OFFICE OFTHEAmORNEY GENERAL OF T=X-
AUBTIN ,.'
~"~,.:.~Yy?=+
I
~Honort3bleii. Pat Edwards
Civil Distript:Attoraey
Dallas' County
Reoor$a Bulldine;
Dallae, Texas
Dew Mr. Edwax'ds: Attentfon: Mr. wsrren 5. co&,
Assitittmt District ;Rttorne~
'Opinion' No.~@-7234
Re:. Whether or not a persqa over
fihty ‘years of age,.llving
lki a clt of 10,f)OQ populatioh
s Is entit 9 ed to vote wheii he
, h&s not renewed his exemption
&W3f’icate as requi*d by
ii. B. MO. 344, 49th Legislature.
We beg'to <novlbdge. tipeoelpt of”your lett$i-+opound-
-“lng the following for. a legeJ.',:?piaion
. . eom this depar@nent~.‘~”
( : ‘fl have this pr.dposltf&. Kiaarjr render an
opinioh’op seoure sam~ f’r-, the ,Atto%mayGeneral.
‘Our oonstitutiori pro&d~tlia;t; fXil~&iiom
oh 60 esrs of ajp ee,ex$mpt from the payment -m,,
~Of poll %ax.4 sirm3 tl$at time the Leglslature~haa
pzovlded for 'tlie!Pt+ O~~eotQr to issue td ~tiQ8e
persens so exempt,‘ a ymqanent voting certifleate.
_-
“Row duiring the last session of our Le is’latkre,
a law xas passed requQ?ing that exemptiona f n elties
of over.lO,OOO be renewed @e$ween Oatober 1st an$” -. ‘,
January Slat eaoh yeas.
“My’a%tentioa hai be&%‘:oaLLled.to3hi faot that
quite a number of these perm&ent e%e!uption holders
failed. to z-mew their voting oertifioates, beaause
of illness or being out of the city, or other reasons. ~’
“ken these people vote under the conetitutiolial
right, or will they be ‘denied on the,leglslative a&,
as 8-6 forth above?
. I
Honorable H. Pat Edwards,. page 2
--
“Kindly give me this opinion at the earliest
possible date 80 th%it I ma$ correctly answer those
who seek this information. --
The above is itself your quotation from the Inquiry
of Mr. Ed Cobb, Assessor and Oolletstor of Texes for Dallas County.
We thank jiou for your brief of dlaousslon lend cltatlijn
of authorltles acoompanylng your request. On .aocount of the im-
minent Importance of your inquiry, we have given it a most care-
f ul examination. .~
_
It Is the opinion of this dep*Xrtmentthat a person vho
has herEtofore received a permanent exemption certlfiaate because
of age may aot’be denied the rlght~ to vote at any election held
in this State merely because he has failed for any reason to ‘re-
new his certifl6,ate under the requirement of H. B. Bo. 344 passof:
at the regula;r sesalon of the 49th Legislature. The reasons which
lead us to this concluelon ,are a8 follows:
-_
The question & &first Impression In thli.State, we~be-
Ileve, and our,ooqoluslon,ls-reached upon an orlgFna;L invest&a-
tlon of. the pertinent cone'titutional and etatutory.pr~vl.~lone.~ ife
start out with the 1ndlapitabIe proposition that the rlghf; %f’ &f-
A-age, although it be ti matter of~oonstitutione,l and statutory "
gwe, ~3.ntie'senee that it2s subjeo% to the re ulationa of law,
Is neverthelesf3 one,+ the most PundamentaI rlgh &s of a cltlaen a+.’
t&T8 State. Itideed,’ it M an essential rlgbt of a oil&en In any
demooratla form of government., The right to vote, therefore, KU;.
not be denied t7j Sny c’lti$en. ifnl.ess such right is forbidden
In clear and unmlstakabJe terma Bf law.
In ‘&otlon 2 of Article XVI of the 6on<utlon, it is
deolared: .:.:,
“The plvllege of free &fY’rage ahal& be pr?atected
by laws regulating ‘ele&tlons and prohibiting untler ede-
quate pmx3fXes a31 undue Gifluence therein from power,
bribery, tumult, or other improper ‘$ee,otloe.”
