Court Opinion

ID: 9757902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:03:36.94805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:45.451019
License: Public Domain

*247Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
I read “tbe largest entire vote cast for any officer . . . elected at the last preceding election . . . for which said nomination papers are to he filed . . .” to mean that the number of nomination petition signatures necessary to qualify as a candidate for the office of mayor should be the highest vote cast for any officer in the last preceding mayoralty election. To hold otherwise, in my view, is to render nugatory the language “for which said nomination papers are to be filed”. Contrary to the holding of the majority of this Court, I interpret “said electoral district” to clearly and unequivocally refer to the particular district in which the proposed candidate is seeking election. Consequently, to conclude that “for which said nomination papers are to be filed” modifies “said electoral district” on the basis that the phrase “said electoral district” is ambiguous, is clearly without foundation.
Since it is an axiomatic statutory rule of construction to give vitality wherever possible to every word of a statute, I am reluctantly compelled to conclude that the proper measuring rod in ascertaining the number of signatures necessary in the instant case, is the highest vote cast for any officer in the last preceding election for mayor.
Accordingly, I dissent.