Citizens Right to Recall v. State Ex Rel. McGrath

JUSTICE COTTER

concurs.

¶ 31 I write separately to state my disagreement with the Court’s conclusion at ¶ 27 that the statements of implication are “admittedly ambiguous.” In my judgment, only a strained reading of the statements-one rendering them incomplete and illogical-would result in a perceived ambiguity. If the statements are read coherently, their meaning is clear. Otherwise, I concur in the Court’s opinion.