Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker

• Decision Date: 15 November 1911
• Citation: 20 Idaho 605,119 P. 304
• Parties: PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. J. P. WALKER, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

119 P. 304

20 Idaho 605

PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. J. P. WALKER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 15, 1911

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-ELECTIONS-QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS-RESIDENCE-PROPERTY OWNERSHIP-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Irrigation districts organized under the laws of the state are quasi-municipal corporations and are governed by the general election laws of the state; and the qualifications prescribed by the constitution for voters at elections apply to an election held in an irrigation district.

2. Sec 1, art. 6, of the constitution, which provides for a secret ballot, is applicable to elections held in an irrigation district, under the laws of the state.

3. Sec 2, art. 6, of the constitution provides, "Every male or female citizen of the United States, twenty-one years old who has actually resided in this state or territory for six months, and in the county where he or she offers to vote thirty days next preceding the day of election, if registered as provided by law, is a qualified elector."

4. Sec. 20, art. 1, of the constitution provides that, "No property qualification shall ever be required for any person to vote or hold office, except in school elections or elections creating indebtedness."

5. Sec. 4, art. 6, of the constitution provides, "The legislature may prescribe qualifications, limitations and conditions for the right of suffrage additional to those prescribed in this article, but shall never annul any of the provisions in this article contained."

6. Sec. 1, art. 6, of the constitution, provides, "All elections by the people must be by ballot. An absolutely secret ballot is hereby guaranteed, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to enact such laws as shall carry this section into effect."

7. Sec. 2 of the act of March 6, 1911, in prescribing residence within the state as sufficient to qualify a voter at an election within the district is in violation of sec. 2, art. 6, of the constitution.

8. Sec. 2 of the act of March 6, 1911 (Sess. Laws, p. 461), wherein it is provided that a holder of land within the district who is a resident of the state is a qualified voter at an election held in the irrigation district, violates the provisions of sec. 2, art. 6, of the constitution.

9. Sec. 2 of said act of March 6, 1911, also violates the provisions of sec. 1, art. 6, of the constitution, in that it provides that each voter may vote and have his ballot marked according to acreage of land owned by him and according to the number of inches of water used by him within the district.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action on an agreed statement of facts for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of an act of the legislature approved March 6, 1911. Judgment holding said sections unconstitutional. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Smith & Scatterday, for Appellant.

An irrigation district is a public corporation in one sense of the word, but it is not such a public corporation as would render unconstitutional the statute in question, by reason of the method of voting, and the qualifications of the electors provided for therein. The constitutional restrictions in this regard apply only to municipal corporations constituting the subdivisions of the state government, such as counties, cities, towns and villages, and not to public corporations such as reclamation projects, irrigation districts and drainage districts, whose primary object is to benefit the property of private owners and not to exercise governmental functions. In so far as some of the functions of an irrigation district are concerned, it is a public corporation, but as to others it should be treated as a private corporation. (Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329, 77 P. 937; Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 94 Am. St. 727, 70 S.W. 721, 60 L. R. A. 190.)

Rice, Thompson & Buckner, for Respondent.

An irrigation district, organized under the irrigation district laws of this state, is a public corporation, and the legislature in enacting laws in reference to such districts is limited by the provisions of the constitution of this state. (In re Bonds of Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 27 Am. St. 106, 28 P. 272, 14 L. R. A. 755; People v. Selma Irr. Dist., 98 Cal. 206, 32 P. 1047; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369; Jenison v. Redfield, 149 Cal. 500, 87 P. 62; Hertle v. Ball, 9 Idaho 193, 72 P. 953.)

Nearly all of the functions of an irrigation district are public in nature. (Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329, 77 P. 937.)

Hugh E. McElroy, Amicus Curiae.

In case of People v. Nelson, 133 Ill. 565, 27 N.E. 217, the court held that a sanitary district was governed by the provisions of the constitution of that state relating to suffrage and elections. It is also held that the legislature cannot add to or change constitutional qualifications. (See authorities cited under note 4, p. 576, 10 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 2d ed.)

