OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

C~~“ER SELLERS 

A,TTQRNEI GIZNLRAL 

Rmorable John 0. Reed, CoPrisslorrsr 

&reau of I&or st8tlstlc8 

Justin, 4ex80 

Dear Sir: 

You request our 

. . . . 

8 offlcs a3 to 

100 of this 

X’ to FrOpCr’ly 

oaae 6nawer 

h reference to said 

uorkiag only a part of 

loyee is eatltbd to t&s tlme 

rk to rote must this tins off be 

employer? 

‘If the a0sver to question tuo 1s la the arfimnative uould the o~lgloges be privileged to 

leave his job at any time ha desired for this 

9Ur9Osa or vould the eaployer be Withitl his 

rq@ts in prasarlbloe, the the allowed during 

r,&e day Sor the 9W9OW 0s VOtiW? 

a a 

. . . . 
.gsnore’ole John D. Reed, 98613 2 

se: 

Statutory provi8loos pertinent to your questions 

Peaal Code, 1525, Article ~203: 

“UhbdveC refuses to an eaploye entitled Co 

vote the privilege of at tending the polls, or 

subjects such employs to a penalty or deduction 

of vages because Or thr exercise of such privylegs, shall be fined not to exceed five huudred 

dollars. ” 

Ycrnon’a Muotated Civil Statutes, 1325, firticle 

2930 : 

n In all electloaa, geozral, speclel, &*p~imerj, the polls shall be o9en fro% 

aevea olcloelc a. 13. to ssven oqclock p. tr. in 

all counclcs having a pOpUhtfOa of 1~0,000 or 

core occordlog to the last Foderel census ati 

ia all ocher counties the 90113 shall be apened 

nt 8 a. m. and a&11 remain open until 7 p. m. 

.:he olcctloa shall bu held for one day only,” 

v. 4.. 0. 3., 1325, Prtlale 4591: 

n every day on which en election ts 

bald t&&&out the State, are declared legal 

holidays, on which all the public ofPlces of 

&he jtnte may be closed end shall be cmsldared 

end treated as Smiay or the Chzlstlaa Sabbath 

for .a11 purposes regarding the presenting for 

the payment or acceptance and of protesting for 

aad giving notice or ths dishonor of bills of 

exchange, bank checks end pr~mls~~ry notes 

placed by the lav u9on the footlag Of bills Of 

exchange. ” 

days. 

Our statute doss not 9rahiblt labor on legal holl- 

“The vord ‘holiday’ as inteqreted by the 

coiirts does not IrppOrt the same statMaS ;3Un- 

&y and a dealaratloa it+ e statute that a Certain day shall be a legal holiday gives that day 
;-lon;rable John D. Reed, page 3 

the attributes of Sunday only to the extent OS 

the s~~esr UO~~S of the statute.” Sundey and 

Holidays, 39 Tex. Jur. 657, par. 2, o.-- 

Penal Code, 1925, Article 209, ia a part OS the 

xleotiolr law OS 1905 (Act8 OS 29th Lee., 1st Colled aess., 

Ch. 11). Section 175 of that Act (page 562) is es follws: 

“Pny perscn or corporation uho refuses to 

au enploys entitled to rots the p?elvilega of 

attendirrg tha polla, or subjeots such employs 

to a penalty or deduction of uages because OS 

the exercise OS such prlvllage la gullt,y OS e 

ubdameaaor . ” 

z,‘ke codlflcetion of 1911, Penal Code, Prtlcls 244, lncor~oin&Ed this provision h Its precise phraseoloeg. The 1325 

cZdifiiW.3 brOL&ht it f0rU13.W itI its pPCSeRt iOr& VlthW,, 

01 course, chaxglag Its Intent or purpose. 

.rlthough other states have enacted lc$,slation 

%lzxd to require ezaployera to cllov tholr employees t&e to 

vote ulthout deduction of pay, our laveutlgotioo ims dis- 

~103~3 oali two case8 (both OS them Xlllnols cases) iavolv- 

:i;ii the questfons under dlscusslon. 

P case of first impression 13 that of rconle us. 

-~&~*L~ g-&*Q’;olpt thera he=: (1323) 306 Ill. 486mL L;. 

” The provlsiolw ot sald statute 

that g&A I& the rl&t to absent hlmselS for 

tuo hours on eleotioa day Md to cast hia vote, 

and vhlch required his employer, plaintiff in 

error, to @ve him this opportunity of attaadlng the eleoticn for such purpose, are wholesome 

~ovlslons OS the statute, end ore valid and 

binding1 but the provlslca of the atatuto that 

requires the employer to pay him at the rate of 

85 cents per hour for the tlms CmFloycd la atteldlng the election and costing his vote -- or# 

speakia~, more ancurataly, the ~rovislon rcquiring the employer to pay him S~Or tvo.hours’ time 

at such rata for exeroislag such FrlVlleEe -- 

1s lavalid, because lt 1s an u~cooo&A~ 
Eoaorable John C. Heed, page 4 

abrldgmsnt ot the right to make contracts. The 

1eSlslature had junt as much right to require 

employer* to pay their employees for the tl.ms 

they naces8arlly would be corngelled to usa in 

1OOkUg after any sick member or members of their 

Samlly as it had to pasr ths provlslon ia question. Other strlklag examples of void logis&- 

tloa of tha character la question might ba 

stated, aad la uhlch it would appear that the 

employee would be engaged la a matter of pursuit equally as coolmendable and as essential to 

his oun persoaal welfarei but further c-at 

Is unnecessary, as It is entirely clear thot 

the provision in queatloa 1s an unreasonable 

a~ridgrasnt of the right to contract, and therefore void. 

% is claimed by the people that the provision In queatlon is eustalaablc uader vhac 1s 

kaoun as the police pouer of the state, conzmonly Ceflnad OS that inherent plenary povcjr In the 

state to prohibit all things hurtful to the 

comfort, welfare, etid safety of society. ‘L’heJ 

relatloa of employer end employee is purely 

voluntary, rc3tlng upon the contract OS the 

parties. ShIery man ha8 a natural right to hire 

his services to anyone he pleases, ap refrain 

frgn such hlrlng, and it 1s equally the right 

of everyone to determine whose servloea he will 

hire. The state has no right to interfere in .Z 

private employment and stipulate the terms of 

the services to be rendered. Tledeman, Pol. 

Power, 0 1 176, 178. It la tlwa that the stats 

does have the rl&ht, under Its police povers, 

to pass laws that tend to promote ths health, 

safety, or norala of euch employees as Purney, 

because of the fact that such laws would tead to 

promote tha health, comfort, safety, and velfare of soeletg. The act in question, as contended by plalutLfS la error, does not in any 

vay, so far as va are able to see, tend to promote ths health, eaf’ety, or BOrals of such employees. The provialons In question are not 

adapted to the object for vhlch the law vaa enacted, (md caaaot be said to secure public Confort, velfare, ssfety, or public morals. There 

J.S no conteation, and there can be none made 
uith any reasoaablo shwl~, that the provision 

ill UWStiOll teRd9 CO prOSlOt the Safety QP health 

OS SJly efaployee. It ,has alv~ys been the policy 

Of Our lava to condeen the Idea of sop voter bein@( paid for CXarOiSiIlg the privilege of M elector or voter. The rfght to vote Is aQigly one 

of the piVil8g88 &Wanteed to every citlzea 

of this country vho poasessas the regulsite quellficatlov. It 1s not only a right, but should 

b6 re~axl8d as a duty OS the citlzon, where he 

is reasonably able r&yaUx~lly to perform that 

duty. It 15 UOt the COnsCltUtiOOal rl@t of any 

CitLZCn CO b8 pZiLd iOr th8 c%TC~lsu OS his ri&t 

to vote, and the h31diug of tke p:ovl3lon 3f t!x 

statute vold dots not vlolato the rF@t of my 

citiesa, iacl~?in.~ those v;ho are ctqlzi'jcd t3 

l&or. '221s ~rovl3ion of the stutwl-,e I.3 not 3u3- 

talnablc under ths police peer of the state, r.nd 

it does violate tke cocstftutlonol povlslcus 

nforescid, e%I thcref’ore mmt be kclored wlc!. 

Eesides, ‘no cxsrclse Of t!iU pokce p3uer cix 

disrc;;crd the ccartltutlozxl .guarnncies in re3pxt to the toking of prlvoto r,roptxt;j, due pacess, cud equal yrotectloa’ of t!:e lcw3, GUI it 

should mt ‘ovcrrlde the lamrids of zr?tu;-al juytiC8.' . . ." 

our alpreee court, 0+l10a hg C:llef JustPze CureECU, ia Trsvclers 1~3, co. 0~. xmO3ul1, (1934) pi 3. si. 

(26) lOOfi, ot Cage-11, cited ~ii;h espzoval the obovc case 

lu Lcldlnng tCe -ZmerEency fiioratorlum Law unconstltutiozal beceude it inpalred tho obligation of contracts. 

The other case is that of NC!1 In8 vs. TX-izCk, 

($27) 326 111. 240, 157 :J. S. 235, &*ywttloa OP the 

Ilii~ol8 primary lau Invalid vhlch g8V8 e?~pl~g~ea the right 

cc absent theW8lVe8 from eISplOpWAt COr tV0 hours on prinosy election day to vote, without deduction from their 

Sf&'I'18s. The court, cltlag the first uoutloncd czise, said: 

” The proviUloa of SeCtiOn 7, givmg em~liy&98 the right to absent th8mse1oee 

fra their emplopeot for tvo hours on elcctlOn 
Honorable John D. Reed, page 6 

day for the pLIrpOa8 Of' voting without any deduction froa their salaries or wages on aacount.of such absence 1s also unconatltutlonal, being a vlolatloa of section 2, article 2 

of the COClStitUt.iO& People v. Chicago, MllVBUkC8 & St. Paul Rallvay Co., 306 Ill. 486, 

138 X. E. 155, 28 A. L. R. 610. Theee sections 

are not, however, of such a character a8 to lnterser8 vlth the operation of the rest OS th8 

act, li they arc stricken from It, and therefore do not &Sect the constltutionallty of the 

8lltire tiCt.D 

The right OS franchise la our democracy 1s of supreme Importance and its exercl38 should be zealously guarded. "Statutes regulating the rights of citlecns to vote 

cre of great public Intereat, and, therefore, are given a 

broad interpretation to secure for the citizen his right to 

vote and to insure the election of those officers vho are 

the people's choice." Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 

Third Edition, Volume 3, page 445, pm. 7215, n. 1. 

We therefore an8Yer your first qUeStiOn: AKi employee is entitled to absent himself from his job for a 

reasonab18 time for the purpose of voting. See our ansver 

to queatlon Ho. 3. 

Second qu8stloar We believe that that part of 

the statute prohibiting the deduction OS vagca when the 

employee absent8 himself from his work in order to vota 1s 

Invalid. 

Third qusatlon: Bearing In mind that our polls 

ere open until 7:00 P.i%, that a statute should be interpreted by its equity, end OS the interdependence of employer and employee la our Industrial cIvi1itatioa, it 18 

our opinion that en employer is within the statute and his 

rights la prescribing th8 tIm8 &loved during the day for 

the purpo88 of voting. The time ti1oved should be euf'flcleat and fair so as to fully end comp1ete1Y permit th8 

E-mployae to exercise hi8 suffrage. Such regulations would 
xonorable Sahu D. Reed, page 7 

vary accordLog to 10~41 Co;lbitlOti8y but it should gfv4 tb4 

employes @a and cmvaaieot tZma ulthla which to vote. 

Trustiagt&mtthhe abwo 41~~404 you~inqu~~, ~4 

8re 

vary truly yours 

AzL 

BY 

Ek~rld Wuntch 

~~55istant