Smith, Application of
| Decision Date | 12 May 1950 |
| Citation | 73 A.2d 761,8 N.J.Super. 573 |
| Parties | Application of SMITH. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Jerome D. Schwitzer, Newark, for applicant.
Lester E. Mahr, Newark, for Superintendent of Elections of Essex County.
HARTSHORNE, J.C.C.
The Superintendent of Elections has placed on the Challenge List the name of the applicant, a registered voter in Essex County, on the ground that on November 18, 1931 he was convicted in the State of Ohio of the larceny of an automobile of the value of $300. The applicant now applies to have his name removed from the challenge list in order that he may vote. R.S. 19:32--10, N.J.S.A.
The question thus is whether one is disenfranchised in New Jersey, by his conviction in a sister state, of a crime which would disenfranchise him if committed in this state.
The new State Constitution, so far as pertinent, provides, 'The Legislature may pass laws to deprive persons of the right of suffrage who shall be convicted of such crimes as it may designate.' ( Accordingly, the Legislature enacted a statute in 1948 providing that, '* * * No person shall have the right of suffrage * * * (2) Who has been convicted of * * * larceny of above the value of six dollars * * *.' (R.S. 19:4--1, as amended, N.J.S.A.) The above provisions substantially parallel the provisions of the preceding State Constitution, and the statutes applicable thereto.
The purpose of these provisions was 'to maintain the purity of our elections by excluding those would be voters whose status was deemed to be inimical thereto,' and 'not to invoke a punishment or a penalty.' (Re Marino, 42 A.2d 469, 470, 23 N.J.Misc. 159, 161 (Common Pleas, 1945).) Both for this reason, and because the words 'convicted of * * * crime' in similar statutes have consistently been held in New Jersey 'to cover convictions of crime in any jurisdiction, federal or state, domestic or foreign' (Id. 42 A.2d at page 472, 23 N.J.Misc. at page 164) it was there held that one could not vote in New Jersey, who was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of a crime which, if in the State courts, would disenfranchise him.
For the same reasons, a person so convicted in the courts of a sister state should be similarly disenfranchised in this state. Otherwise one would not only not maintain the purity of the ballot, but might unfairly discriminate between voters. If the next-door neighbor to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. Baronian
...as disenfranchising anyone convicted of the specified crime, regardless of where the conviction occurred. In Application of Smith, 8 N.J.Super. 573, 73 A.2d 761 (1950), for instance, the court held that an individual convicted of larceny in Ohio was disenfranchised in New Jersey under a sta......
-
Stephens v. Yeomans
...Superintendent of Elections seems consistent with such prior New Jersey decisions as bear upon the matter. Application of Smith, 8 N.J.Super. 573, 73 A.2d 761 (L.Div.1950); Application of Marino, 23 N.J.Misc. 159, 42 A. 2d 469 (Com.Pl.1945). He is the state administrative officer charged wi......
-
MacKinnon v. Ferber
...the plain meaning of the statute requires the contrary. Kravis v. Hock, 136 N.J.L. 161, 54 A.2d 778 (E. & A. 1947); In re Smith, 8 N.J.Super. 573, 73 A.2d 761 (Cty.Ct.1950); Borino v. General Registrars, etc., City of Bridgeport, 86 Conn. 622, 86 A. 597 (Conn.1913); Reg. v. Vine, L.R. (1875......
-
Edwards v. Edwards, M--2374
... ... Further, the challenged process is not insufficient because it is served outside of the State of New Jersey ... The application of the defendant to set aside the service of the summons and complaint and for dismissal of the complaint is denied ... ...