Case Information

*1 OFFICE OFTHEAmORNEY GENERAL OF T=X- ,.' AUBTIN ~"~,. :.~Yy?=+ I ~Honort3ble ii. Pat Edwards

Civil Distript:Attoraey

Dallas' County

Reoor$a Bulldine;

Dallae, Texas

Dew Mr. Edwax'ds: Attentfon: Mr. wsrren 5. co&,

Assitittmt District ;Rttorne~ 'Opinion' No.~@-7234 Re:. Whether or not a persqa over fihty ‘years of age,.llving lki a clt of 10,f)OQ populatioh s Is entit ed to vote wheii he h&s not renewed his exemption &W3f’icate as requi*d by ii. B. MO. 344, 49th Legislature.

We beg'to &ltnovlbdge. tipeoelpt of”your lett$i-+opound- -“lng the following for. a legeJ.',:?piaion eom this depar@nent~.‘~” . .

( ‘fl have this pr.dposltf&. Kiaarjr render an

opinioh’op seoure sam~ f’r-, the ,Atto%may General.

‘Our oonstitutiori pro&d~tlia;t; fXil~&iiom -m,, oh 60 esrs of ajp ee,ex$mpt from the payment tl$at time the Leglslature~haa ~Of poll ax.4 sirm3 % pzovlded for 'tlie !Pt+ O~~eotQr to issue td ~tiQ8e persens so exempt,‘a ymqanent voting certifleate. _-

“Row duiring the last session of our Le is’latkre, a law xas passed requQ?ing that exemptiona f n elties of over.lO,OOO be renewed @e$ween Oatober 1st an$” -. ‘, January Slat eaoh yeas.

“My’a%tentioa hai be&%‘:oaLLled.to3hi faot that quite a number of these perm&ent e%e!uption holders failed. to z-mew their voting oertifioates, beaause of illness or being out of the city, or other reasons. ~’

“ken these people vote under the conetitutiolial right, or will they be ‘denied on the,leglslative a&, as 8-6 forth above? *2 I Honorable H. Pat Edwards ,. page 2

-- “Kindly give me this opinion at the earliest possible date 80 th%it I ma$ correctly answer those who seek this information. --

The above is itself your quotation from the Inquiry of Mr. Ed Cobb, Assessor and Oolletstor of Texes for Dallas County.

We thank jiou for your brief of dlaousslon lend cltatlijn of authorltles acoompanylng your request. On .aocount of the im- minent Importance of your inquiry, we have given it a most care- f ul examination. .~ _

It Is the opinion of this dep*Xrtment that a person vho has herEtofore received a permanent exemption certlfiaate because of age may aot’be denied the rlght~ to vote at any election held in this State merely because he has failed for any reason to ‘re- new his certifl6,ate under the requirement of H. B. Bo. 344 passof: at the regula;r sesalon of the 49th Legislature. The reasons which lead us to this concluelon ,are a8 follows: -_

The question & &first Impression In thli.State, we~be- Ileve, and our,ooqoluslon,ls-reached upon an orlgFna;L invest&a- tlon of. the pertinent cone'titutional and etatutory.pr~vl.~lone.~ ife start out with the 1ndlapitabIe proposition that the rlghf; %f’ &f- A-age, although it be ti matter of~oonstitutione,l and statutory " gwe, ~3.n tie'senee that it2s subjeo% to the re ulationa of law, Is neverthelesf3 one,+ the most PundamentaI rlgh s & of a cltlaen a+.’ t&T8 State. Itideed,’ it M an essential rlgbt of a oil&en In any demooratla form of government., The right to vote, therefore, KU;. not be denied t7j Sny c’lti$en. ifnl.ess such right is forbidden In clear and unmlstakabJe terma Bf law.

In ‘&otlon 2 of Article XVI of the 6on&ltutlon, it is deolared: .:.:,

“The plvllege of free &fY’rage ahal& be pr?atected by laws regulating ‘ele&tlons and prohibiting untler ede- quate pmx3fXes a31 undue Gifluence therein from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper ‘$ee,otloe.”

