Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

302 P.2d 134

Watson v. State Election Board

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 16, 1956

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1956-10-16

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1961

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1956-10-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice

¶1(dissenting) .

¶2Members of the House of Representatives of the State of-Oklahoma, although state officials, represent the people living in their respective districts.

¶3That portion of the statute quoted by the majority, at the beginning of the quotation, clearly uses the word “jurisdiction” in the sense of “geographical area.”

¶4Then certainly the legislature, by the use thereof again in the same paragraph, yes, even in. the very same sentence, in providing that “the central committee of the political party affected, and for the jurisdiction in which the nominee was a candidate, may in writing nominate a substitute candidate; … ” meant the central committee of the geographical area *139in which the nominee was a candidate, or in this case, Pontotoc County. (Emphasis supplied.)

¶5As said by the majority, “where the language of a statute is clear and its meaning is plain and unmistakable, there is no room for construction.”

¶6I,therefore, respectfully dissent.

¶7I am authorized to state the Mr. Justice WELCH and Mr. Justice BLACKBIRD concur in the views herein expressed.

/302/p2d/134 · .json · Public domain