Burton v. Mayer
| Decision Date | 07 June 1938 |
| Citation | 274 Ky. 245 |
| Parties | Burton et al. v. Mayer et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Constitutional Law. — The wisdom or propriety of an act of the Legislature is not a matter for the courts to determine.
2. Constitutional Law. — When the validity of a legislative act is challenged, the sole duty of the courts is to determine whether the act violates any constitutional provision, and in solving that problem it is court's duty to adopt such construction as will render the statute constitutional if its language will permit.
3. Constitutional Law. — Every doubt and presumption will be resolved in favor of the validity of a legislative act, and court should not declare the act unconstitutional unless satisfied of its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Constitutional Law. — The Kentucky Constitution is not a grant of power to the legislature as is the Federal Constitution, but is a limitation on its powers, so that the Kentucky Legislature possesses every power not denied to it by the Constitution of the state or of the United States.
5. Statutes. — The constitutional provision that no law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length, is intended to require that the title to an act should give to interested persons fair and reasonable notice of the nature of the provisions contained in the act (Constitution, sec. 51).
6. Statutes. — The title of a legislative act need not contain details, but is sufficient under Constitution if the general terms employed therein are broad enough to embrace the subject matter dealt with in the body of the act (Constitution, sec. 51).
7. Statutes. — The title of the General Registration and Purgation Act is sufficient to give notice to interested persons that the whole field of purgation of registration lists is covered in the body of the act and that any provision of an existing law relating to purgation may be affected (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Constitution, sec. 51).
8. Statutes. — The General Registration and Purgation Act is not unconstitutional on ground that it revises, amends, or extends several provisions of the Model Registration Act without reenacting and publishing such provisions at length, since the General Registration and Purgation Act, being a general act, relating to the subject of state-wide purgation of registration lists need not refer in the title to any preceding act which might be affected (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Constitution, sec. 51).
9. Elections. — The General Registration and Purgation Act is not invalid, in so far as its provisions affected registration and purgation of registration lists in the city of Louisville, on ground that the registration and purgation officers were required by Constitution to be elected by qualified voters of city or appointed by local authorities rather than by the state board, since the registration and purgation officers are state, not local, officers (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Constitution, secs. 147, 160).
10. Statutes. — The provision of the General Registration and Purgation Act that members of county boards should serve without compensation except in counties containing cities of the first class, where they should receive $1,200 a year, is not unconstitutional as violating the section of the Constitution prohibiting local and special legislation dealing with elections and election precincts or where a general law can be made applicable (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Constitution, sec. 59).
11. Statutes. — The section of the Constitution prohibiting local and special legislation dealing with elections and election precincts or where a general law can be made applicable, does not forbid classification based on reasonable and natural distinctions (Constitution, sec. 59).
12. Statutes. — The provision of the General Registration and Purgation Act providing that purgation officers shall serve without compensation except in counties having cities of the first class, in which they should receive compensation not to exceed $5 a day, is unconstitutional under section of the Constitution prohibiting local and special legislation such as that dealing with elections and election precincts or where a general law can be made applicable (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Constitution, sec. 59).
13. Constitutional Law. — Where the validity of a statute is assailed and it is susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other it would be valid, the court should adopt the construction which would uphold it.
14. Statutes. — Courts in determining the legislative intent are not restricted to the particular section attacked, but must read and construe the act as a whole.
15. Elections. — The section of the General Registration and Purgation Act providing that, if names on registration lists or books are found to be those of persons who are not entitled to vote, the registration authorities should be caused to remove the names, is not unconstitutional, when considered with the whole act, for failure to provide for a hearing for registered voters whose names are placed on the suspended list (Acts 1938, House Bill 385).
16. Clerks of Court; Constitutional Law. — The provision of the General Registration and Purgation Act providing that the State Board of Registration and Purgation shall be composed of the members of the State Board of Election Commissioners, one of whom is the clerk of the Court of Appeals, is not unconstitutional on ground that the clerk is disqualified from holding an office in the executive department because an officer of the judicial department, since the clerk performs no judicial duties, and is not a "judicial officer" within meaning of the Constitution (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Constitution, sec. 27).
17. Elections. — The General Registration and Purgation Act is not unconstitutional for abridging and impairing the right of suffrage by requiring all registration books to be closed for an unnecessary and unreasonable length of time each year (Acts 1938, House Bill 385; Ky. Stats., sec. 1486-43).
18. Constitutional Law. — The General Registration and Purgation Act is not unconstitutional on ground that it does not give a challenged voter ample opportunity to be heard and on ground that it deprives him of the right of suffrage without due process of law (Acts 1938, House Bill 385).
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.
HUBERT MEREDITH, Attorney General, A.E. FUNK, Assistant Attorney General, and HENRY J. TILFORD and TILFORD & WETHERBY for appellants.
OLDHAM CLARKE, BALDWIN C. BURNAM, A. SCOTT HAMILTON, JAMES M. CUNEO, WALTER E. HUFFAKER, JOS. S. LAWTON, CHAS. W. MORRIS, H.O. WILLIAMS and LAWRENCE S. GRAUMAN for appellees.
Affirming in part and reversing in part.
The question for decision is whether House Bill 385, known as the General Registration and Purgation Act, passed by the General Assembly at its regular 1938 session, is valid.
The appellees, William F. Mayer and Thomas C. Fisher, citizens, residents, taxpayers, and registered voters in Jefferson County, Kentucky, brought an action in the Jefferson circuit court against the members of the Jefferson county board of registration and purgation, the members of the fiscal court of Jefferson County, the members of the registration commission of the city of Louisville, and the county court clerk of Jefferson county to have the act adjudged unconstitutional and void, and to enjoin the defendants from taking any action pursuant to the provisions of the act. All of the defendants except the members of the Jefferson County board of registration and purgation filed an answer joining in the prayer of the plaintiffs' petition, and the members of the Jefferson county board of registration and purgation filed a general demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants having declined to plead further, judgment was entered declaring certain sections and provisions of the act unconstitutional and void, and enjoining the defendants from taking any action pursuant to such provisions. The members of the Jefferson county board of registration and purgation have appealed, and the plaintiffs and other defendants have cross-appealed from so much of the judgment as holds other provisions of the act valid.
The act provides for a state board of registration and purgation to be composed of members of the state board of election commissioners, and imposes upon this board the duty to supervise registration and purgation under existing registration laws, and to appoint a county board of registration and purgation for each county to be composed of three citizens of the county. Section 10 of the act makes it the duty of the county board of registration and purgation to administer the registration and purgation of registration lists of voters as provided for in chapter 45 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1936, known as the General Registration Act, Kentucky Statutes, section 1486bb-1 et seq., and to examine the registration lists and registration books in the county clerk's office and in the office of the board of registration commissioners of cities of the first class as often as they may deem it advisable, and the act makes it their express duty to examine the registration books after the closing date of the said books for registration and before any general, special, or primary election for the purpose of removing from the registration lists or books the names of persons who have, since the date of their registration, by death or otherwise, become disqualified to vote. If the board finds upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial