Opinion ID: 1454414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: in the absence of a statutory remedy, equity will intervene to cure election defects.

Text: The Fire Protection Act (the Act), 19 O.S.1981 § 901.1 et seq., outlines the procedures to follow in creating a fire protection district. Section 901.4 [18] provides that such elections are to be conducted in accordance with the general election laws. These laws are found in Title 26. Section 8-109 [19] proscribes contests in any election except those in which candidates are seeking office. [20] This statute does not conflict with any provision of the Fire Protection District statutes. Its language is clear and unambiguous. Because the legislative intent is clearly expressed, it is unnecessary to apply rules of construction. [21] The clear language of § 8-109 prohibits contests in any election not involving the right to hold office. We may not fabricate a different meaning from the one expressed in § 8-109 in order to provide the contestants with a remedy to address their wrong. [22] However, we are mindful of the importance of the right to be preservedthe right to vote. Were we to stop with this analysis of § 8-109 the public would be left without an avenue to address wrongs which may occur in the conduct of special elections. We find instructive case law from other jurisdictions in which the courts have found that if no other remedy exists, equity will intervene. [23] Other courts allow equity proceedings if, as here, property rights are affected or taxes are to be imposed as a result of the election. [24] Almost an equal number of jurisdictions have found that courts of equity have no power to determine an election's validity. [25] The courts which allow the invocation of equity to protect against adverse consequences from invalid elections are more persuasive than those which ignore them. We find that if there is no statutory provision allowing an election contest involving civil or property rights rather than purely political rights, [26] the controversy may proceed in equity. Although we recognize that the right to contest an election may be lost by laches or inexcusable delay, [27] laches is not an appropriate defense to one who lacks notice of a right to proceed or a cause of action. [28] Several of the contestants had no notice that there had been an election to contest until they received their tax statements in December of 1983one year after the election. Six months later, Mr. W attempted to file a pro se petition to have the election set aside. Nine months later, they filed this cause to nullify the election. Only after investigation, did the contestants find that the election had not been advertised as required by § 901.3. On first inquiry, Mr. W was assured by County officials that the election had been properly advertised. When delay is caused by an adverse party, that party may not use the defense to his/her benefit. [29] Although there is no evidence that the Fire Protection District gave the contestants misleading information, there is evidence in the record that less than accurate information was given by County officials. The plain language of § 901.3 requires advertisement of the election to form the Fire Protection District. Failure to follow that directive violated a legal duty. This is not a case where nothing was done until the action was filed. We fail to see how laches can apply when: 1) inquiries were made as soon as the contestants became aware of the additional tax; 2) local officials, elected state representatives, and the Attorney General were contacted in an attempt to obtain relief; and 3) an attempt was made to file a pro se action within six months of notice, and suit was filed within nine months of notice of the assessment.