‘ 

THE A~~ORNEYGENEFCAL 

Gerald C. Mann 

*-sue- o-r- 

%H6n. Furman.B. ,.Caudle’ 

.County Attorntiy 

Franklin ,,County 

Mt. Vernon, Texas Opinion No:@2666 

Re: .Ellglbility of & person to 

vote ‘.for District ,and ‘State 

offices, whb has moved from 

one county to another within 

the District ,less than six 

months prior’ to the ‘election. 

Dear Sir: 

On August 22; 11940 we received your letter requesting ‘our opinion relating to the’ellglbSllty of a voter 

at the eleotlon on August 24th. This di,d .nqt’ glye us adequate 

time to prepare an opinion,‘prior to the e~lectlon, ‘but inasmuch as the question may arise’ at the general eJectIon in 

November, we are nevertheless replying to you* request. 

The facts ‘set forth in you,r letter ‘are: 

,I 

. . . 

“Up t,o May lst, 1940;‘. ‘A’ 3ived..in a county 

adjoining Branklin, .Co,. ,.On ‘May a, ‘1940,’ hue moved 

to .this County: He, had paid his ‘poll’ tax, and 

otherwise ‘a qualified voter.in the, tidjoining 

County, if he had remained there. 

“On next Saturday, 24th; ‘A’ ,intends, 

to present himself, at the voting place of his 

precinct, ‘and, request the, manage,r of %he election 

to furnish him a ballot, so that ,he may -vote for 

State. and~‘blstrlct offices,” 

question: 

Based upon ,thetie facts, you ask the following 

“Is It the duty tinder the law of the 

election manager, and may such election judge 

furnish IAt with a ballot, with all County 
. . 

Hon. Furman B. Caudle, page 2 

candidates and precinct aandidates stricken 

off, and permit IAt to cast his ballot for 

State and/or ~Distrlct oandidates. . . .” 

The question presented by you Involves a. construction of Article 2967,.Revlsed Civil Statutes, 1925, which 

reads as follows: 

“Art. 2967, FGMOVAL TO ANOTHER ‘COm OR’.PRE%IWCT 

If ‘a citizen .after receiving hi&’ poll tax 

receipt ,tir certificate of eqemptlon; removes to 

another county or to another precinct In the same 

county, he may vote at an election in the precinct 

ti,f his new,resldence in such dther .county or precinct by preaentlng his ,poll tax. receipt ‘or certlficate of exemption .or his affld&vlt or Its loss 

to the precinct judges of eleotlon; and ‘state In 

such aftldavlt~wherri he paid such poll tax or received such ..certlficate of ‘exemption, an.8 by making 

oath that he 1s the Identical pepson described in 

such poll tax .recelpt ‘or certificate of alamptlon, 

add that he then resides in the precinct .whe.re 

he offers to vote and hae r&sided for the last 

six ,months in the district or.‘county in which he 

offers to vote and twelve months in the State. 

But no such person .shall be’permitted to vote in 

a city of ten thousand lnhavltants or more, un- 

@ss he .has first presented to the tax collector 

of his residence a tax receipt m certificate, 

not leas than four days ‘prior to such election 

or primary election or’made affidavit of its ~10s~ 

and stating in such affidavit’wheh he paid such 

poll tax or received ‘such certificate of exemptions 

and the collector shall thereupon add h,ls name to 

the list of qualified voters of the precinct of 

his new reslden,ce; ,and, unless such voter has done 

this and his name aDpears in .the certified list 

of voters ,bf the pri&nct .of ‘his ‘new residence, 

he shall not vote .” 

several 

opinion 

On July 

opinion 

The Identical question which you ask haa, on 

oc~caslons, been before this Department. In an, eble 

written by acting Attorney,General Bruce W. Bryant 

11, 1932, addressed to Mr. Ellis :Scogln, which 

appears at page 518 of Volume 336 of the Attorney 
, 

. 

, 

Hon. Furman B. Caudle, page 3 

ffeneral's Letter Opinions, It was held ,that a voter who moved 

from one county to another within less than six months of the 

election might vote for ,811 State offloes and llk&wlse all 

District offices whose districts Included both counties. ..We 

are encloslrig, herewith, for your.lnformtitlon, a bopy,of this 

opinion. This same'rullng was followed 1" the subsequent 

opinions hereinafter referred to. 

Opinion by.Asslstant Attorney General 

Joe J..Alsup,,addressed td Mr.:E. C. 

,Clabaugh,, Jr., on July 1;1936, appear- 

,lng on page 500, Vol.,3v,'Attorney 

.Clenera1ls Letter Opinions. 

Opinion by Assistant Attorney,Oeneral 

J. ,H. Broadhurst to Mr.,Wllliam Ebblh 

on December 13; 1937, appearing at 'page 

353 of Vol. 379'of the Attorney,Qeneral's Letter Opinions. 

Opinion by Assistant Attorney aeneral 

R. E. Gray to Mr. W.,S. Danlels, on 

August 6, 1938,. appearing at page 617 

of Vol. 382, Attorney General's ~Letter 

Opinions. 

Article 2967, R.C.S., 1925, refer&d to above, 

is based upon Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of 

Texas, whlch~reads In part: 

"Every person subject to none of.the 

foregoing dlsquallflcatlons, who shall have attained the age of twenty-one ye.ars and who shall 

be a citizen of the United States and who she12 

have resided In this State one year next preceding an election and the last six months within 

the district or county In which such person offer6 

to voteA shall be deemed a qualified eleatorj 

. . . . 

In construing this oonstltutlonal provision 

the Supreme Court of 'Texas, speaking throu h Associate Justlce Qalnes In LITTLE V. STATE, 75 Tex. 61% at page 623, 

said: 

11 When construed as meaning 

that a reslieice for six mbnths in the district 
Hon. Furman B. Candle, page 4 

should qualify an elector to vote for district 

~DiYlcers; ,ive have ho dlfflixlty'~ln"detirmining what district l@.nieiint;.:but if tie should 

a&that truth residence gives-i.:rlght td vote 

for county officers, we should~be at.'a loss -to 

know whether It Is the congressional, judlclal,~, 

senatorial, or legislative dlstrlct'in which the 

voter was to reside In order tb acquire the 

qualification. If such had been the Intention, 

the kind of district would have been named, or 

there would have been some language In the 

provision Indicating some rule by which the 

question could be determined. Begides, the 

construction clalmed'by appellant would have 

rendered the words !?r county' superfluous, be- 

~cause every county In the State is, and will 

In all probability continue to be, a part of 

some district. Since the district Includes 

the county, It was unneceesary to have used 

the word county If It had been intended that a 

residence In the dlstri,ct ~should glve,the quallflcatlon to vote for county officers." 

: . 

It ,ls our oplnioti, therefore, thati the man 

referred to In your letter should be permitted, to vote for 

all .State offices and those District-offices, whose dlstrlcts embrace both the county of his ,pri.or and~'present 

residence. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY'GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BY Walter R. Koch 

Assistant 

~gt;ob:bt 

APPR&i ,Aug.. 31, 1940 

Orover 'Sellers 

First Assistant Attorney .Qeneral 

Approved Opinion Coarmlttee by BWB, 

Chairman