Harding v. State Election Board

1946 OK 171, 170 P.2d 208, 197 Okla. 291, 1946 Okla. LEXIS 525
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 24, 1946
DocketNo. 32630.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1946 OK 171 (Harding v. State Election Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harding v. State Election Board, 1946 OK 171, 170 P.2d 208, 197 Okla. 291, 1946 Okla. LEXIS 525 (Okla. 1946).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Petition in this case asserts that the State Election Board erred in sustaining a protest to his candidacy for the office of Representative in the Legislature for Place No. 5, Oklahoma county. Said protest was sustained by the board, it is alleged, on the ground that his filing was fraudulent for the reason that he falsely stated in his notification and declaration that he had supported the Democratic nominee for State Senator at the last election, whereas he appeared on. the ballot at the last election as an Independent for the office of State Senator. No appeal is provided by law from the action of the State Election Board.

Said protest was sustained by the board on the 14th of May, 1946. On this date, May 24, 1946, he filed his application in this court invoking the original jurisdiction of this court for a writ of mandamus directing the board to place his name on the ballot as such candidate. The law fixes the date for holding said election and by reason of the necessary work required and time consumed in causing the ballots to be printed for use in said election, it is *292 manifest that time is of the essence and that it was the duty of the petitioner to proceed with utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum his claimed rights. The law favors the diligent rather than the slothful. By reason of his delay in asserting such claimed rights it does not appear that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary and discretionary writ of mandamus. Sheffield v. Fountain, 101 Okla. 168, 224 P. 339.

Writ denied.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden
2020 WI 91 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020)
In re Legislative Referendum No. 334
2004 OK 75 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2004)
McKye v. State Election Board
1995 OK 15 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
McKye v. STATE ELECTION BD. OF STATE
890 P.2d 954 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Evans v. State Election Board
1990 OK 132 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1990)
Latting v. Cordell
1946 OK 217 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1946 OK 171, 170 P.2d 208, 197 Okla. 291, 1946 Okla. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-state-election-board-okla-1946.