Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections
Decision Date | 09 April 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
Parties | Louise LASSITER v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Taylor & Mitchell, Raleigh, James R. Walker, Jr., Weldon, for plaintiff-appellant.
E. N. Riddle, Jackson, Fletcher & Lake, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee.
Atty. Gen. George B. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Ralph Moody, amicus curiae.
The immediate question on this appeal is this: Is plaintiff, upon the agreed statement of facts, entitled to register for voting without meeting the test of reading and writing any section of the Constitution of North Carolina in the English language, as required by General Statutes, § 163-28 as amended? The trial court was of opinion that plaintiff is not so entitled to register. This Court concurs in this ruling.
General Statutes, § 163-28 as amended by 1957 Session Laws of North Carolina, Chapter 287, Section 1, effective 12 April, 1957, under caption 'Voter must be able to read and write; registrar to administer section,' declares that 'Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of North Carolina in the English language,' and that 'it shall be the duty of each registrar to administer the provisions of this section.'
And in the same act, 1957 Session Laws, Chapter 287, the General Assembly of North Carolina made provision (1) for appeal to County Board of Elections from registrar's denial of registration, G.S. § 163-28.1; (2) for hearing de novo upon such appeal before County Board of Elections, G.S. § 163-28.2; (3) Appeal from judgment of County Board of Elections to Superior Court, and hearing thereon; and (4) appeal from judgment of Superior Court to Supreme Court, G.S. § 163-28.3.
The plaintiff applied for registration and refused to submit to, and qualify for the educational test,--that is, either to read or write any section of the Constitution of North Carolina as related in the foregoing stipulation of facts. And for this reason, and this reason alone, she was not admitted to registration.
At the outset she contends that the above provisions of G.S. § 163-28 are unconstitutional by reason of conflict with the suffrage provisions of the constitution of North Carolina.
In this connection it is appropriate to trace the history of Article VI, of the Constitution of North Carolina, omitting sections not necessary to inquiry in hand.
Beginning with the Constitution of the State of North Carolina 'done in convention at Raleigh the sixteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States the ninetysecond,' the pertinent provision as to 'suffrage and eligibility to office' is contained in Article VI, as amended by the Constitutional Convention of 1875, to read as follows:
Thereafter the General Assembly of 1899 passed an act entitled 'An act to amend the constitution of North Carolina,' P.L.1899, Chapter 218, abrogating Article Six of the Constitution of North Carolina, and proposing a substitute thereof, to be submitted at the next general election on May 1, 1899, but it was not so submitted. However, the General Assembly, at its adjourned session of 1900, passed another act, Chapter 2, Laws of Adjourned Session 1900, entitled 'An Act Supplemental to an Act entitled 'An Act to Amend the Constitution of North Carolina,' ratified February twenty-first, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, the same being Chapter two hundred eighteen of the Public Laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-nine' reading as follows:
'The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:
Section 9 declares that if a majority of votes be cast at the next general election in favor of this suffrage amendment, it shall go into effect on July 1, 1902.
And machinery is provided for submitting the question to a vote of the people, and for determining and declaring the result of the election, and the certification and enrollment of the amendment among the permanent records of the office of Secretary of State.
The act was in force from and after ratification,--June 13, 1900.
The amendment to the Constitution was submitted to and approved by the qualified voters of the State at the next general election, and became Article VI of the State Constitution, and enrolled as required January 25, 1901.
Since the adoption of amendment last above mentioned, Article VI of the Constitution has been amended as follows:
(1) The General Assembly at its 1919 session, passed an act, Chapter 129, entitled 'An Act to Amend the Constitution of the State of North Carolina,' which amended Sections 2 and 4 of Article VI as follows: and
And 'the act declared that amendments IV and V as just stated be considered as one amendment and submitted to the voters of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harper v. Hall
...a grant of power." McIntyre v. Clarkson , 254 N.C. 510, 515, 119 S.E.2d 888, 891 (1961) (quoting Lassiter v. Northampton Cnty. Bd. of Elections , 248 N.C. 102, 112, 102 S.E.2d 853, 861 (1958), aff'd , 360 U.S. 45, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959) ). Rather, "[a]ll power which is not lim......
-
State v. Hilton
...contains no prohibition against it.’ " Id. (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Lassiter v. Northampton Cnty. Bd. of Elections , 248 N.C. 102, 112, 102 S.E.2d 853, 861 (1958), aff'd , 360 U.S. 45, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959) ). "We seldom uphold facial challenges b......
-
State v. Kelliher
...against it." McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510, 515, 119 S.E.2d 888, 891 (1961) (quoting Lassiter v. Northampton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 248 N.C. 102, 112, 102 S.E.2d 853, 861 (1958), aff'd, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959) ); see also Jones, 116 N.C. at 570–71, 21 S.E. at......
-
Harper v. Hall
...... Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; SENATOR RALPH HISE, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate ... decision of a three-judge panel of the Superior Court in Wake. County, denying plaintiffs' claims and requests for. Declaratory Judgment and ... . 8 . . is a fundamental right," citing Northampton Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. One v. Bailey , 326 N.C. 742, 747. (1990) ...510, 515, 119 S.E.2d. 888, 891 (1961) (quoting Lassiter v. Northampton Cnty. Bd. of Elections , 248 N.C. 102, 112, 102 S.E.2d ......