Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Woodworth
| Decision Date | 13 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | 13952. |
| Citation | 214 P. 1077,89 Okla. 192,1923 OK 135 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY ET AL. v. WOODWORTH ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 24, 1923.
Syllabus by the Court.
"Ballot" and "vote," though sometimes used synonymously, are not synonymous; "a ballot" is the instrument by which a voter expresses his choice between candidates, or in respect to propositions, while his "vote" is the choice or election as expressed by his ballot.
"Vote" is the formal expression of a will, preference, wish, or choice in regard to any measure proposed, in which the person voting has an interest in common with others, either in electing a person to fill a certain situation or office, or in passing laws, rules, regulations, etc.
In determining whether a bond issue has received the assent of the required number of voters, as required by section 26 art. 10, of the Constitution, which provides "no county city, town, township, school district, * * * shall be allowed to become indebted, * * * without the assent of three-fifths of the voters thereof, voting at an election, to be held for that purpose;" held, that blank ballots, nor ballots marked both for and against the bond issue, nor ballots which were returned as mutilated because they were not voted either for or against the bond issue, but were cast for another proposition that was submitted at the same time on a separate ballot, nor the return of the officers which disclosed 12 more mutilated ballots than were found in the ballot boxes, cannot be counted in determining the aggregate number of voters thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose, for the reason that none of said persons casting any of said ballots expressed any will, preference or choice in regard to the measure voted upon.
Where a bond issue is submitted as provided in section 26, art. 10, of the Constitution, to determine whether a school district should issue bonds for the purpose of purchasing sites and erecting buildings, and said proposition received the necessary assent of three-fifths of the voters thereof voting on said proposition, held, the proposition carried, although it may not have received the majority of all the votes cast upon other questions submitted at the same election.
The natural and appropriate office of a proviso in a statute is to restrain or qualify some preceding matter, and it should be confined to what precedes it, unless it clearly appears to have been intended to apply to some other matter.
When the context requires it, a proviso to a section of the statute may be considered tantamount to an independent enactment.
Every statute should have a reasonable, sensible construction, in preference to one which renders it, or a substantial part of it, useless or deleterious.
To ascertain the intent of the framers of a statute, all the various portions of the legislative enactments upon the particular subject, including subsequent enactments, should be construed together and given effect as a whole
Under and by virtue of chapter 24, Session Laws 1916 (section 6252, C. L. 1921), the proviso to section 4 of which provides "And provided further, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to any school district elections," held the proviso, under the proper rules of construction heretofore announced, should be construed as an independent enactment; held, further, the registration law does not apply to school district elections.
Section 10, art. 10, of the Constitution provided a method for erecting public buildings by a direct tax, but said method is not exclusive, and sections 19, 20, and 21, art. 6, c. 219, Session Laws 1913 (sections 10423, 10424, 10425, C. L. 1921), are not in conflict therewith nor have any application thereto, but said sections relate to the issuing of bonds provided for in section 26, art. 10, of the Constitution, to be used for the purpose of erecting school buildings.
In submitting to the people of a school district the proposition whether bonds shall be issued in the sum of $1,900,000, for the purpose of purchasing additional sites for school buildings and playgrounds, the erection of ward school buildings and junior high school buildings, etc., embraces a question for school improvements in said district and comprises a single proposition.
Where a proposition is submitted to the voters of a school district to issue bonds, for the purchase of additional sites for school buildings and playgrounds, although the meaning of the term "playgrounds" may be ambiguous, and subject to two constructions, one which makes the bond issue legal, and the other illegal, the court, unless fairly convinced to the contrary, will place that construction upon the bond issue which makes the proposition legal instead of a construction holding the same illegal.
The term "school site," in its common acceptation, and as commonly understood, refers to a parcel of ground sufficient in size upon which to erect a school building, and a yard surrounding the same to be used as a playground for the children while at school.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Hal Johnson, Judge.
Suit by George O. Woodworth and others against the Board of Education of Oklahoma City and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
H. C. Thurman and A. J. McMahan, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
E. E. Blake, B. D. Shear, and Keaton, Wells & Johnston, all of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, enjoining the board of education of Oklahoma City from issuing certain bonds, which question was submitted to the voters of the school district and declared to have received the required number of voters. The trial court canvassed the ballots and returns, and the record discloses there were 5,636 votes cast in favor of the issuing of the bonds, 3,706 against the bonds, and the returns disclosed the following mutilated ballots: Twenty-six ballots marked both for and against the bonds; fourteen ballots not marked in any respect; four ballots marked in favor of the bonds with lead pencil, and one ballot marked against the bonds with lead pencil; one ballot marked outside the square; nine ballots, which had been spoiled and canceled, and four ballots in the boxes were not ballots on the bond issue, but were ballots cast for an excessive tax levy, which question was voted upon at the same time the bond issue was being voted upon; and the returns of the election officials disclosed twelve mutilated ballots, more than was found in the ballots. The trial court made a general finding for the plaintiffs in the case, and enjoined the issuance of the bonds. The questions presented on appeal involve each proposition of law and fact presented to the trial court.
The first question briefed is whether the bonds received the assent of a sufficient number of the voters as required under section 26, art. 10, of the Constitution, which provides:
"No county, city, town, township, school district * * * shall be allowed to become indebted * * * without the assent of three-fifths of the voters thereof, voting at an election, to be held for that purpose."
It is conceded that the bonds received more than three-fifths of the votes that were counted for and against the bonds, but it is contended that, if all the mutilated ballots be counted in determining the aggregate number of voters thereof voting, the bond issue did not receive the necessary three-fifths' assent. The above portion of the section of our Constitution has never been construed by this court. Other states have statutes or Constitutions very similar, although the language used in many of the statutes and Constitutions have altogether a different meaning. There is an irreconcilable conflict in the opinions of the courts of the different states as to whether mutilated ballots shall be considered in determining the aggregate number of voters voting at an election held for that purpose.
The statutes and constitutional provisions of the various states are not identical, nor are the statutes or Constitutions of the same state identical regarding the submitting of various questions to the people. In some instances the provisions of the statute refer to majority of ballots cast, others to the votes cast, and others the number of voters thereof voting at an election, held for that purpose. There are, however, several propositions that are necessary to consider, in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.
In the case of Clary v. Hurst, 104 Tex. 423, 138 S.W. 566, it is stated:
" 'Ballot' and 'vote,' though sometimes used synonymously, are not synonymous, and a 'ballot' is the instrument by which a voter expresses his choice between candidates, or in respect to propositions; while his 'vote' is the choice or election as expressed by his ballot."
In the case of State v. Blaisdell, 18 N.D. 31, 119 N.W. 360, the court stated as follows:
"A ballot, as distinguished from a vote, in the legal sense, and in a general way, is the piece of paper upon which the voter expresses his choice."
The Century Dictionary defines vote as follows:
" 'Vote,' is the formal expression of a will, preference, wish or choice in regard to any measure proposed, in which the person voting has an interest in common with others, either in electing a person to fill a certain situation or office, or in passing laws, rules, regulations, etc."
See, also, Warren v. Pim, 66 N. J. Eq. 353, 59 A. 773.
Another proposition is also stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial