Case Title: State v. Thomas

Citation: 305 P.2d 376, 62 N.M. 103

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1956-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
305 P.2d 376 (1956) 62 N.M. 103 STATE ex rel. A.E. WEST, Relator-Appellant, v. Dorothy THOMAS, County Clerk, Curry County, State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee. No. 6170. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 21, 1956. E.P. Ripley, Santa Fe, Noble & Noble, Las Vegas, Wesley Quinn, Clovis, for appellant. Richard H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Standley, and Santiago E. Campos, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. By mandamus, it is sought in this proceeding to compel the county clerk of Curry County to furnish relator with an absentee ballot as contemplated by § 3-5-10 of 1953 Compilation (Pocket Supplement). The relator, in his petition, alleged "that he was a legally qualified and registered voter of Precinct No. 20, Election District A, Curry County, New Mexico; that he will be absent from his voting precinct on November 6, 1956; that more than seven days prior to the general election for the year 1956, he made application for an absentee ballot in the manner prescribed by § 3-5-10 supra; that he meets all the qualifications prescribed by law for voting by absentee ballot, which qualifications are admitted by respondent; and that respondent refuses to furnish him with an absentee ballot or to otherwise perform the duties imposed upon respondent by § 3-5-10 et seq., 1953 Compilation. (Pocket Supplement)" Wherefore, he prayed the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, or to show cause why she has not done so. Upon presentation of the petition, the district court authorized issuance of the alternative writ as prayed and issued an order to show cause, returnable on October 20, 1956. For answer to the alternative writ, the respondent admitted the allegations of the petition. The answer also alleged affirmatively "that the provisions of Laws of 1955 Ch. 256 compiled as § 3-5-10 to 19 inclusive, N.M.S.A. 1953, as amended, commonly known as the Absentee Voting Act are unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of § 1 of Article VII of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico and are hence void and a nullity." *377 On October 10, 1956, the cause was heard on the alternative writ and answer, on which date there was entered a judgment reading as follows: Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes: Objections and exceptions were duly taken and this appeal follows: Chapter 256 of New Mexico Session Laws 1955 provides: Section 1 of article 7 of the New Mexico Constitution provides as follows: "Every male citizen of the United States, who is over the age of twenty-one years, and has resided in New Mexico twelve months, in the county ninety days, and in the precinct in which he offers to vote thirty days, next preceding the election, * * * shall be qualified to vote at all elections for public officers. * * * "The legislature shall have the power to require the registration of the qualified electors as a requisite for voting, and shall regulate the manner, time and places of voting." The sole question involved in this appeal is the constitutionality of Chapter 256 Laws 1955, and, although the said election has since passed, and therefore our decision can have no effect upon the rights of the relator at that election; nevertheless, the question is one of great public interest, involving the right of the relator, as well as of all electors in this state, to vote by absentee ballot in future elections. Accordingly, we proceed to the determination of the question. See, Annotation in 132 A.L.R. beginning on page 1186. We held in Thompson v. Scheier, 1936, 40 N.M. 199, 57 P.2d 293, and affirmed said holding in Baca v. Ortiz, 1936, 40 N.M. 435, 61 P.2d 320 and reaffirmed the same in Chase v. Lujan, 1944, 48 N.M. 261, 149 P.2d 1003, that the above section of our constitution requires the manual delivery of his ballot by the voter in person at the polls in the precinct of his residence and that any law providing that a ballot may be cast by or for a qualified elector otherwise runs counter thereto and is unconstitutional. We are now, for the third time, asked to reverse our holding in the above cited cases, to the extent each holds that the Constitution, Article 7, § 1, requires the personal presence at the polls of an otherwise qualified elector when he offers to vote, and to adopt the dissenting opinion in Chase v. Lujan, supra. This we decline to do. After a careful review of the above cases, in which every material question here presented is exhaustively discussed, we are still of the same opinion, and hold that Chapter 256 Laws of 1955 is unconstitutional. We are entirely familiar with the maxim "ut res magis veleat quam pereat" so often laid down in this and other courts and "that the thing may rather have effect than be destroyed" has a special significance in determining the constitutionality of the statute. We know that in every doubtful case that doubt is resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the statute, and we have many cases so holding. When, however, a statute clearly violates the organic law as expressed in the Constitution, it is the plain duty of the Court to hold the statute unconstitutional, leaving the perfection of the statute to be brought about by proper constitutional amendment. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.