Cofield v. Farrell
| Decision Date | 02 September 1913 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 2862 |
| Citation | 1913 OK 529,134 P. 407,38 Okla. 608 |
| Parties | COFIELD v. FARRELL et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1.ELECTIONS--Constitutional Law--Qualifications of Voters--Control by State. Const. sec. 4a, of article 3 (section 46, Williams' Ann. Const. Okla.) of the Constitution is not repugnant to the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution. (a) The whole power of determining who shall exercise the elective franchise in the states, whether in respect to the election of state or national officers, is with the states themselves, and with each state in reference to its own citizens, so long as the states do not deny or abridge such right "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
2.SAME--Right of Suffrage--Constitutional Guaranty. Const. sec. 4a, of article 3 (section 46, Williams' Ann. Const. Okla.) of the Constitution does not violate the provisions of the fifteenth amendment to the federal Constitution.
3.SAME--Qualifications of Voters--Constitutional Provision--Validity. Const. sec., 4a, of article 3 (section 46, Williams' Ann. Const. Okla.) of the Constitution is not invalid on account of section 3 of the Enabling Act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 St. at L. 269), which provides that said Constitution shall "make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color," and that said state shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Burford & Burford and Devereux & Hildreth, for plaintiff in error.
C. G. Horner, for defendants in error.
¶1 This proceeding in error is to review the proceedings in an action commenced in the lower court by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, against the defendants in error, Thomas Farrell, L. F. Leach, and T. Elder, as defendants. The parties hereto will be hereinafter referred to as follows: The plaintiff in error as plaintiff, and defendants in error as the election officers. Plaintiff sued said election officers for damages on the ground that he was deprived of his right to vote by reason of section 4a, article 3, of the Constitution of this state , alleging in substance, that he had been for many years, prior to the date of the state election held on the 8th day of November, 1910, a resident and inhabitant of the precinct in which the said election officers held said election; that he was born in the United States, and a citizen of the territory of Oklahoma prior to the erection of the state, and ever since said time he had been a resident of said precinct; that he was 66 years of age, had never been adjudged guilty of a felony, nor had he ever been kept in a poorhouse or asylum, at public expense, nor had he ever been, nor was he on the 8th day of November, 1910, in a public prison, nor was he an idiot or lunatic, and that he had all the qualifications entitling him to vote under the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, and of the United States, and was a qualified elector of said state of Oklahoma; that pursuant to the said laws, to wit, on July 8, 1910, he duly qualified by registration as an elector, and obtained from the registration officer a registration certificate; that prior to the emancipation proclamation, plaintiff was a slave, held in bondage and involuntary servitude, and by reason of said proclamation he was emancipated and obtained his civil rights; that he is a member of the negro race; that "he is unable to read or write any section of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, and that he was not, on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote at any election under any form of government, and that he is not a lineal descendant of a person who was entitled to vote on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, and at no time during his life has he resided in any foreign nation, but that he has been since his birth, a resident of the United States, and that his ancestors since they were brought into the United States from Africa have been slaves, and that the plaintiff has been a citizen of the United States ever since the laws of the United States were passed and the amendment to the Constitution thereof conferring civil rights upon former slaves of African descent." He further alleges that at said election held on the 8th day of November, 1910, there were to be chosen by the voters state officials and members of Congress; that he tendered his vote to said election officials, who were at said election and at said time the duly appointed and qualified and acting inspector of, and judges of, election at said voting precinct No. 1, which was the proper place at which said plaintiff should have voted and was entitled to vote, and demanded the right to exercise the elective franchise and to cast his ballot at said election, but that said officials refused to furnish plaintiff a ballot, or permit him to vote at said election either for state officers or for members of Congress; that it was his intention to vote for a member of Congress; that said election officers refused to allow plaintiff to exercise his right of suffrage on account of said amendment to the Constitution of said state (section 4a, article 3) which was adopted on the 2d day of August, 1910; that said amendment is repugnant, to the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of the federal Constitution, and the provisions of the Enabling Act under which the state was erected. Defendants having interposed a demurrer to said petition, the same was sustained. Plaintiff declining to plead further, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants (election officers). The action of the lower court is now properly before this court for review by proceeding in error. The following questions are presented for our consideration: (1) Is said section 4a, article 3, of the Constitution of this state, adopted on August 2, 1910, in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution? (2) Is said section 4a, article 3, in conflict with the fifteenth amendment to the federal Constitution? (3) Is said section 4a, article 3, invalid on account of the Enabling Act, under which the state of Oklahoma was erected? Section 4a is as follows:
¶2 That said section is not in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution has heretofore been held, not only by this court, but also by the Criminal Court of Appeals. Atwater v. Hassett et al., 27 Okla. 292, 111 P. 802; Ex parte Beall et al., 28 Okla. 445, 114 P. 724; Ex parte Show, 4 Okla. Crim. 416, 113 P. 1062. Suffrage is purely a political right, granted by the sovereign power to those worthy and competent to participate in governmental affairs. It is neither a natural nor fundamental right. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. Ed. 627; Spencer v. Board of Registration, 1 McArthur (8 D. C.) 169, 29 Am. Rep. 582; United States v. Anthony, 11 Blackf. 200, F. Cas. No. 16,110; Jameson on Constitutional Conventions, sec. 336; Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 13 Am. Rep. 136. With the exception of the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States, in both of which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, the question, who are voters, and who are not, is wholly a matter of state authority and state discretion, subject to the following limitations: (1) That those who in each state are qualified voters for members of the most numerous branch of its Legislature are by the federal Constitution entitled to vote for representatives in Congress; (2) that citizens of the United States shall not, by any state, be excluded from voting, or such right abridged "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"; (3) that no state shall adopt any Constitution, or exercise any power, that is destructive of "a republican form of government." With these limitations the whole power of determining who shall exercise the elective franchise in the states, whether in respect to the election of state or federal officers, is with the states themselves, and will each state in reference to its own citizens. So long as the states keep within these limits Congress has nothing to do with the question, simply because it has no power of action. If the right of voting had been secured to all citizens of the United States by the fourteenth amendment there would have been no necessity for the subsequent proposal and adoption of the fifteenth amendment to protect its citizens against any exclusion from voting "on account of race, color. or previous condition of servitude." For such right would have already been guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, and nothing could have been accomplished by the adoption of the fifteenth amendment--a mere surplusage act, or at most but a specific guaranty of what was embraced in the more comprehensive provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Again in the second section of the fourteenth amendment the provision that, "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for president...
To continue reading
Request your trial