Morris v. Powell
Decision Date | 08 October 1890 |
Docket Number | 15,600 |
Citation | 25 N.E. 221,125 Ind. 281 |
Parties | Morris et al. v. Powell |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Henry Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
C. S Hernly, for appellants.
M. E Forkner and A. C. Harris, for appellee.
This action was brought by Simon T. Powell against Joshua I. Morris, auditor of Henry county, and William H. Elliott, to enjoin the payment of an account for books furnished the county for registering votes under section 13 of the election law of 1889 ( ), and it involves the validity of said section.
A demurrer was filed by the appellants to the complaint, and overruled, and he refusing to plead further, judgment was rendered on demurrer in favor of appellee.
The section of the law reads as follows:
ss:
ss:
Article 2, section 1, of the Constitution of this State declares that "All elections shall be free and equal," and section 2 of the same article defines, in unambiguous language, who shall be entitled to vote.
Section 2. "In all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution, every male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who shall have resided in the State during the six months, and in the township sixty days, and in the ward or precinct thirty days, immediately preceding such election, and every male of foreign birth, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided in the United States one year, and shall have resided in this State during the six months, and in the township sixty days, and in the ward or precinct thirty days, immediately preceding such election, and shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, shall be entitled to vote in the township or precinct where he may reside, if he shall have been duly registered according to law."
Section 4, of the same article, provides that "No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in the State by reason of his absence, either on business of this State or of the United States."
Under the Constitution a person must have certain qualifications to entitle him to vote, viz.: He must be a male citizen of the United States or if of foreign birth, must have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, and have resided in the United States one year. He must be twenty-one years of age, and have resided in this State six months, and in the township sixty days, and in the precinct thirty days, and he must be duly registered according to law providing for the registration of voters. If a person possess all of these qualifications he is entitled to vote, but if there be any one of these qualifications which he does not possess then he is not entitled to vote, except if there be no legally enacted statute providing for the registration of voters, then he is exempted from the duty of registering, or rather the voters of the State can not be disfranchised by reason of the failure of the Legislature to comply with the constitutional mandate. In 1881 the electors of the State by a majority vote of over eighty-seven thousand, amended section 14 of article 2 of the Constitution so as to provide that the "General Assembly * * shall provide for the registration of all voters entitled to vote," and it is by reason of an omission or a refusal on the part of the General Assembly to obey and comply with this constitutional mandate that the voters of the State have exercised the right of suffrage without registration since the adoption of this amendment. That the General Assembly has the power to enact a law providing for a uniform system of registration of all voters, we think, can not be controverted, and that it is made the duty of the General Assembly by the Constition to enact a law providing a reasonable, uniform and impartial system for the registration of all voters must be conceded, but section 13 of the present law imposes certain duties upon certain classes of voters, and requires certain qualifications of another class, while a much larger portion is not included within its provisions or affected thereby. The question is presented as to whether or not the Legislature can impose the obligations which it seeks to do by this section on the class of voters therein specified, and to another class add a qualification not required by the Constitution to entitle them to vote.
This section attempts to impose an obligation upon all persons who, being residents of the State of Indiana, shall absent themselves from the State for a period of six months or more or who shall have gone into any other State or sovereignty with the intention of voting therein, or who, during an absence in another State or sovereignty, have voted therein, and upon all persons who shall not have been bona fide residents of this State and of the county in which they reside at least six months before any election, the duty of registering a notice of their intention to become qualified electors in their respective precincts in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which they reside at least three months prior to any such election, and makes it a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Solon v. State
...32 Fla. 545, 14 South. 383, 32 L. R. A. 124; Gougar v. Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38, 46 N. E. 339, 37 L. R. A. 644; Morris v. Powell, 125 Ind. 281, 25 N. E. 221, 9 L. R. A. 326; Coffin v. Board of Election Com'rs, 97 Mich. 188, 56 N. W. 567, 21 L. R. A. 662; State v. Board of Examiners, 21 Nev. ......
-
Bd. of Election Com'rs of Indianapolis v. Knight
...shall be prerequisite to their exercise of the right of suffrage. State v. Shanks, 178 Ind. 330, 333, 99 N. E. 481;Morris v. Powell, 125 Ind. 281, 25 N. E. 221, 9 L. R. A. 326;Quinn v. State, 35 Ind. 485, 9 Am. Rep. 754. [2] But the contention is made that as neither this nor any other sect......
-
Ex Parte Youngblood
...(7th Ed.) pp. 191 and 246; Holley v. State, 14 Tex. App. 517; Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11, 111 S. W. 726; Morris v. Powerll, 125 Ind. 281, 25 N. E. 221, 9 L. R. A. 326; Page v. Allen, 58 Pa. 338, 98 Am. Dec. 272. Many other cases might also be In the Wolters and Gray Cases the statute mentio......
-
Gougar v. Timberlake
...as expressed in the constitution, than it is for the agent, in any case, to stand above the principal in authority. As said in Morris v. Powell, supra, "The right of suffrage is one for the consideration the people in their capacity as creators of constitutions, and is never one for the con......