Court Opinion

ID: 9577544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:55.373096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:47.424486
License: Public Domain

HODGES, Vice Chief Justice
(dissenting)-
I dissent for the reason the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma has prescribed the manner and procedure for the nomination of presidential electors.
Art. 3, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution specifically states that presidential electors “shall be nominated by the regularly called conventions of the various political parties.” (Emphasis supplied)
Opposed to the above provision of the Constitution, 26 O.S.1971 § 10-101 places a limitation on the nomination of presidential electors to only those who are members of a recognised political party.
The constitutional provision does not restrict the office of presidential elector to recognized parties, but specifically provides for their nomination from all of the various parties. Therefore, § 10-101 is an unconstitutional infringment of the rights of members of a political party that is not recognized by the State of'Oklahoma, thereby depriving them of their right of ballot access for presidential electors.
It also should be pointed out that by statute, if a person is not a member of a “recognized political party,” then his status *780as a voter is automatically, without his consent or permission, determined to be that of an “independent.”
Our recent opinion in McCarthy v. Slater, 553 P.2d 489, 47 OBJ 1674 (Okl.1976), recognized there was a void in the nomination of presidential electors for an “independent,” and held they must be allowed access to the ballot for the November, 1976 General Election.
If Oklahoma by statute does not recognize the American Party and casts them into the role of an independent voter, then they should be accorded the same rights of ballot access to the office of presidential elector as was given to the independent presidential electors for Eugene McCarthy.
I respectfully dissent.