The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues.
If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable.
In the US Supreme Court Chung Fook v. White (1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.
Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues.
They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources.
Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning.
In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute.
In law, strictly literal interpretations of statutes can lead to seemingly absurd results.
The doctrine of absurdity holds that commonsense interpretations should be preferred in such cases, rather than literal readings.
Using a literal construction of the relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not "a person entitled to vote".