Seation-I, of ArtloZe VI of the Constitution, dealing with suffrege, names the classes of pers6ndns who shall not be Gllowed to vote. By no stretoh of the imagination could it be held to include the class of persons under consideration.

‘a Seotlon 4 of Article VI of the Constitution 1s as ~fol-. lows :

.

Honorable Ii, Pat Edwards, page 3

“In all eleations by the people the vote shall be by b‘allot and the Leglslat-We shall provide for the numbeFlng of tickets and make such other regula- tions as may be neoessary to deteot and punish fraud, and preserve--the purity of the ballot box, and the Legislature may provide by law for the registration of all voters In aJ.1 citlis'e containing a population of 10,000 inhabitants or more.”

This Section cleexly clothes the Legislature with power to provide reglstratloii laws for voters, and further to make suoli other regulations “as may be necessary to detect and punish frau;‘. er?d preserve the purity of the baUot box.” No one would deny ,t%- power of the Legislature to do these things; but it has never un- dertaken.to pas8 general registration laws, and H. B. No.:344 does not purport to be; nor 18 It a law for detecting or punishing fraud, op m8aeMQ.q the purlty.of the ballot box pursuant to the ~ovliilone of Sectlon.4. On the contz=y, the bill Itself shows tZflrmatD?ely that 14s purpose and eSfeot UC+ entlrelyother than the constltutiona;l purpo8,ee.

The emergency .olause bf ii. B. No. 344 fairly and, oor- ,, ‘rectly states the motivating purpose ef the Aot, 8+8 follows:,.. -_ -* .that there are at this time’ thE i&mea Y “’ .’ “’

.a “The fat . of t&my people wh6 e,re deeeased, ti who have LremoQed from the State af Texss upon %he poll tax exemption list of all the aountl.es .throughout the State, pl8aee’ a.heavy burden upon the Tt$x Assessors and Collectotis of.each of the sev&aZ bounties of Texas’, creattie an emergency aad an wyative pub110 tieeoeselty ?.hat the ~’ conetitut1oM.l rule pequlrlng bill8 to be reed on three several days In eaah house be 8tipendet$‘, et cetera.

t-1. / !Phe bill there%%& purgozfedly’ and actu&ly was for the relief OS the oounty offloere WXE@, and ‘not .ln any sense ‘to de- teot.or prevent fraud, or to preserve the purlt of the ballot ,box. These wholesome objeotlverr ,aould.not pose big be threatened by Zhe appeezance of (41 aged voter holding a @rmanent old-age exe%ptlon certlfioate, but not further holding an annual renewal exemption thereof. ..-_

Again, Ii. 8.’ I?d. 344 58 undoubtedly in form mendatory UP-VII the holder8 of old-ege exemption oertlfioatee to have the a&e renewed aunually, but it Is algnlfiaant that au& bill no- . where provides, any ahara&er of &maZlty for a violation of’ that

,, .-‘:-:- 1’...1.\W’~, _,,-_ _ +

Honortila? lit Pat Edwsxds',~ Pag9 h

duty, and espeecisJ.ly does it nist impose upon such person the severe penaZ.ty of disfranchisement.

Forfeitures and penalties s?e'ndt favored in law. They are avoided if pos~s'ible. Moreover, In construing a legislative i%t, WC are not permitted to go-'beyond the four corners of the Instrument or bill Itself. We must find the intentfon of the Leg- islature, and therefore’%he law, within that instrument. Speoi- flcallg, we are not permitted to read into this act a forfeiture or penalty that 1s no‘t contained thereln, either by express lan- guage or necessary implication. Of' course, no suoh forfeiture or penalty is expressly contained in the bill, and neither is one to be regd iiito.lt upon any conception of lmplloation, for clearly such ti lmpllcatlon of forfeiture la not necessary, for ~the sot as above show aleesly supplies 831 that is neoesssry to support the aoX a8 a vs3U-act -- t&at is, 'the relief of the county of?& cer namsd in the emergeaoy clau'se. -- _-

H. B. No. 3% is .aii amendment of Arti& $?gfS8.& the statutes providl.Ag for a pemanent oertlfleate- of e.xemptlons.. . . . .ktSele 2968a (Vernon's aod%fiaatlon of~the statutes deals with exemption oertifiaates-'to persons who do not reside n a city of i 10,000 InhabltaAts OF more) an8 spe6ifl6ally provides "aAd ~O,BUO~ pbi?son who &as failed or refused to obtaiA's.uoh aertifl+te of,ex~ emptlon from the paymeat ,of.'+ polltajr be sUbwed %o vote.!', shall theref~ore, that H;'B. Wo. 344 eon-.

It Is signlf'laant, t&AS A0 such ~O+S~C& WeXre not fre6 to implg~~auoh a penalty, which the Legislature, presumably, IAtetitioAally omitted.

\ in Aitiale 3004 of.the Reiilsed &ii

Theie is nothing S+,atutes oontrmy to 0~ oonelusloni That &?tiole was ens&ed -- Tn W05, pe-enacteb'in the oodtiioation of 1925, an&h&the ssme meaning at those times a8 it hi& at this eime -% no tiore,:.aAd no leas. It has acquired AO new nieanu from the eAa&t@nt--of 8; B.-* No. 344. It ii+ yi5t in full force s.&$ord$ng to Its true meaning, and every requirement'of lc*oan be met'fullg %&.sny person to whom there has been issued a pernwwnt oldzage exemption oe.rtiiioate, '~"i without the renewaX thereof at any time.

he ease of Texas Power & Light Co. V. Brownwood'Pub- Service Co., 111 S,. W. (2) l225, has b6eA urged UPOA US a5 iiC beings contrary to the views herein expressed.* Tw oaae ie,not ' susoe tible of atly suoh oonstruotlon. That o&se construed 8eb-

Cone- of Article VI of'the Coiistitution heretofore quoted by USA, t

and moreover is LA perf'ebt harmony pith our viiSw5. As we have heretofore shown*;. the Legislature in the enactment of ii: B. No, 344 did not attempt to exieraise those powers, %a dXd aot in any *5 Honorable H. Pat Edwards, page

event diriky nor .lndlrectly, ex&ssly nor by Aese5sary lmpli- cation, impose the drastlc"penslty of disfkanohisement for a f+ail- ure"to observi3 the requirement for annua: I renewal5 of an existins: permanent exemption. ._

The prlnoiple that a mandatory statute, with no p?naZLtg attached, is in reality only a direotory statute is not ngw In our jurisprudence. For a hundred years there has b&in a msnda- provisitin requiring re-aijportionment of ah- tory constitutional tricts in the State, which mandatory requiremSnt has been more frequently violated than observed. Again, some yesxs ago, it'wlll be reoalled, there wa8 a StatUtO~ that where husband provision 'tid wife were divorced upon grounds of.oruelty, ~neittier should mat+y tithin a ye- thereafter. Such a statute w&9 mandatory in foti, but it did not further visit the peAtity of IAVtiidity upon a marriage oontrsoted.I.n violation thereof by eltPi@ party,, and dLd Atit therefore IA legal effect Porbld the consummafion.of such a re-mesrlsge. it will be seen.-Artiole 2968 a5 ameAded-by H.

