OFFICE OFTHEAmORNEY GENERAL OF T=XAUBTIN 

I 

,.' 

~"~,. :.~Yy?=+ 

~Honort3ble ii. Pat Edwards 

Civil Distript:Attoraey 

Dallas' County 

Reoor$a Bulldine; 

Dallae, Texas 

Dew Mr. Edwax'ds: Attentfon: Mr. wsrren 5. co&, 

Assitittmt District ;Rttorne~ 

'Opinion' No.~@-7234 

Re:. Whether or not a persqa over 

fihty ‘years of age,.llving 

lki a clt of 10,f)OQ populatioh 

s Is entit 9 ed to vote wheii he 

, h&s not renewed his exemption 

&W3f’icate as requi*d by 

ii. B. MO. 344, 49th Legislature. 

We beg'to <novlbdge. tipeoelpt of”your lett$i-+opound- 

-“lng the following for. a legeJ.',:?piaion eom this depar@nent~.‘~” 

. . 

( : ‘fl have this pr.dposltf&. Kiaarjr render an 

opinioh’op seoure sam~ f’r-, the ,Atto%may General. 

‘Our oonstitutiori pro&d~tlia;t; fXil~&iiom 

oh 60 esrs of ajp ee,ex$mpt from the payment 

~Of poll % ax.4 sirm3 tl$at time the Leglslature~haa 

-m,, 

pzovlded for 'tlie !Pt+ O~~eotQr to issue td ~tiQ8e 

persens so exempt,‘a ymqanent voting certifleate. 

“Row duiring the last session of our Le 

_- 

a law xas passed requQ?ing that exemptiona f 

is’latkre, 

n elties 

of over.lO,OOO be renewed @e$ween Oatober 1st an$” -. ‘, 

January Slat eaoh yeas. 

“My’a%tentioa hai be&%‘:oaLLled.to3hi faot that 

quite a number of these perm&ent e%e!uption holders 

failed. to z-mew their voting oertifioates, beaause 

of illness or being out of the city, or other reasons. ~’ 

“ken these people vote under the conetitutiolial 

right, or will they be ‘denied on the,leglslative a&, 

as 8-6 forth above? 
. I 

Honorable H. Pat Edwards ,. page 2 

-- 

“Kindly give me this opinion at the earliest 

possible date 80 th%it I ma$ correctly answer those 

who seek this information. 

-- 

The above is itself your quotation from the Inquiry 

of Mr. Ed Cobb, Assessor and Oolletstor of Texes for Dallas County. 

We thank jiou for your brief of dlaousslon lend cltatlijn 

of authorltles acoompanylng your request. On .aocount of the imminent Importance of your inquiry, we have given it a most caref ul examination. 

.~ _

It Is the opinion of this dep*Xrtment that a person vho 

has herEtofore received a permanent exemption certlfiaate because 

of age may aot’be denied the rlght~ to vote at any election held 

in this State merely because he has failed for any reason to ‘renew his certifl6,ate under the requirement of H. B. Bo. 344 passof: 

at the regula;r sesalon of the 49th Legislature. The reasons which 

lead us to this concluelon ,are a8 follows: 

-_ 

The question & &first Impression In thli.State, we~beIleve, and our,ooqoluslon,ls-reached upon an orlgFna;L invest&atlon of. the pertinent cone'titutional and etatutory.pr~vl.~lone.~ ife 

start out with the 1ndlapitabIe proposition that the rlghf; %f’ &fA-age, although it be ti matter of~oonstitutione,l and statutory " 

gwe, ~3.n tie'senee that it2s subjeo% to the re 

Is neverthelesf3 one,+ the most PundamentaI rlgh & s 

ulationa of law, 

of a cltlaen a+.’ 

t&T8 State. Itideed,’ it M an essential rlgbt of a oil&en In any 

demooratla form of government., The right to vote, therefore, KU;. 

not be denied t7j Sny c’lti$en. ifnl.ess such right is forbidden 

In clear and unmlstakabJe terma Bf law. 

deolared: 

In ‘&otlon 2 of Article XVI of the 6on<utlon, it is 

.:.:, 

“The plvllege of free &fY’rage ahal& be pr?atected 

by laws regulating ‘ele&tlons and prohibiting untler edequate pmx3fXes a31 undue Gifluence therein from power, 

bribery, tumult, or other improper ‘$ee,otloe.” 

Seation-I, of ArtloZe VI of the Constitution, dealing 

with suffrege, names the classes of pers6ndns who shall not be 

Gllowed to vote. By no stretoh of the imagination could it be 

held to include the class of persons under consideration. 

‘a 

lows : 

Seotlon 4 of Article VI of the Constitution 1s as ~fol-. 
. 

