-. . 

TEXIEA~OKNEY GENERAL. 

oe-rExAs . 

. 

PRICEDANIEL 

Au- 1s. TEXAE 

ATTORiaY GENERAL October 27, 1952 

. 

. 

Hon. -Sam i. Davis 

Dlst~lct Attorney 

Oplniah NO+ .V-:-$532 

HQIMton; Te.xas He’: ‘Necessitg. that ati ~eniployer 

.I allow employims tlma off 

to vote .uhen the employees 

,Dear Sk 

have sufficient time to 

. 

.’ ,vote’ outs+ w,o,+lng hours. .*a., . 

. kou hi& r.aquegted. in’ op&i&i en’ the “&U.~U- ’ 

$iig ~ques~loa: 

‘l!Doei Article 209 Qf ttie’ Tekas P&k" 

C.ode .require an employer to give ari employee’. t~lme off to vote, either with’or : 

without ptiy, where he har sufflci,ent *line 

to vote out ~1~~ hi a wprki$@ houre?*1 

. .:.;... ,.’ 

, 

ArtlOle @W,.; Perkon* 8 Penal C’oaO;- reads8 

Whbever .bef&s to ai em~loj& ei- i ‘. 

,-titled to %ote the prlvlle&e of attending 

the :f. oils, or subjects suoh,e 

pev ty;or,. deduotiQn of ‘wages “% 

loyee to a 

acause of. the 

eZeroise.‘3f. s\rc& privilege, .shall, be fined 

not to exc6ed -five’ ‘huMred dollars. * 

. 

The s6atkte declares’ tk ofidlirbs~;~..naae~yr 

(1) refusl 

the .polls; ( 

’ 

1 

an. employee ,the prltllege of atteridlng.. ~. 

sub ectlng the employee. to ‘a’ deductI& 

of wiges be.cause cd .the exercise 

.Thus. it is. seen t@t the p$vllS 

ma exeralse without deduction .o 

OK 

wage&under t 

lege 

olaose of, the 4tatute ..ls’ Idetitt’icaX’SrIth. the rlvigranted UadrL’ t& fir&t, cl@uJe. ,~Z$ Under t ii e ~. 

f lrst. claUs& th+ tiWloj;rr $ouid :b,a .e.atifled to demand 

tlnm oif from work in order, to vat& ‘by virtue of ‘the 

‘seaond blade the crmployer could noi atike 

froia bid fiiy beoaud) of suoh ab~sence. 

a deduction 

I 

The ‘only.,questlon to be cob3e&d h&e is 

*whet’fier b;$tlcli’209 aeans that ti BapiIojer..ln all ‘.. : 

cases. must permit hls”Wployee’s tij irot? during, working hours or kðer ‘It means only t@at*‘an: kmplzoyer 

/’ 

. ; t...’ 

. . ‘, ‘l’. :.. - *. . 

‘P,. h, 
. 

hon. Sam W. Davis, p&e 2 (V-i532), 

cannot reiuse to allow an employee time off If by such 

a refusal the employee would be deprived of an opportunlty to vote, 

In Attorney Wneralls Opinion O-6242 (19441, 

one of the questions presented vas whether an employee working only a part of the tllm, the., polls ar4. open 

on election day 1s entitled to absent himself from his 

job for the purpose of voting. A further qu6stlon was 

whether the employme 1s privileged to. leave his .Job in 

order. to vote at any time he de~slres or whether the 

employer Is within his rights In prescribing the time 

allowed during the day for tha’t purpose. In answer 

to the first question, it was stated that an employee 

Is entitled to absent himself from. h@ job for a’rea,i 

sonable time, for the purpos4 gf voting, as explalned~ 

In the answer to the oth@ qusstlon; which stated:~ 

*‘Bearing In mind that our bolls are 

open until 7rOO P.M. that a statute 

should be Interpreted by its equity, and 

of’ the Interdependence of employer and 

employee in our Industrial alvllleatlon, 

It la our opinion that’ an employer Is, 

within the statute and his rlghts~ In preL 

scribing the time allowed durjng the day 

for the purpose of voting. The time allowed should be sufficient and fair so as 

to fully and completely permit the em- 

.ljleyee to exercise his suffrage. Such . ‘~ 

regulations would vary according to local 

: aondlt$ons; but it ‘should give the employee ampke and convenient tire within which 

to vote.m 

. . . . 

!!e think the opin&i was Intended tb’mean 

that an employee Is entitled to. a reasonable length of 

free time during polling hours and .that if he will have 

sufflclgnt free,tlme to vote 6nly by tinking a Dart ~of 

hi.8 working -day9 the em ofer mmst allow him to take 

off enough tlms to enab p” e him to ittend the polls while 

they’ are open. The opinion went ‘on to say that the 

amount of time which must be allowed will vary according to local conditions. We think the term “local conditions” was Intended to Include all the varlouo faotors which would enter Into the time which should be 

allowed ln each particular case, one of which would be . . 

the amount of time the employee had frse bifore’ or aft’er vork. 
Hon. ‘Sam3/.~iavls, page 3 (V-1532) .’ 

#a 

&Wad 782%4o.A;;. 1949) 

v, Day-Brlte~ Llm 220 

st,atute which read:. 

, the cpurt had befoGi It a 

: ~‘. 

- . . . 

“Any perron entitled to vote at anf 

eleotlon In this state shall on the day 

of ,moh elect~lon, be entitled .to absent 

himself from anjr.sel?vlces or emplo ent 

In which he Is theii engaged or emp p:.oyed., ” 

.fo.r a pe’rlod.of four houm between the 

times of opening and closing the polls; 

and such-‘voter ishall. ‘not, because of so. 

absenting himself,’ be, liable to any penalty: Provided, however, &hat his employer may specify the hours diirl’ng 

which such employee may absent himself ” :’ 

as aforesaid. Any person or, corporation ‘.’ 

who shall refuse to any employee, the 

privilege hereby conferred, or shall dlscharge or threaten to:dlscharge tiny em’- 

ployee for absenting *himself from his.. 

work for the purpose of.sald election, 

or shall cause any employee to suffer 

any penalty or deduction of’.wages because of the exercise of such privilege, 

or who shall; directly or indirectly, 

violate the provisions o$ this section, 

shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 

and. on .convlttlon thersof be ,f lned In 

~~,a~ snot e,xceeding five hundred dol- 

., 

The court constrned 4& sfat&Zto mean that 

an employee itaa entitled, to’abseiit h$iaself from wo.pk 

for a aufflclent ,length Of time to give’ him f@r fi?ee 

hoate d-lag, tttd plrlo&::t~tL~e pollb wese dpdn; #a-t 

,I 

. . i Gne ‘theory advadcbd Is that 

under this section the employee .is clnbStl$ 

.’ ‘. 

to four hours! absenos fro@ .&is regular 

‘working hours on the day of election, whereas another theory advanced ‘1s th::t the em-, 

ployee is entitled to four hoursi time In 

which to vote during the thlrte~en hour8 ‘oomprlsing an election day* This last stated 

theory whfch we %hlnk Is correct t meane 

‘that I? the ,employee+s regular working day 

leaves him at least four coilsacutlve hours 

on election day during whtch he would not 

: 
. 

Hon. Am Wi Davis, paga 4 (v-1532) 

be engaged in actual seixlce to his es- 

. ployer, the object and the ,gurpose ,of. 

the statute has been met ,, and such employee Is not entitled to be absent from 

his rcgula,r working hours at’ all; or, if 

such time when the employee’& not. actuall$&n:age+ in service to his employer is less than four hours .(ln this.aase 

two and, one-half hours), the employer 

shall permit the absence of -the employee 

from his services for a sufficient time 

(In this case one and one-half h6urs) to 

ma up four full ho&e., e ‘. et’ 

The. cou& stated the purpose of the M.ssouri 

statute In $bo following ,Sang*age: 

. ! ~. “That every c9Mrm -#hoaM be given 

both the ‘iight ‘and the ‘oppotitunfty to 

‘vote .id a matter of publia intere~st, aad 

aY’ law having for &t$ purpose the iuar- ;$o;:dof 6uch -right and opportuhlty “R 

npheld I$ It is oeslble to do 

so0 3uc tre take i.t was t L J.eglslatlte 

m;:” P 

the enactment of Sectlonnd the purpose 0~ leglslatlre 

Intent wad not to financially enrich the 

voter or to place an unnoae@rary and Mrgtisonsble burden on the rmoyer. i a . c 

1 

,. 

Xhlle the Toxaa statute does not-fix the letigtti’of time 

which is aonrldered sufficient f@r 3otingi the purpose 

of these :tw~: rtatutos IS the ~ry.~ The essential dii- 

~$orettcr~ etvoea tbr Xls#ourl rtatutr apd the Wxas statcitr,.ls. t L t the Gtter makes a detrrainatlon OS ,the 

t&m tb b8 s;lloMd depend upon the olrcuwtanoss in each 

.putiOular oaaa, euch aa the a#uat of time available , 

uatr¶Ar v&jag h-s, the dilltLrvar the employee mU&% 

travel %a reruh’ tM polling, pla&a +nd the time required 

for traversing the distance:by available nodes of travel, . 

. . 

congestion at the polls, eta. 

t Is not rsqalrid 

ro the employee 
. 

Hon. Sam’Wi Davis, page .5 (V-1532) 

oi ~attendi~ .the polls or if ‘wage.s”are deducted Sor 

such additI,onal klme. gufficiency of time is, of, 

course,, a ‘question of’ fact deperfding upon the olrcumstances izr eeoh particu+r aase. 

: . 

.c 

&g&g&g ‘~-: 

.1 :) Artlclfi'i09' v*p&.;‘i&a ndt r&&irr~... 

an employers .t~ ailov any empltir time dff 

to vote whijre .the employee has :Jwflcient 

time to ‘vote outside hi$,vorki 

,If an elpployee does not have..s 3 

hours.~ 

?lclent 

tilae to ‘vote ‘outside. his working hours, it 

would be violative of Artiale:,209, V.P .C., 

for an.F.employer to deny-him $uch additional, 

time as’is necessary to att,ehd the polla 

or to deduct wages for such addltlonal’tine, 

What constitutes a suffloleht time for voting is e question of fact depending upon 

the. circumstances ,ti each particular case .~. 

APPROVED: 

l :í ~~ 

E. Jaoobson 

.&ecutive Assistant 

MIW:vb 

:i. 

. . 

. . 

Pours very truly, ’ 

PRICE DAnfEL 

Attorney General 

Mary K, Wall 

Asslstant