(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority opinion herein. 26 O. S. 1941 §162 provides that “any qualified elector” may file as a candidate “for an office to which he is eligible.” Certainly the Legislature intended that the two italicized words should have different meanings. Otherwise the same word would have been used in both places. In the case of Stafford v. State Election Board et al., 203 Okla. 132, 218 P. 2d 617, the court held that the term “qualified elector” meant qualified at the time of filing as a candidate. That opinion has no bearing on the question here presented. If the Legislature had so desired, it could have said, in the second phrase above, “for an office to which he is qualified.” But the Legislature used the word “eligible” instead of “qualified.”
The case of State v. Breckinridge, 34 Okla. 649, 126 P. 806, is established law in this state and has never been questioned. Therein, the opinion discusses the meaning of the word “eligible” at length and cites numerous cases from other jurisdictions. The following quotations from State v. Van Beek, 87 Iowa, 569, 54 N. W. 525, 19 L.R.A. 622, 43 Am. St. Rep. 397, was there adopted and made the law of this state:
“Any person who can qualify himself to take and hold an office is eligible to it at the time of the election.” (Italics mine.)
Also, quoting from Demaree v. Scates, 50 Kan. 275, 32 P. 1123, 20 L.R.A. 97, 34 Am. St. Rep. 113,
“. . . the word ‘eligible’ as used in the statute, means ‘legally qualified’; that is, capable of holding office. The term ‘eligible,’ as used, does not mean ‘eligible to be elected to the office of county commissioner at the date of the election, but eligible or legally qualified’ to hold the office after the election; that is, at the commencement of the term of office.”
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.