Seation-I, of ArtloZe VI of the Constitution, dealing
with suffrege, names the classes of pers6ndns who shall not be
Gllowed to vote. By no stretoh of the imagination could it be
held to include the class of persons under consideration.
‘a
Seotlon 4 of Article VI of the Constitution 1s as ~fol-.
lows :
.
Honorable Ii, Pat Edwards, page 3
“In all eleations by the people the vote shall
be by b‘allot and the Leglslat-We shall provide for
the numbeFlng of tickets and make such other regula-
tions as may be neoessary to deteot and punish fraud,
and preserve--the purity of the ballot box, and the
Legislature may provide by law for the registration
of all voters In aJ.1 citlis'e containing a population
of 10,000 inhabitants or more.”
This Section cleexly clothes the Legislature with power
to provide reglstratloii laws for voters, and further to make suoli
other regulations “as may be necessary to detect and punish frau;‘.
er?d preserve the purity of the baUot box.” No one would deny ,t%-
power of the Legislature to do these things; but it has never un-
dertaken.to pas8 general registration laws, and H. B. No.:344 does
not purport to be; nor 18 It a law for detecting or punishing
fraud, op m8aeMQ.q the purlty.of the ballot box pursuant to the
~ovliilone of Sectlon.4. On the contz=y, the bill Itself shows
tZflrmatD?ely that 14s purpose and eSfeot UC+ entlrelyother than
the constltutiona;l purpo8,ee.
The emergency .olause bf ii. B. No. 344 fairly and, oor- ,,
‘rectly states the motivating purpose ef the Aot,-_ 8+8 follows:,..
-*
.a “The fat .that there are at this time’ thE i&mea Y“’.’ “’
. of t&my people wh6 e,re deeeased, ti who have LremoQed
from the State af Texss upon %he poll tax exemption
list of all the aountl.es .throughout the State, pl8aee’
a.heavy burden upon the Tt$x Assessors and Collectotis
of.each of the sev&aZ bounties of Texas’, creattie an
emergency aad an wyative pub110 tieeoeselty ?.hat the ~’
conetitut1oM.l rule pequlrlng bill8 to be reed on three
several days In eaah house be 8tipendet$‘, et cetera.
t-1. /
!Phe bill there%%& purgozfedly’ and actu&ly was for the
relief OS the oounty offloere WXE@, and ‘not .ln any sense ‘to de-
teot.or prevent fraud, or to preserve the purlt of the ballot
,box. These wholesome objeotlverr ,aould.not pose 9big be threatened
by Zhe appeezance of (41 aged voter holding a @rmanent old-age
exe%ptlon certlfioate, but not further holding an annual renewal
exemption thereof. . ..-_
Again, Ii. 8.’ I?d. 344 58 undoubtedly in form mendatory
UP-VII
the holder8 of old-ege exemption oertlfioatee to have the
a&e renewed aunually, but it Is algnlfiaant that au& bill no-
. where provides, any ahara&er of &maZlty for a violation of’ that
.
,, .-‘:-:-
1’...1.\W’~, , _,,-_ _
+
:
Honortila? lit Pat Edwsxds',~Pag9 h
__
duty, and espeecisJ.ly does it nist impose upon such person the
severe penaZ.ty of disfranchisement.
Forfeitures and penalties s?e'ndt favored in law. They
are avoided if pos~s'ible. Moreover, In construing a legislative
i%t, WCare not permitted to go-'beyond the four corners of the
Instrument or bill Itself. We must find the intentfon of the Leg-
islature, and therefore’%he law, within that instrument. Speoi-
flcallg, we are not permitted to read into this act a forfeiture
or penalty that 1s no‘t contained thereln, either by express lan-
guage or necessary implication. Of' course, no suoh forfeiture or
penalty is expressly contained in the bill, and neither is one to
be regd iiito.lt upon any conception of lmplloation, for clearly
such ti lmpllcatlon of forfeiture la not necessary, for ~the sot
as above show aleesly supplies 831 that is neoesssry to support
the aoX a8 a vs3U-act -- t&at is, 'the relief of the county of?&
cer namsd in the emergeaoy clau'se. -- _-
H. B. No. 3% is .aii amendmentof Arti& $?gfS8.& the
statutes providl.Ag for a pemanent oertlfleate- of e.xemptlons.. . .
.ktSele 2968a (Vernon's aod%fiaatlon of~the statutes deals with
exemption oertifiaates-'to persons who do not reside i n a city of
10,000 InhabltaAts OF more) an8 spe6ifl6ally provides "aAd ~O,BUO~
pbi?son who &as failed or refused to obtaiA's.uoh aertifl+te of,ex~
emptlon from the paymeat ,of.'+ polltajr shall be sUbwed %o vote.!',
It Is signlf'laant, theref~ore, that H;'B. Wo. 344 eon-.
t&AS A0 such ~O+S~C& WeXre not fre6 to implg~~auoha penalty,
which the Legislature, presumably, IAtetitioAally omitted.
\
Theie is nothing in Aitiale 3004 of.the Reiilsed &ii
S+,atutes oontrmy to 0~ oonelusloni That &?tiole was ens&ed --
Tn W05, pe-enacteb'in the oodtiioation of 1925, an&h&the ssme
meaning at those times a8 it hi& at this eime -% no tiore,:.aAd no
leas. It has acquired AO new nieanu from the eAa&t@nt--of 8; B.-*
No. 344. It ii+ yi5t in full force s.&$ord$ng to Its true meaning,
and every requirement'of lc*oan be met'fullg %&.sny person to whom
there has been issued a pernwwnt oldzage exemption oe.rtiiioate, '~"i
without the renewaX thereof at any time.
he
ease of Texas Power & Light Co. V. Brownwood'Pub-
iiC 111 S,. W. (2) l225, has b6eA urged UPOA US a5
Service Co.,
beings contrary to the views herein expressed.* Tw oaae ie,not
' susoe tible of atly suoh oonstruotlon. That o&se construed 8eb-
Cone-t of Article VI of'the Coiistitution heretofore quoted by USA,
and moreover is LA perf'ebt harmony pith our viiSw5. As we have
heretofore shown*;.the Legislature in the enactment of ii: B. No,
344 did not attempt to exieraise those powers, %a dXd aot in any
Honorable H. Pat Edwards, page 5
event diriky nor .lndlrectly, ex&ssly nor by Aese5sary lmpli-
cation, impose the drastlc"penslty of disfkanohisement for a f+ail-
ure"to observi3 the requirement for annua:I renewal5 of an existins:
permanent exemption. ._
The prlnoiple that a mandatory statute, with no p?naZLtg
attached, is in reality only a direotory statute is not ngw In
our jurisprudence. For a hundred years there has b&in a msnda-
tory constitutional provisitin requiring re-aijportionment of ah-
tricts in the State, which mandatory requiremSnt has been more
frequently violated than observed. Again, some yesxs ago, it'wlll
be reoalled, there wa8 a StatUtO~ provision that where husband
'tid wife were divorced upon grounds of.oruelty, ~neittier should
mat+y tithin a ye- thereafter. Such a statute w&9 mandatory in
foti, but it did not further visit the peAtity of IAVtiidity upon
a marriage oontrsoted.I.n violation thereof by eltPi@ party,, and
dLd Atit therefore IA legal effect Porbld the consummafion.of such
a re-mesrlsge.
FlAaliy, it will be seen.-Artiole 2968 a5 ameAded-by H.
