HOYT v. CORDELL

HOYT v. CORDELL
1946 OK 216
172 P.2d 414
197 Okla. 386
Case Number: 32674, 32716, 32717
Decided: 08/19/1946
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

HOYT
v.
CORDELL, Sec. of State Election Board, et al
BELL v. SAME
BRIGGS v. SAME

Syllabus

¶0 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Construction of Constitution - Intent of framers and of people adopting instrument - Unambiguous provisions.
The object of construction, applied to a Constitution, is to give effect to the intent of its framers, and of the people adopting it. This intent is to be found in the instrument itself; and when the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the courts, in giving construction thereto, are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument.
2. SAME - Apportionment is duty placed on Legislature over which courts have no jurisdiction.
Apportionment, under the Constitution of Oklahoma, is a duty placed on the Legislature, over which the courts have no jurisdiction.
3. SAME - Provision for increasing membership of Senate not self-executing.
The exception contained in section 9 (a), article 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution is not self-executing.
4. STATUTES - Duty of Legislature to pass laws necessary for carrying into effect provisions of Constitution.
Under section 45, article 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, it is the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as are necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of the Constitution.

Applications to assume original jurisdiction and for writs of mandamus by Lester D. Hoyt, Harlan B. Bell, and Claude Briggs, against J. Wm. Cordell et al., constituting State Election Board. Writ denied.

Lester D. Hoyt, pro se, and Hall & Cotton, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioner in Cause No. 32674.
Harlan B. Bell and L.D. Hoyt, both of Oklahoma City, for petitioner in in Cause No. 32716.
Hall & Cotten and L.D. Hoyt, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioner & Cause No. 32717.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

DAVISON, J.

¶1 The above styled and numbered cases present the same identical question as presented in Cause No. 32672, Wm. F. Latting, Petitioner, v. F. Wm. Cordell, Secretary of the State Election Board, et al., 197 Okla. 369, 172 P.2d 397, the only difference being that the above cases involve offices in Oklahoma county.

¶2 Each of the above cases presents an original action brought by the individual petitioners against J. Wm. Cordell, Secretary of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, et al., respondents, to require respondents to cause the name of each petitioner to be printed upon the official ballots for the general election to be held in November, 1946, as the nominee of the Democratic party for the office of State Senator from Oklahoma County.

¶3 The law in the Latting case, supra, is decisive of the question herein.

¶4 Writ denied.

¶5 GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents.

Page 387