Honorable Ii, Pat Edwards, page 3 

“In all eleations by the people the vote shall 

be by b‘allot and the Leglslat-We shall provide for 

the numbeFlng of tickets and make such other regulations as may be neoessary to deteot and punish fraud, 

and preserve--the purity of the ballot box, and the 

Legislature may provide by law for the registration 

of all voters In aJ.1 citlis'e containing a population 

of 10,000 inhabitants or more.” 

This Section cleexly clothes the Legislature with power 

to provide reglstratloii laws for voters, and further to make suoli 

other regulations “as may be necessary to detect and punish frau;‘. 

er?d preserve the purity of the baUot box.” No one would deny ,t%- 

power of the Legislature to do these things; but it has never undertaken.to pas8 general registration laws, and H. B. No.:344 does 

not purport to be; nor 18 It a law for detecting or punishing 

fraud, op m8aeMQ.q the purlty.of the ballot box pursuant to the 

~ovliilone of Sectlon.4. On the contz=y, the bill Itself shows 

tZflrmatD?ely that 14s purpose and eSfeot UC+ entlrelyother than 

the constltutiona;l purpo8,ee. 

The emergency .olause bf ii. B. No. 344 fairly and, oor- ,, 

‘rectly states the motivating purpose ef the Aot, 8+8 follows:,.. 

-_ -* 

.a “The fat .that there are at this time’ thE i&mea Y “’ .’ “’ 

. of t&my people wh6 e,re deeeased, ti who have LremoQed 

from the State af Texss upon %he poll tax exemption 

list of all the aountl.es .throughout the State, pl8aee’ 

a.heavy burden upon the Tt$x Assessors and Collectotis 

of.each of the sev&aZ bounties of Texas’, creattie an 

emergency aad an wyative pub110 tieeoeselty ?.hat the ~’ 

conetitut1oM.l rule pequlrlng bill8 to be reed on three 

several days In eaah house be 8tipendet$‘, et cetera. 

t-1. 

!Phe bill there%%& purgozfedly’ and actu&ly was for the 

/ 

relief OS the oounty offloere WXE@, and ‘not .ln any sense ‘to deteot.or prevent fraud, or to preserve the purlt of the ballot 

,box. These wholesome objeotlverr ,aould.not pose 9 big be threatened 

by Zhe appeezance of (41 aged voter holding a @rmanent old-age 

exe%ptlon certlfioate, but not further holding an annual renewal 

exemption thereof. 

. ..-_ 

Again, Ii. 8.’ I?d. 344 58 undoubtedly in form mendatory 

UP-VII the holder8 of old-ege exemption oertlfioatee to have the 

a&e renewed aunually, but it Is algnlfiaant that au& bill no- 

. where provides, any ahara&er of &maZlty for a violation of’ that 
,, .-‘:-:- 

. 

1’...1.\W’~, , _,,-_ _ 

: 

+ 

Honortila? lit Pat Edwsxds',~ Pag9 h 

__ 

duty, and espeecisJ.ly does it nist impose upon such person the 

severe penaZ.ty of disfranchisement. 

Forfeitures and penalties s?e'ndt favored in law. They 

are avoided if pos~s'ible. Moreover, In construing a legislative 

i%t, WC are not permitted to go-'beyond the four corners of the 

Instrument or bill Itself. We must find the intentfon of the Legislature, and therefore’%he law, within that instrument. Speoiflcallg, we are not permitted to read into this act a forfeiture 

or penalty that 1s no‘t contained thereln, either by express language or necessary implication. Of' course, no suoh forfeiture or 

penalty is expressly contained in the bill, and neither is one to 

be regd iiito.lt upon any conception of lmplloation, for clearly 

such ti lmpllcatlon of forfeiture la not necessary, for ~the sot 

as above show aleesly supplies 831 that is neoesssry to support 

the aoX a8 a vs3U-act -- t&at is, 'the relief of the county of?& 

cer namsd in the emergeaoy clau'se. 

-- _- 

H. B. No. 3% is .aii amendment of Arti& $?gfS8.& the 

statutes providl.Ag for a pemanent oertlfleate- of e.xemptlons.. . . 

.ktSele 2968a (Vernon's aod%fiaatlon of~the statutes 

exemption oertifiaates-'to persons who do not reside i 

deals with 

n a city of 

10,000 InhabltaAts OF more) an8 spe6ifl6ally provides "aAd ~O,BUO~ 

pbi?son who &as failed or refused to obtaiA's.uoh aertifl+te of,ex~ 

emptlon from the paymeat ,of.'+ polltajr shall be sUbwed %o vote.!', 

It Is signlf'laant, theref~ore, that H;'B. Wo. 344 eon-. 

t&AS A0 such ~O+S~C& WeXre not fre6 to implg~~auoh a penalty, 

which the Legislature, presumably, IAtetitioAally omitted. 