-8. no. 344; requires all w-exemptioti kertlficates to be ob-!
tained before the fira% day of Februasy of the yew when such
voter shall haffe become entitled to suoh exemption, but it does
not fix asy t&e 'when slich oertifioate shall be-renewed or7rels5neJ-
So that; at the very utmost It Could be,obta%Aedn E-7
fore the hdlder offered to vote,
If it should be that we @e wrong IA all we-have said
5.5 to~the COAStN&iOA of R. B. Ro. 344, nevertheless we 8;re' of
the opI.nion.the Act is void in toto, 'in that it violates Seotion
~~-;31~tiole III'of the ConsXitutioA With respect to the title c'
. The title i8 affii%atively misleading. The subjeot
n&d in the title clearly embraces &l persons holding poll tsx
{exemption oertifioates, wheress the ml as passed per'talns only
to a aertaln class of such psrstins,.that,is to say, perwns liv-
ing w33iEZ *of 10,000 or more population; One lnt*eHted
In the subjeot;inatter, uijon i%?ading the title of the bill, might
favor an sU-embraeliig amendment, and yet oppose One applying only
ta a pat of the exempted persons.. 'Moreover, the title is,abso-
Ptely false; l.t __1s belied by the bill'as passed.
Landrum v. CeAtenAlaS Rursl High School Mstrict Ho. 2,
134 s. w. f~?)~2):;, by the Court of Clvll Appeal8 for the Third
Mstrlct, :
"No rule is -&ter established than the one that
where a title or capEion-*of an sot spealfies the pa?tl-
&Las field of the amendment, and--that It is to cover.
ore state a ps&koul83 pu%pose to m&e a change Vn a
prior statute-. the emendment is 3Smlted to the making
Honorable Ii. Pat Edwards, pege 6
of the speolfio changes designated in Its title, aiid
precludes eny additional, contrary, or different amend-
ment then that stated in the title. Rutle e v. AtkIn-
son 101 S. W. (2) 376; Wslker v..State, 11
3 S. W. (2)
1076;' Sutherland v. Board of Trustees, 261.S. W. 489.'
We think this well-settled rule applies to the case
before us. See:
City of Fort,Wcrth v. Hsrr$s, 177 3. W. (2)
308, 180 s, w. 131;
Abernathy County Line School District v. New
Deal County Line District, 175 9. W. (2) 446;
Kinohelo v. State., 175 US.W. (2) 593;
Walker v. State, 116-p.W. (2) 1076;.‘
Lowery v. Red Cab Company, 262,s. W. 47;
:
Ds Sfiv1a.v. State;~ 229 S. W. 542;
M;.K. & T. Ry. Coy--v. State, 113 S.~W. 916; ,..
..: .,
Gulf Production Compsny~v. Osrrett, 24 S.'W<
(2) 389.
Praetorla3m v. State,'184 8. W. (2) 294, by Jdge Baugh"
.of the Court of Civil ,-App&Qs for the Third Mstrlct, -- declares:
I,. . . A somewhat strlo%er rule of conformity
of the title tb the subjeot-matter 1eglXlated upon
in the body of~the act Is applied to emendmeiits than
to titles of original aat. See: Doeppensohmidt v;’
International & C. *. R. Co.,.101 3. W. 1080; and
Rutledge v. Atkinson, 101 5. W. (2) 376. . .. .”
~~uli' Insurance CO. v. James, State Treasurer, 185 S. W.
(2) 966, de&ares:
,I The rule of liberal oonstruotion Will not
be foliowe: to the extent that Itwill relieve the
Legislature of the neoessgty of dlaolosing the reel
subjeot of the Act in.the title thereof, nor will It
be extended so as to hold acts velld, the titles of *'. <.:.
which are deceptive or misleading as to the real oon-
tents of the Acts."
RonoPab1e H. Pat EdwekMi page 7
There 83.e other 'perlous 0onstltutiona;l puesti'dns which
mlgiSbe raised, but in vigx of our d33poslt~on OZ the matter, It
beoomee unnecessasg to discuss the same.
We trust that wha$ we have s&id sufficiently answers
your inqriitiy.
Very truly yours
Al'TORNE!f
0RmA.L
-. OF TEXAS
/s/ Wm. J. Fanning
__
.BY
.Wm,3. Fanning
Asslstr+nt
/s/ O&e Speei’
OS-MR:fb BY
\ Ooie Speer
Asststant
‘,S.
APPROVED JUL.‘~~, 1946
.
/s/.O@rlos I?,, Ashley
FIRST ASSISY!ART
ATTORNEY
QENE&
i _-
This opka2on oonslde~~d,~and approved In limited aonferenoe;
.:.: .
,
.