Court Opinion

ID: 9538226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:32:52.630665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:40.741952
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
Although I could not agree with the former majority opinion herein, I-feel it my duty to concur in the present one. In my view, the court now in effect holds that Mr. Payne was entitled to present his-case to the Wagoner County Election Board sitting in conjunction with the District Judge upon occasion of the recount -proceedings. That body and judge had the authority and duty to determine the 'legality of ballots duly challenged.
True, the people of Oklahoma have said in our Constitution, Art. II, § 6: “The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and" for every injury to person, property, or reputation; * * Note' ábsénce of reference to political rights.
And further, Art. Ill,' § 6: “* * (T)he Legislature shall * * * make all such other regulations as may be necessary to detect and punish fraud, and preserve the purity of the ballot; * * - ”
And, Art. Ill, § 7:, “The election shall be free and equal * * ”
Bui they have also said, Art. Ill, § 4: “The Legislature * * *. shall provide the time and manner of holding and conducting all elections; * * . ” (Emphasis added.)
We are not here called upon to decide the constitutionality of 26 O.S.1951 § 391, nor to broaden its interpretation.- Plaintiff Payne apparently abandoned his remedy under that provision of law and sought other redress in the proceeding from which arose this appeal. .
I believe he was entitled in his recount proceeding to assert the alleged illegality of certain absentee ballots, notwithstanding the decision of this court in Brickell v. State Election Board, 203 Okl. 362, 221 P.2d 785.
After denial of such right by the Board and District Judge, in aid of securing that relief he would, have been entitled to the issuance by this court of proper writ under our authority of superintending control. Const. Art. VII, § 2;, Looney v. County Election Board of Seminole County, 146 Okl. 207, 293 P. 1056.
I therefore concur specially in the majority opinion.