Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

‘ 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