Ramsey v. Persinger
Decision Date | 05 May 1914 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 6029 |
Citation | 141 P. 13,43 Okla. 41,1914 OK 205 |
Parties | RAMSEY et al. v. PERSINGER et al. (SCOTT et al., Interveners). |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- Amendment -- Procedure -- Statutes. The provisions of chapter 44, Sess. Laws 1907-08 (sections 3379, 3382-3384, Rev. Laws 1910), do not furnish a procedure to secure an expression of the voters on a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature as provided in section 1, art. 24, of the Constitution of Oklahoma.
2. SAME--Election--Ballots. Ballot title examined, and held sufficient.
3. STATUTES--Title--Joint Resolution. A title stating the object of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, is not necessary; the same not being ordinary legislation.
4. STATUTES--Time of Taking Effect--Submission of Constitutional Amendment. Where the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote of each house, by resolution, orders a proposed amendment to the Constitution submitted at a special election to be held at a time named therein, section 58, art. 6, of the Constitution does not apply.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Amendment--Agreement of Legislature. Where the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, adopts a joint resolution directing the Secretary of State to submit a constitutional amendment to the people under section 1, art. 24, of the Constitution, held, that the Legislature thereby agrees to such proposed amendment.
6. SAME--Adoption--Validity. Where substantially every constitutional and statutory requirement is met, no fraud or deceit being charged, a large majority of those voting at the special election August 5, 1913, voting in favor of the adoption of amendment to section 31, art. 6, of the Constitution, as proposed by the Legislature, held, said amendment was legally adopted.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge.
Quo warranto by J. H. Persinger, Roscoe Thomas, J. C. Elliott, I. G. Griffin, Robert Scivally, T. N. Roach, George W. Vincent, George H. Hinds, John B. Favor, and W. T. Leahy against G. A. Ramsey, J. F. Darby, I. C. Renfrow, Frank M. Gault, and G. T. Bryan, and Charles E. Scott, J. W. Hubbard, J. W. Allison, J. B. Swartz, Ewers White, G. M. Snider, J. B. Tosh, and J. G. Willis intervene. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and S.E. McElhoes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error
Ledbetter, Stuart & Bell and Giddings & Giddings, for defendants in error
Freeman E. Miller, for interveners
¶1 The de facto members of the Board of Agriculture of the state of Oklahoma, under section 31, art. 6, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, as amended at the general state election November 5, 1912, consisted of the above-named defendants in error and G. T. Bryan, president of said board, one of the plaintiffs in error, who was made defendant on the trial of this cause for the reason that he affiliated with plaintiffs in error and recognized them as the official Board of Agriculture.
¶2 On May 7, 1913, the House of Representatives, as shown by their Journal, p. 767, passed a resolution providing for the submission of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, amending section 31, art. 6, relating to the Board of Agriculture, same being House Joint Resolution No. 4.
¶3 On June 30, 1913, the following action was had by the Senate, as appears at page 1700 of the Senate Journal:
¶4 On page 1389 of the House Journal appears the following:
¶5 On page 1392 of the House Journal appears the following:
¶6 On page 1399 of the House Journal appears the following:
¶7 Thereafter the following ballot title was prepared and placed upon ballots voted at the special election held throughout the state on August 5, 1913, viz.:
¶9 No [ ]
¶10 Said election was held, the returns canvassed, and the said constitutional amendment was declared adopted. The Governor appointed plaintiffs in error members of said board. Thereafter the defendants in error commenced a quo warranto proceeding against the plaintiffs in error, and the interveners intervened, claiming to be the de jure members of said board; the petition of interveners was dismissed, without prejudice, by the trial court, and the demurrer of plaintiffs in error to the petition of defendants in error was overruled. The plaintiffs in error electing to stand upon said demurrer, judgment was rendered against them, ousting Darby, Gault, Renfrow, and Ramsey, and finding and decreeing defendants in error to be the de jure Board of Agriculture; from which judgment plaintiffs in error appeal, and the same is now before us for review, the paramount question being the validity of the said constitutional amendment.
¶11 The Constitution of this state may be amended, first, under article 5, sec. 2, of the Constitution, by initiative petition, signed by fifteen per cent. of the legal voters of the state, etc., said petition originating at the suggestion or initiative of the petitioners; second, under the provisions of section 3395, Rev. Laws 1910, the Legislature...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Initiative Petition No. 379
...Cushing, 1932 OK 124, ¶ 0, 10 P.2d 271; In re State Question No. 137, Referendum Petition No. 49, 1926 OK 222, ¶ 0, 244 P. 806; Ramsey v. Persinger, 1914 OK 205, ¶ 63, 141 P. 13; Lowther v. Nissley, 1913 OK 493, ¶ 11, 135 P. 3; City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 1911 OK 124, ¶ 8, 1......
-
2, Cushing v. Harlow (In re Number)
...v. Estes, 43 Okla. 213, 142 P. 411; In re Referendum Petition No. 30, State Question No. 94, 71 Okla. 91, 175 P. 500; Ramsey v. Persinger, 43 Okla. 41, 141 P. 13. Under the plain language of the statute and the former decisions of this court we see no good reason why the parties should have......
- Ramsey v. Persinger