Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 Or. 538

State v. Kellaher

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1919

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1919-01-14

Original proceedings in Supreme Court. In Banc. Held: and the election precincts and officers shall be the same for all elections held at the same time. All provisions of the charters and ordinances of incorporated cities and towns pertaining to the holding of elections shall continue in full force and effect except so far as they relate to the time of holding such elections.

Relies on State ex rel. Whitney v. Johns

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Judgment eor, Relator · Decided 1919-01-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1941

6 state decisions

301919192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JOHNS, J.

¶1(Concurring Specially in the Opinion of Mr. Justice Harris). — It is the theory of our form of government that the people have the right to elect their own officials. “While, for certain purposes and under certain conditions, the power to fill a vacancy in office is conferred by the people upon a designated officer or board, yet I do not believe that in the present instance the people who conferred that power ever intended that the appointment should be extended over and beyond the date of the next general municipal election after the vacancy was so filled. It was the purpose and intent of the people to reserve the right to fill any unexpired term of such vacancy at the first ensuing election. In the case of State ex rel. Whitney v. Johns, 3 Or. 533, the syllabus lays down the rule that:

“The appointee of the Governor, appointed to fill a vacancy in office occasioned.by death or resignation, only holds said office until the first general election after the vacancy occurs. … At that time the people may supply the office by election.”

¶2In the opinion it is said: -

“The people of Oregon by their Constitution made their judiciary elective, and only gave the executive power to fill temporary vacancies, which should occur between, elections. If the people had intended to part with this power by appointing county judges, they would have expressed it. It cannot be inferred. No inference or intendment is ever presumed against the sovereign. Snch is the universal rule for the construction of statutes, for they emanate from the sovereign power which, in this state, is the people. They appoint the executive, and he only acts by delegated authority, and this authority cannot be pre*574sumed beyond the express words of the grant. And I think the power in this case only extends to the filling-a vacancy until the next general election, when the people can regularly exercise their authority in electing officers. I think it is -not reasonable to presume that, where the people have reserved to themselves the appointment of an officer, they would confer on the executive the filling of a vacancy in the office, which would extend the time of the appointee beyond a gen- • eral election, and deprive the whole people of a county from electing their own local officer, when they could, fill it as conveniently as they appointed the original incumbent. ’ ’

¶3On this principle, I concur in the result of the opinion of Mr. Justice Habéis.

/90/or/538 · .json · Public domain