Opinion
No. 32673.
August 19, 1946.
(Syllabus.)
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.
Application to assume original jurisdiction and for writ of mandamus by David E. Temple against J. Wm. Cordell et al., constituting State Election Board. Writ denied.
Foster Phipps, of Tulsa, for petitioner.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This is an original action brought by petitioner, David E. Temple, against J. Wm. Cordell, Secretary of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, and Elmer Hale, Chairman of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, and T.J. Lucado, member of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, respondents, to require respondents to cause his name 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 Tulsa County.
This case involves the identical factual situation as contained in the case of Latting v. J. Wm. Cordell, Secretary of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, et al., 197 Okla. 369, 172 P.2d 397. The law in the Latting Case, supra, is decisive of the question herein. Writ denied.
GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents.