Ray v. Com.
| Citation | 276 A.2d 509,442 Pa. 606 |
| Parties | Robert Allen RAY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania. |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1971 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Fred Speaker, Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County dismissing appellant's complaint.
Appellant requested the lower court to enjoin enforcement of Section 102(y) of the Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, Art. I, § 102 (as amended), 25 P.S. § 2602(y). Section 102(y) excepts 'any person committed to and confined in a penal institution' from the definition of 'absentee elector.' Appellant, who is 'confined in a penal institution' by reason of his convictions for armed robbery and aggravated robbery, contends that Section 102(y) is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits him from voting as an absentee elector.
Even assuming that appellant's claim has not been mooted by the fact that it was concerned with the already past November, 1970 elections, or that injunction rather than mandamus was the proper from of remedy, appellant's claim still must fail. Appellant cites two provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution in support of his arguments: (1) 'Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage,' (Art. I, Sec. 5), and (2) 'The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the State or county of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.' Art. 7, Sec. 14.
Appellant's contention that Section 102(y) of the Election Code is inconsistent with Art. I, Sec. 5 of the Constitution shows a misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of that constitutional provision. As this Court said in Winston v. Moore, 244 Pa. 447, 457, 91 A. 520, 523, (1914), 'elections are Free and equal within the meaning of the Constitution when they are public and open to all Qualified electors alike.' (Emphasis added) The right to vote guaranteed under Art. I, Sec. 5 is thus subject to the same condition as is the right to an absentee ballot guaranteed in Art. 7, Sec. 14--that the voter must be a 'qualified elector.' And just as the Legislature has the power to define 'qualified electors' in terms of age and residency requirements, so it also has power to except persons 'confined in a penal institution' from the class of 'qualified electors.' See Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1889); Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 57, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959); McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802, 89...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mixon v. Com.
...set forth in section 102(t) of this act," 25 P.S. § 2602(w) (emphasis added), and that our Supreme Court in Ray v. Commonwealth, 442 Pa. 606, 276 A.2d 509 (1971), decided that the definition of "qualified absentee elector" as excluding persons confined in penal institutions, did not violate......