Mcalister v. State ex rel. Walton
| Decision Date | 04 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 14852 |
| Citation | 96 Okla. 143,1923 OK 1085,221 P. 779 |
| Parties | McALISTER et al. v. STATE ex rel. WALTON et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Constitutional Law--Submission of Amendments--Interference by Injunction.
Section 1, art. 5, and section 1, art. 24, Williams' Annotated Constitution of Oklahoma, vest the legislative power of the state in the Legislature and the people. Section 1, art. 24, of said Constitution gives the Legislature power, by proper resolutions, to submit amendments to the Constitution, and when the Legislature authorizes the submission of proposed amendments to the people, or a proper petition is initiated to amend the Constitution in accordance with the law governing the initiative and referendum, they merely place in motion the process of the people's exercising their reserved legislative power, and whatever is necessary to be done incident to the expression by the people of their will for or against the proposed amendments is done in the exercise of legislative power, and the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere therewith by injunction.
2. Same--Injunction Against State Board Canvassing Returns of Election--Reversal.
In the instant case certain proposed amendments to the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma were, by resolutions passed by the Legislature, authorized to be submitted to the people at an election to be held throughout the state on a date to be fixed by the Governor. In pursuance of the authority or apparent authority given in said resolution, on the 13th day of August, 1923, the Governor issued his proclamation calling an election to be held on October 2, 1923, on said proposed amendments: the same to be conducted in all respects by the State Election Board of the state as provided by general law. The said election was held on the last mentioned date, the 2nd day of October following. The instant suit was instituted in the name of the state and others to enjoin the individual members of the State Election Board and the State Election Board from counting, canvassing, and certifying the results of the vote on such amendments, and also on the proposed amendment to the Constitution known as Initiative Petition No. 79, State Question 119, and a temporary injunction was granted by the trial court, from which this appeal was perfected. Held, that the counting, canvassing, and certifying the results of the votes on the various legislative matters so submitted, constituted a part of the election, and that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the performance by the State Election Board of its duty and authority relative thereto, and that the injunction restraining the officers of the State Election Board, and the State Election Board, from canvassing and certifying the returns as provided by law, was improper, and that the judgment of the trial court is reversed, with direction to dismiss the petitions.
Burford, Miley, Hoffman & Burford, Ames, Lowe & Richardson, Embry, Johnson & Tolbert, George F Short, Atty. Gen., and Edwin Dabney, and John Barry, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
George S. Ramsey, H. G. McKeever, Warren K. Snyder, F. E. Riddle, Claude Nowlin, and D. S. Levy, for defendants in error.
Florence E. Cobb, for intervener.
¶1 This action was instituted in the district court of Oklahoma county by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, on the 3rd day of October, 1923, for the purpose of securing an injunction against plaintiffs in error individually and as the State Election Board of the state of Oklahoma, from canvassing and certifying the result of the vote cast at the election held throughout the state of Oklahoma on the 2nd day of October, 1923, at which certain constitutional amendments were submitted to the people for their approval or rejection. Among them was a certain initiated constitutional provision known as Initiative Petition No. 79, State Question No. 119. The allegations of the plaintiffs in the court below, defendants in error here, against the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the court below, were very lengthy, and in substance set out the history of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma. A brief review would not be amiss that a clear understanding may be had of the object, purpose, and effect of the relief sought by the plaintiffs' petition in the instant case. A regular constitutional biennial session of the Legislature of the state of Oklahoma convened at the Capitol of the state in the month of January, 1923, and, being so convened, had all the constitutional power given the legislative branch of the state government by the Constitution of the state, Among the powers granted by the Constitution to the legislative branch of the state government so assembled, is the authority, under section 1, art. 24, and section 1, art. 5, Williams' Annotated Constitution, to submit proposed amendments to the Constitution itself. Said section 1, art. 24, provides:
¶2 Section 1, art. 5, vests the legislative power of the state in the Legislature, but reserves the right in the people of the state to defeat, by referendum, acts of the Legislature, and to further legislate by initiative, as well as the right to adopt constitutional amendments proposed by the legislative branch or initiated by the people themselves. The exercise of these rights so reserved in the people of the state is legislative; the sovereign voters of the state, by solemn constitutional provisions, have the right to exercise such legislative power in the manner which the Constitution and laws of the state have prescribed. The said Legislature proposed by resolution five certain constitutional amendments, known and referred to as joint resolutions:
The first: Providing for compulsory compensation of employees in case of death (chap. 249, Session Acts 1923).
The second: Amendment to section 3, art. 6, of the Constitution, familiarly known as a provision extending the qualifications of persons eligible to elective or appointive offleers of the state to women.
The third: The soldier bonus amendment.
The fourth: An amendment providing for a special state levy for public schools.
The fifth: Amendment providing for the payment of depositors in defunct state banks.
¶3 The said resolutions were adopted by the Legislature in such manner as authorized the calling of a special election for the submission thereof to the vote of the people. The authority was delegated to the Governor of the state to call such special election, not less than 30 days nor more than twelve months after the adjournment of the legislative session. In the exercise of the authority so delegated to him, the Honorable J. C. Walton, Governor of the state of Oklahoma, did exercise his authority so vested by said' resolution, and on the 13th day of August, 1923, issued his proclamation calling an election to be held by the regularly constituted election officials throughout the state of Oklahoma, in order that the people might east their votes either for or against the said proposed amendments to the organic law of the state, which said proclamation of the Governor, after reciting, by way of whereas clauses, the passage of said resolutions so abstracted as bore, recites:
¶4 In pursuance of said resolutions so passed by the Legislature in its said regular biennial session, and in pursuance of the said proclamation of the Governor, acting under the authority of the said resolutions, the State Election Board caused to be held throughout the state of Oklahoma said election, so called, on the 2nd day of October, 1923. After the issuance of said proclamation and at the direction of the Governor of the state, as disclosed in the opinion of this court in the case of McAlister et al. v. State, 95 Okla. 200, 219 P. 134 suit was instituted in the name of the state in the district court of Oklahoma county to enjoin said election board from holding said election, and an injunction was granted by the district court, Hon. T. G. Chambers presiding, on the 18th day of September, 1923, from which order of injunction representatives of those interested in the soldier bonus and the so-called women's amendment to the Constitution, perfected an appeal to this court, which was by their respective representative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAlister v. State
...221 P. 779 96 Okla. 143, 1923 OK 1085 MCALISTER, SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTION BOARD, ET AL. v. STATE EX REL". WALTON, GOVERNOR, ET AL. No. 14852.Supreme Court of OklahomaDecember 4, 1923 ... Syllabus ... by the Court ... \xC2" ... ...