Jones v. Burkett

1959 OK 221, 346 P.2d 338, 1959 Okla. LEXIS 493
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 10, 1959
Docket38441
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 1959 OK 221 (Jones v. Burkett) 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
Jones v. Burkett, 1959 OK 221, 346 P.2d 338, 1959 Okla. LEXIS 493 (Okla. 1959).

Opinion

IRWIN, Justice.

On March 24, 1958, a petition praying that all of Old Liberty School District #3, Cleveland and Oklahoma Counties, be annexed to Choctaw Independent District #4, Oklahoma County, was presented to the County Superintendent of Schools of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. An election was called in response to the petition and on April 8, 1958, the election was conducted under the supervision of the County Superintendent who announced the result as seventeen votes for annexation and seventeen votes against. An order denying annexation was thereupon issued and an appeal was perfected to the District Court of Cleveland County. After a full hearing in the District Court on the 10th day of May, 1958, the trial judge sustained the order of the County Superintendent, from which judgment the appellants have perfected this appeal.

Contentions

The appellants- contend the trial court erred in denying annexing for the reason Carl Mansell was ineligible to vote because he was not a registered voter under the general election laws of Oklahoma; that he was not a qualified voter because he had not been a resident of the State of Oklahoma for one year next preceding the election; that after his vote was challenged he was permitted to make an affidavit and vote and he voted against annexation.

Issues

The issues determinative of this action are the eligibility and qualification of Carl Mansell to vote in the school district election, and we must resolve; (1) Is registration under the general election laws of Oklahoma a prerequisite for eligibility to *340 vote in a school district election? (2) Was Carl Mansell qualified to vote in the school district election?

Evidence

The County Superintendent testified she conducted' the election on April 8th, 1958. She identified two lists of voters both containing the name of Carl Mansell and identified the affidavit Carl Mansell made when his vote was challenged. Vera Burnett, Clerk of the Cleveland County Election Board, testified her records did not disclose Carl Mansell as a registered voter in precinct #3-6 which includes Old Liberty School District.

Carl Mansell testified that after his marriage in July, 1953, he and his wife rented the Whitfield place which is in Old Liberty School District, bought furniture and moved in; that they resided there until the place was sold; that they stored part of their furniture with Charley Davis, across the road from the Whitfield place, and moved in with Mr. and Mrs. Stinnett, his wife’s parents, who lived in the school district, where they had a room to themselves, furnished with their own bedroom furniture, bed linens and towels. That they also took with them the dishes and cooking utensils which were used by both families. That in the latter part of 1956 he obtained employment in Wichita, Kansas, with Boeing Aircraft Co. and later with Beech Aircraft Co., where he was classified as a temporary employee and worked there until the fall of 1957. That his wife was with him part of the time in Wichita and rest of the time was at the Stinnett place. That during the time he worked in Wichita, he came home every week with the possible exception of three; that they brought their clothes home" and laundered them; that he owned a car when he started to work in Wichita and bought another one while working there; that both cars carried Oklahoma license plates and ■ his driver’s license was issued by the State of Oklahoma. That the Stinnett place- was maintained at all times as his mailing address and that he did not leave a forwarding address as his stay in Kansas was only temporary.

Mrs V. L. Stinnett’s testimony supported that of Carl Mansell. Three other witnesses testified they saw Carl at the Stin-nett place during the week-ends and Charley Davis in addition to seeing Carl at different times testified he was keeping part of Carl’s furniture for him.

Conclusion

Title 26 O.S.1951 §§ 71 and 72, were enacted in 1916. Sec. 71, defined “elections” to mean “every * * * election held in this state, or in any county, city, town, township, school district, or precinct * * Sec. 72, prescribed the necessity of registering and provided, “ * * * no elector shall be permitted to vote at any election unless he shall register as herein provided * * By enactment of Senate Bill No. 260, (S.L.1957, pages 172-179), effective May 25, 1957, Sec’s. 71 and 72, supra, were repealed and a new act relating to registration and voting became effective. Title 26 O.S.1957 Supp. § 93.2, defines “elections” to mean “every * * * election held in this State, or any county, city, town, township or precinct * * the words “school district” were not included. The 1957 Act also provided that nothing contained herein shall amend, repeal or alter certain laws. Included in the laws which would not be repealed or altered is Title 26 O.S.1957 Supp. § lOle. This section relates to persons entitled to register and vote and provides “ * * * From and after January 1, 1938, no person shall be permitted to vote at any election unless he shall have been registered under the provisions of this Act; provided, that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to school district elections or require electors to be registered to vote in any school district elections. * * * ”

Title 70 O.S.1951 § 1-15, prescribes the qualifications of electors in school district elections. This section provides:

“A school district elector, qualified to vote in any school district election, is any person who has resided in the *341 district for at least thirty (30) days and who possesses the qualifications of electors as defined by the Constitution and Laws of the State. No person shall be required to be registered in order to vote in any school or school district election, except as provided by Senate Bill No. 185 of the 19th Oklahoma Legislature.”

(Senate Bill No. 185 was special legislation applying only to Independent School Districts containing a city of more than 100,000 population and not in excess of 200,000 and was repealed in 1957, S.L.1957, p. 684.)

We therefore hold that it was not necessary for Carl Mansell to be a registered voter under the general election laws of Oklahoma, and if he were a qualified •elector as prescribed by the Constitution and the laws of the State, he would be eligible to vote in the school district election.

The qualifications of an elector as prescribed by Art. 3, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, in so far as applicable to the case at bar, are:

“Qualified electors of this State shall be citizens * * * who have resided in the State one year, in the county six months, and in the election precinct thirty days next preceding the election at which such elector offers to vote. * *

In determining Carl Mansell’s qualifications as an elector, we will reviéw the applicable law with respect to establishing and maintaining a residence.

Residence is defined as the place where one’s habitation is fixed without the present purpose of removing therefrom. It is synonymous with “Domicile”. Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Craig, 182 Okl. 610, 80 P.2d 221.

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

Related

Lazelle v. Estate of Crabtree
2009 OK CIV APP 79 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2009)
In Matter of Guardianship of Loyce Juanita Parker v. Parker
2008 OK CIV APP 62 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2008)
Mayes v. Cherokee Nation Election Commission
4 Am. Tribal Law 52 (Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal, 2003)
Appeal of DeMoss
4 Am. Tribal Law 48 (Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal, 2003)
Opinion No. (1998)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1998
Moore v. Hayes
744 P.2d 934 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1987)
Vinzant v. Hillcrest Medical Center
609 P.2d 1274 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)
Suglove v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1979 OK 168 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1979)
Opinion No. 79-286 (1979) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1979
Allen v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
583 P.2d 613 (Utah Supreme Court, 1978)
Warlick v. Stevenson
1977 OK 217 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1977)
Opinion No. 74-133 (1974) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1974
Opinion No. 71-328 (1971) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1971
Haller v. Austin
487 P.2d 1360 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1971)
Southern California First National Bank v. Denton
17 Cal. App. 3d 1070 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
Opinion No. 70-168 (1970) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1970
In Re Warren School District Election
1963 OK 181 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1963)
McKiddy v. State
1961 OK 282 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1961)
Groseclose v. Rice
1961 OK 251 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1959 OK 221, 346 P.2d 338, 1959 Okla. LEXIS 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-burkett-okla-1959.