State ex rel. Cashmore v. Anderson

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON and MR. JUSTICE CASTLES,

(dissenting):

We dissent.

The majority opinion states “The crux of the issue is whether the emphasized quoted language requires a majority of electors voting on approval or rejection of the proposed constitution or whether it requires some other majority.” We would hold that the quoted language “a majority of the electors voting at the election”, means just what it says. The majority opinion goes on to say “There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the framers had in mind a multiple issue ballot wherein contingent alternative issues…