‘
THE A~~ORNEYGENEFCAL
Gerald C. Mann
*-sue- o-r-
%H6n. Furman.B. ,.Caudle’
.County Attorntiy
Franklin ,,County
Mt. Vernon, Texas Opinion No:@2666
Re: .Ellglbility of & person to
vote ‘.for District ,and ‘State
offices, whb has moved from
one county to another within
the District ,less than six
months prior’ to the ‘election.
Dear Sir:
On August 22; 11940 we received your letter re-
questing ‘our opinion relating to the’ellglbSllty of a voter
at the eleotlon on August 24th. This di,d .nqt’ glye us adequate
time to prepare an opinion,‘prior to the e~lectlon, ‘but inas-
much as the question may arise’ at the general eJectIon in
November, we are nevertheless replying to you* request.
The facts ‘set forth in you,r letter ‘are:
,I . . .
“Up t,o May lst, 1940;‘. ‘A’ 3ived..in a county
adjoining Branklin, .Co,. ,.On ‘May a, ‘1940,’ hue moved
to .this County: He, had paid his ‘poll’ tax, and
otherwise ‘a qualified voter.in the, tidjoining
County, if he had remained there.
“On next Saturday, 24th; ‘A’ ,intends,
to present himself, at the voting place of his
precinct, ‘and, request the, manage,r of %he election
to furnish him a ballot, so that ,he may -vote for
State. and~‘blstrlct offices,”
Based upon ,thetie facts, you ask the following
question:
“Is It the duty tinder the law of the
election manager, and may such election judge
furnish IAt with a ballot, with all County
..
Hon. Furman B. Caudle, page 2
candidates and precinct aandidates stricken
off, and permit IAt to cast his ballot for
State and/or ~Distrlct oandidates. . . .”
The question presented by you Involves a. con-
struction of Article 2967,.Revlsed Civil Statutes, 1925, which
reads as follows:
“Art. 2967, FGMOVALTO ANOTHER‘COm OR’.PRE%IWCT
If ‘a citizen .after receiving hi&’ poll tax
receipt ,tir certificate of eqemptlon; removes to
another county or to another precinct In the same
county, he may vote at an election in the precinct
ti,f his new,resldence in such dther .county or pre-
cinct by preaentlng his ,poll tax. receipt ‘or certl-
ficate of exemption .or his affld&vlt or Its loss
to the precinct judges of eleotlon; and ‘state In
such aftldavlt~wherri he paid such poll tax or re-
ceived such ..certlficate of ‘exemption, an.8 by making
oath that he 1s the Identical pepson described in
such poll tax .recelpt ‘or certificate of alamptlon,
add that he then resides in the precinct .whe.re
he offers to vote and hae r&sided for the last
six ,months in the district or.‘county in which he
offers to vote and twelve months in the State.
But no such person .shall be’permitted to vote in
a city of ten thousand lnhavltants or more, un-
@ss he .has first presented to the tax collector
of his residence a tax receipt m certificate,
not leas than four days ‘prior to such election
or primary election or’made affidavit of its ~10s~
and stating in such affidavit’wheh he paid such
poll tax or received ‘such certificate of exemptions
and the collector shall thereupon add h,ls name to
the list of qualified voters of the precinct of
his new reslden,ce; ,and, unless such voter has done
this and his name aDpears in .the certified list
of voters ,bf the pri&nct .of ‘his ‘new residence,
he shall not vote .”
The Identical question which you ask haa, on
several oc~caslons, been before this Department. In an, eble
opinion written by acting Attorney,General Bruce W. Bryant
On July 11, 1932, addressed to Mr. Ellis :Scogln, which
opinion appears at page 518 of Volume 336 of the Attorney
,
.
,
Hon. Furman B. Caudle, page 3
ffeneral's Letter Opinions, It was held ,that a voter who moved
from one county to another within less than six months of the
election might vote for ,811 State offloes and llk&wlse all
District offices whose districts Included both counties. ..We
are encloslrig, herewith, for your.lnformtitlon, a bopy,of this
opinion. This same'rullng was followed 1" the subsequent
opinions hereinafter referred to.
Opinion by.Asslstant Attorney General
Joe J..Alsup,,addressed td Mr.:E. C.
,Clabaugh,, Jr., on July 1;1936, appear-
,lng on page 500, Vol.,3v,'Attorney
.Clenera1ls Letter Opinions.
Opinion by Assistant Attorney,Oeneral
J. ,H. Broadhurst to Mr.,Wllliam Ebblh
on December 13; 1937, appearing at 'page
353 of Vol. 379'of the Attorney,Qen-
eral's Letter Opinions.
Opinion by Assistant Attorney aeneral
R. E. Gray to Mr. W.,S. Danlels, on
August 6, 1938,. appearing at page 617
of Vol. 382, Attorney General's ~Letter
Opinions.
Article 2967, R.C.S., 1925, refer&d to above,
is based upon Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of
Texas, whlch~reads In part:
"Every person subject to none of.the
foregoing dlsquallflcatlons, who shall have at-
tained the age of twenty-one ye.ars and who shall
be a citizen of the United States and who she12
have resided In this State one year next preced-
ing an election and the last six months within
the district or county In which such person offer6
to voteA shall be deemed a qualified eleatorj
. . . .
In construing this oonstltutlonal provision
the Supreme Court of 'Texas, speaking throu h Associate Jus-
tlce Qalnes In LITTLE V. STATE, 75 Tex. 61% at page 623,
said:
11
When construed as meaning
that a reslieice for six mbnths in the district
Hon. Furman B. Candle, page 4
should qualify an elector to vote for district
~DiYlcers; ,ive have ho dlfflixlty'~ln"detirmin-
ing what district l@.nieiint;.:but if tie should
a&that truth residence gives-i.:rlght td vote
for county officers, we should~be at.'a loss -to
know whether It Is the congressional, judlclal,~,
senatorial, or legislative dlstrlct'in which the
voter was to reside In order tb acquire the
qualification. If such had been the Intention,
the kind of district would have been named, or
there would have been some language In the
provision Indicating some rule by which the
question could be determined. Begides, the
construction clalmed'by appellant would have
rendered the words !?r county' superfluous, be-
~cause every county In the State is, and will
In all probability continue to be, a part of
some district. Since the district Includes
the county, It was unneceesary to have used
the word county If It had been intended that a
residence In the dlstri,ct ~should glve,the qual-
lflcatlon to vote for county officers."
: .
It ,ls our oplnioti, therefore, thati the man
referred to In your letter should be permitted, to vote for
all .State offices and those District-offices, whose dls-
trlcts embrace both the county of his ,pri.or and~'present
residence.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY'GENERALOF TEXAS
BY Walter R. Koch
Assistant
~gt;ob:bt
APPR&i ,Aug.. 31, 1940
Orover 'Sellers
First Assistant Attorney .Qeneral
Approved Opinion Coarmlttee by BWB,
Chairman
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion