidate for public office from this State is entirely statutory. 2 It may be neither supplemented nor diluted by the norms of common law injected into its corpus by an agency or by a judicial syringe. One's opportunity to seek a public office must stand unburdened by extra-statutory hurdles. This right is guaranteed and guarded by the Oklahoma Constitution, the State's highest law. ¶4 This case is not about the constitutional validity of a restriction the present incumbent seeks to impose on the petitioner's candidacy; rather, it is about whether such restriction does in fact stand imposed by Oklahoma's fundamental law or by one of her statutes. I THE STATUTE INVOKED BY THE RESPONDENTS IS FACIALLY UNAMBIGUOUS ¶5 The provisions of 26 O.S.Supp.2004 § 5-105(A), the statute on which the respondents rely, are, by their express terms, uninvocable against candidates who seek a federal office. This is so because federal office-seekers are not included among those to be affected by its provisions. Where a statute is plain and unambiguous, it will not be subject to judicial construction, but must be given the effect its language dictates.3 II A LONG-FOLLOWED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT BINDING ON THIS COURT WHEN IT IS PLACED BY AN AGENCY UPON AN UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE ¶6 Administrative construction cannot override the plain language of a statute.4 Where a statute is neither ambiguous nor of doubtful meaning, the rule that weight is to be given to an agency construction in determining the effect of the statute5 will not be applied. III NEITHER AN AGENCY NOR THIS COURT MAY BURDEN A FEDERAL OFFICE SEEKER WITH QUALIFICATIONS NOT IMPOSED BY FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTORY LAW ¶7 This case is not about the constitutional validity of the qualification that the respondents seek to inject but rather whether that very qualification is in fact imposed by state law. Neither an agency nor this court can foist upon a candidate qualifications for office that are not prescribed by written law. No voting- or election-related issue may be resolved by invoking a norm of unwritten law.6 In short, there is no common law to aid the court in disposing of the contested issue here. The law's command that courts may not inject common-law solutions in resolving a candidate's qualifications for public office is persuasively informed by Oklahoma's firm constitutional commitment to the principle of providing unimpeded access for filing to those who desire to seek public office by election.7 In sum, one who seeks public office is entitled to file as a candidate for election unless it clearly appear that one fails to meet a qualification prescribed for that office by the "written law" - Oklahoma's constitution or one of her legislative enactments.8 IV SUMMARY ¶8 I concur in today's assumption of original jurisdiction and in the issued command that the State Election Board place petitioner's name on the general election ballot as an Independent candidate for the U.S. Congress from District No. 4. FOOT