Actual residence within the district is required by the constitution as a necessary qualification for suffrage in district elections. (Cooley, Const. Limitations, p. 902.)

The constitution does not permit a plurality of votes to be cast by a single elector, the number thereof to correspond to the amount of property he owns, of some given class or character. (Maynard v. Board of District Canvassers, 84 Mich. 228, 47 N.W. 756, 11 L. R. A. 332.)

Richards & Haga, Amici Curiae.

Under the provisions of sec. 20, art. 1, of the constitution, no property qualifications can ever be required of any person to vote or hold office, except in school elections or elections creating indebtedness. The present case is not embraced in either exception. (Allison v. Blake, 57 N.J.L. 6, 29 A. 417, 25 L. R. A. 480; Livesley v. Litchfield, 47 Ore. 247, 114 Am. St. 920, 83 P. 142; Wiggin v. City of Lewiston, 8 Idaho 527, 69 P. 286.)

The legislature cannot enlarge the elective franchise. (Johnson v. Grand Forks County, 16 N.D. 363, 125 Am. St. 662, 113 N.W. 1071; Morris v. Powell, 125 Ind. 281, 25 N.E. 221, 9 L. R. A. 326.)

The constitution of this state, sec. 1, art. 6, guarantees to the electors "an absolutely secret ballot." (McGrane v. County of Nez Perce, 18 Idaho 714, 112 P. 312.)

STEWART, C. J. Ailshie and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STEWART, C. J.

This case was submitted to the district court of Canyon county upon an agreed statement of facts. It appears from the agreed statement of facts that application was made to the Pioneer Irrigation District, praying that certain lands should be annexed to said district; that notice was given as provided by law and a hearing had upon the petition for annexation, and the board made an order that an election should be held to determine whether the boundaries of the district should be changed so as to include the lands described in the petition. The question arose with the board whether the election should be held under the provisions of sec. 2379, Rev. Codes, as amended by an act approved March 6, 1911, and whether sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of said act are constitutional or whether the election should be held under the provisions of sec. 2379 before amendment.

Upon this statement of facts there was submitted to the district court the following questions:

1. Shall said board of directors of said irrigation district, in calling said election, appoint registrars under sec. 2379, of the Rev. Codes of Idaho, and shall such registrars be governed in the performance of their duty in reference to said election by said section?

2. In conducting said election, shall the judges hand the electors a ballot with an indorsement made thereon by one of the judges showing the number of votes which may be cast by said elector by means of said ballot, and shall such elector be permitted to cast more than one vote in said election?

3. In conducting said election, shall persons be permitted to vote who do not reside within the boundaries of said district at the time of said election and are not qualified electors under the laws of the state of Idaho for the county within which said district is situated?

4. Shall parties be permitted to vote at said election who are not electors of the state of Idaho?

5. Shall electors be permitted to cast ballots at said election which have been marked or identified by judges of election?

6. Are sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of said act of the legislature, approved March 6, 1911, constitutional?

In answer to these inquiries submitted to the court, the court made certain findings of fact, adopting the agreed statement of facts as such findings, and made the conclusion of law that sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the act of March 6, 1911, were unconstitutional and that the board of directors of the said Pioneer Irrigation District in calling said election should appoint registrars under sec. 2379 of the Rev. Codes before amendment, and such registrars should be governed in the performance of their duties by said section. Judgment was rendered accordingly and this appeal is from the judgment.

It is urged upon this appeal by the respondents that secs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the act approved March 6, 1911 (Sess. Laws of 1911 p. 461), are unconstitutional for the following reasons: First, that such sections fix a property qualification for voters at elections other than school elections or elections creating indebtedness in violation of sec. 20, art. 1, of the constitution; 2. That such sections extend the right to vote to persons who own lands within the district although such persons may...