FlAaliy, -8. no. 344; requires all w-exemptioti kertlficates to be ob-!

tained before the fira% day of Februasy of the yew when such voter shall haffe become entitled to suoh exemption, but it does fix asy 'when slich oertifioate shall be-renewed or7rels5neJ- not t&e So that; at the very utmost It Could be,obta%Aedn E-7 fore the hdlder offered to vote, If it should be that we @e wrong IA all we-have said

5.5 to~the COAStN&iOA of R. B. Ro. 344, nevertheless we 8;re' of the opI.nion.the Act is void in toto, 'in that it violates Seotion ~~-;31~tiole III'of the ConsXitutioA With respect to the title c'

. The title i8 affii%atively misleading. The subjeot n&d in the title clearly embraces &l persons holding poll tsx {exemption oertifioates, wheress the ml as passed per'talns only to a aertaln class of such psrstins,.that,is to say, perwns liv- ing w33iEZ *of 10,000 or more population; One lnt*eHted In the subjeot;inatter, uijon i%?ading the title of the bill, might favor an sU-embraeliig amendment, and yet oppose One applying only ta a pat of the exempted persons.. 'Moreover, the title is,abso- Ptely false; l.t 1s belied by the bill'as passed.

Landrum v. CeAtenAlaS Rursl High School Mstrict Ho. 2, 134 s. w. f~?)~2):;, by the Court of Clvll Appeal8 for the Third Mstrlct, -&ter established than the one that

"No rule is where a title or capEion-*of an sot spealfies the pa?tl- &Las field of the amendment, and--that It is to cover.

ore state a ps&koul83 pu%pose to m&e a change Vn a prior statute-. the emendment is 3Smlted to the making *6 Honorable Ii. Pat Edwards, pege 6

of the speolfio changes designated in Its title, aiid precludes eny additional, contrary, or different amend- ment then that stated in the title. Rutle e v. AtkIn- son 101 S. W. (2) 376; Wslker v..State, 11 S. W. (2) 1076;' Sutherland v. Board of Trustees, 261. S. W. 489.'

We think this well-settled rule applies to the case before us. See:

City of Fort,Wcrth v. Hsrr$s, 177 3. W. (2) 308, 180 s, w. 131;

Abernathy County Line School District v. New Deal County Line District, 175 9. W. (2) 446; Kinohelo v. State., 175 US. W. (2) 593; Walker v. State, 116-p. W. (2) 1076;.‘ Lowery v. Red Cab Company, 262,s. W. 47; Ds Sfiv1a.v. State;~ 229 S. W. 542; M;.K. & T. Ry. Coy--v. State, 113 S.~W. 916; ,.. ..: .,

Gulf Production Compsny~v. Osrrett, 24 S.'W< (2) 389.

Praetorla3m v. State,'184 8. W. (2) 294, by Jdge Baugh" .of the Court of Civil App&Qs for the Third Mstrlct, declares: -- ,-

I, . . . A somewhat strlo%er rule of conformity of the title tb the subjeot-matter 1eglXlated upon in the body of~the act Is applied to emendmeiits than to titles of original aat. See: Doeppensohmidt v;’ International & C. *. R. Co.,.101 3. W. 1080; and Rutledge v. Atkinson, 101 5. W. (2) 376. . . . .”

~~uli' Insurance CO. v. James, State Treasurer, 185 S. W.

(2) 966, de&ares:

,I The rule of liberal oonstruotion Will not be foliowe: to the extent that Itwill relieve the Legislature of the neoessgty of dlaolosing the reel subjeot of the Act in.the title thereof, nor will It be extended so as to hold acts velld, the titles of *'. <.:. which are deceptive or misleading as to the real oon- tents of the Acts."

RonoPab1e H. Pat EdwekMi page 7

There 83.e other 'perlous 0onstltutiona;l puesti'dns which mlgiSbe raised, but in vigx of our d33poslt~on OZ the matter, It beoomee unnecessasg to discuss the same.

We trust that wha$ we have s&id sufficiently answers your inqriitiy.

Very truly yours Al'TORNE!f 0RmA.L OF TEXAS -.

/s/ Wm. J. Fanning .BY .Wm, 3. Fanning Asslstr+nt /s/ O&e Speei’ OS-MR:fb BY \ Ooie Speer

Asststant ‘,S.

APPROVED JUL.‘~~, 1946 . /s/.O@rlos I?,, Ashley

FIRST ASSISY!ART ATTORNEY QENE&

i _- This opka2on oonslde~~d,~and approved In limited aonferenoe;

.:.: .