dissenting, with whom GUTHRIE, Retired Justice, joins.
I dissent. The majority has succumbed to the temptation to correct what it perceives to be an extreme injustice by changing our Constitution through judicial activism.
Article 3, § 32 of the Wyoming Constitution provides in pertinent part:
“Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no law shall extend the term of any public officer or increase or diminish his salary or emolument after his election or appointment * * *.”
After quoting this section in Nickerson v. Winslow, 22 Wyo. 259, 268, 138 P. 184, reh. denied 140 P. 834 (1914), the Wyoming Supreme Court stated:
“The meaning of this section is clear. There is no ambiguity about it. The words are pointed and direct. They mean just what they say and construe themselves.”
The majority now states:
“The meaning of appointment of a public officer to public office in Art. 3, § 32 is ambiguous and unclear, requiring that we ascertain the intent of those adopting the amendment and the meaning to be attributed to the words used.” At 964.
I disagree.
The constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous. When it says that the salary of a public officer shall not be increased or decreased after his election or appointment, it means that the salary of a public officer is fixed for the term for which he was elected or appointed. A county judge occupies a public office and is a public officer. A county judge is initially appointed for a fixed term and may thereafter be retained or removed from such public office by the public at an election. Article 5, § 4(h) of the Wyoming Constitution provides in pertinent part that,
“if a majority of those voting on the question vote affirmatively, the justice or judge shall be elected to serve the succeeding term prescribed by law.” (Emphasis added.)
Courts do not have the freedom to ignore the plain meaning of words in the Constitution so that they can search for some speculative intent. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892); City of Buffalo v. Lawley, 6 A.D.2d 66, 175 N.Y.S.2d 547 (1958); 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law § 111 (1979). Even though a constitutional provision may be unwise, unjust, inconvenient, harsh, or not in harmony with some public sentiment, courts are not authorized to ignore it or indirectly nullify it by analyzing it away. State ex rel. Anderson v. Chapman, 86 Wash.2d 189, 543 P.2d 229 (1975); 16 Am.Jur.2d, supra at § 89.
If there is a need to change the Constitution, it must be done by a vote of the people, not by judicial fiat. Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority, Wyo., 575 P.2d 1100, reh. denied 577 P.2d 1386 (1978).
GUTHRIE, Justice,Retired, dissenting.
I wholeheartedly join in Justice Macy’s dissent. It is my opinion that, if one reads the majority opinion and his dissent, it will be clear that the majority has played word games to emasculate a clear constitutional *975commandment in seeking a result: In my view, this opinion demonstrates on its face that the writer is in search of a result rather than making a logical disposal under the law.
In addition to the fact that I am most disturbed by this result, it is my view that a group of county judges, in search of immediate gratification, have succeeded in achieving a classification which also removes them from the protections they should have as judicial officers. This case must logically apply to salary decreases as well as increases, along with other protections proper for judicial officers. This group may well rue the day of their apparent victory.
If for no other reason than my personal pride, I could not join in or participate in games of semantics that the majority has used to avoid the clear and obvious words of a constitutional amendment. Shakespeare may have more clearly described this opinion than is possible for me when he said:
“He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument.” Loves Labour Lost, Act 5, Scene 1.