Coffin v. Board of Election Com'rs of Detroit
Decision Date | 24 October 1893 |
Citation | 97 Mich. 188,56 N.W. 567 |
Parties | COFFIN et al. v. BOARD OF ELECTION COM'RS OF CITY OF DETROIT. KENNEDY et al. v. PINGREE et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Applications for mandamus on the relation of Mary Stuart Coffin and Mary E. Burnett against the board of election commissioners of the city of Detroit, and on the relation of Edward H. Kennedy and Henry S. Patton against Hazen S. Pingree, Charles R. Foster and the common council of the city of Detroit. Application denied in first case; granted in second case.
John Atkinson, Henry A. Haigh, John B. Corliss and Thomas T. Leete, Jr., for petitioners.
A. A Ellis, Atty. Gen., Edwin F. Conely, and James H. Pound, for respondents.
These proceedings are instituted to test the validity of Act No 138 of the Laws of 1893, which is as follows:
The general rule is that the source of all authority to vote at popular elections is the constitution; that the electorate is constituted by the fundamental law; and that the qualifications of electors must be uniform throughout the state. Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, No. 52, says: "The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government." In Attorney General v. Detroit Common Council, 58 Mich. 213, 216, 24 N.W. 887, Mr. Justice Campbell says: In Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (page 599) it is said: "Wherever the constitution has prescribed the qualifications of electors they cannot be changed or added to by the legislature, or otherwise than by an amendment of the constitution." In McCafferty v Guyer, 59 Pa. St. 109, Strong, J., says: "It has always been understood that the legislature has no power to confer the elective franchise upon other classes than those to whom it is given by the constitution, for the description of those entitled is regarded as excluding all others." Section 1 of article 7 of the constitution provides who shall be electors and entitled to vote, and is, according to its terms, applicable "in all elections." To empower the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon classes of persons other than those named, some other provision must be pointed out which confers that authority in express terms or by necessary implication. The only provisions to which we are cited are sections 13 and 14 of article 15, which are as follows: In support of the act in question, it is contended that the sections last quoted empower the legislature to provide qualifications for voters in village and city elections, and Belles v. Burr, 76 Mich. 1, 43 N.W. 24; Wheeler v. Brady, 15 Kan. 26; State v. Cones, 15 Neb. 444, 19 N.W. 682; Opinion of the Justices, 115 Mass. 602; Plummer v. Yost, (Ill. Sup.) 33 N.E. 191,-are relied upon to support this contention. These cases involved the validity of acts conferring upon females the right to vote for school district officers, under constitutions which, like our own, name no school district officer, do not prescribe or suggest how such officers shall be chosen, but in express terms relegate to the legislature the duty of providing for and establishing a system of primary schools. In Belles v. Burr, Mr. Justice Champlin reviewed at length the legislation in respect to the qualifications of voters at school district meetings, under the constitution of 1835, and says: Mr. Justice Campbell, in a dissenting opinion, insisted that the question was not whether relator was entitled to vote at a school meeting; that a school meeting under the control of school authorities was entirely separate and distinct from a popular election; that the clause of the act then under consideration must be construed as extending the additional qualifications to voting at school meetings; that district school government in cities had been adjusted to city conditions; that the powers exercised by city school boards were analogous to those of township inspectors, although more extensive; that these city boards had been made by the constitution the correlative bodies to the township boards, and that school inspectors were recognized constitutional officers. Mr. Justice Morse recognizes the point upon which the court divided when he says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial