‘ 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:
OnAugust 22; 11940wereceived 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

. . . “Upt,oMaylst, 1940;‘

. ‘A’3ived..in acounty adjoining Branklin, .Co,.,.On‘Maya, ‘1940,’ huemoved to .this County: He,had paid his ‘poll’ tax, and otherwise ‘a qualified voter.in the, tidjoining County, if he had remained there.

“Onnext 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 ,hemay -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 TOANOTHER

‘COm OR’.PRE%IWCT If ‘acitizen .after receiving hi&’poll tax receipt ,tir certificate of eqemptlon; removes to another county or to another precinct In the same county, hemay 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.8by 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 

### often 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 ,bfthe pri&nct .of ‘his ‘newresidence, he shall not vote

.”

several opinion OnJuly 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 ,811State 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, 75Tex. 61%at page 623, said:

11 Whenconstrued as meaning that a reslieice for six mbnths in the districtHon. Furman B. Candle, page 4

should qualify an elector to vote for district ~DiYlcers; ,ivehave 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 knowwhether 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

OFTEXAS

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