\ 

Theie is nothing in Aitiale 3004 of.the Reiilsed &ii 

S+,atutes oontrmy to 0~ oonelusloni That &?tiole was ens&ed -- 

Tn W05, pe-enacteb'in the oodtiioation of 1925, an&h&the ssme 

meaning at those times a8 it hi& at this eime -% no tiore,:.aAd no 

leas. It has acquired AO new nieanu from the eAa&t@nt--of 8; B.-* 

No. 344. It ii+ yi5t in full force s.&$ord$ng to Its true meaning, 

and every requirement'of lc*oan be met'fullg %&.sny person to whom 

there has been issued a pernwwnt oldzage exemption oe.rtiiioate, '~"i 

without the renewaX thereof at any time. 

he ease of Texas Power & Light Co. V. Brownwood'PubiiC Service Co., 111 S,. W. (2) l225, has b6eA urged UPOA US a5 

beings contrary to the views herein expressed.* Tw oaae ie,not 

' susoe tible of atly suoh oonstruotlon. That o&se construed 8ebCone- t of Article VI of'the Coiistitution heretofore quoted by USA, 

and moreover is LA perf'ebt harmony pith our viiSw5. As we have 

heretofore shown*;. the Legislature in the enactment of ii: B. No, 

344 did not attempt to exieraise those powers, %a dXd aot in any 
Honorable H. Pat Edwards, page 5 

event diriky nor .lndlrectly, ex&ssly nor by Aese5sary lmplication, impose the drastlc"penslty of disfkanohisement for a f+ailure"to observi3 the requirement for annua: I renewal5 of an existins: 

permanent exemption. 

._ 

The prlnoiple that a mandatory statute, with no p?naZLtg 

attached, is in reality only a direotory statute is not ngw In 

our jurisprudence. For a hundred years there has b&in a msndatory constitutional provisitin requiring re-aijportionment of ahtricts in the State, which mandatory requiremSnt has been more 

frequently violated than observed. Again, some yesxs ago, it'wlll 

be reoalled, there wa8 a StatUtO~ provision that where husband 

'tid wife were divorced upon grounds of.oruelty, ~neittier should 

mat+y tithin a ye- thereafter. Such a statute w&9 mandatory in 

foti, but it did not further visit the peAtity of IAVtiidity upon 

a marriage oontrsoted.I.n violation thereof by eltPi@ party,, and 

dLd Atit therefore IA legal effect Porbld the consummafion.of such 

a re-mesrlsge. 

FlAaliy, it will be seen.-Artiole 2968 a5 ameAded-by H. 

-8. no. 344; requires all w-exemptioti kertlficates to be ob-! 

tained before the fira% day of Februasy of the yew when such 

voter shall haffe become entitled to suoh exemption, but it does 

not fix asy t&e 'when slich oertifioate shall be-renewed or7rels5neJSo that; at the very utmost It Could be,obta%Aedn E-7 

fore the hdlder offered to vote, 

If it should be that we @e wrong IA all we-have said 

5.5 to~the COAStN&iOA of R. B. Ro. 344, nevertheless we 8;re' of 

the opI.nion.the Act is void in toto, 'in that it violates Seotion 

~~-;31~tiole III'of the ConsXitutioA With respect to the title c' 

. The title i8 affii%atively misleading. The subjeot 

n&d in the title clearly embraces &l persons holding poll tsx 

{exemption oertifioates, wheress the ml as passed per'talns only 

to a aertaln class of such psrstins,.that,is to say, perwns living w33iEZ *of 10,000 or more population; One lnt*eHted 

In the subjeot;inatter, uijon i%?ading the title of the bill, might 

favor an sU-embraeliig amendment, and yet oppose One applying only 

ta a pat of the exempted persons.. 'Moreover, the title is,absoPtely false; l.t 1s belied by the bill'as passed. 

__ 

134 s. w. 

Mstrlct, 

Landrum v. CeAtenAlaS Rursl High School Mstrict Ho. 2, 

f~?)~2):;, by the Court of Clvll Appeal8 for the Third 

: 

"No rule is -&ter established than the one that 

where a title or capEion-*of an sot spealfies the pa?tl- 

&Las field of the amendment, and--that It is to cover. 

ore state a ps&koul83 pu%pose to m&e a change Vn a 

prior statute-. the emendment is 3Smlted to the making 
Honorable Ii. Pat Edwards, pege 6 

of the speolfio changes designated in Its title, aiid 

precludes eny additional, contrary, or different amendment then that stated in the title. Rutle e v. AtkInson 101 S. W. (2) 376; Wslker v..State, 11 3S. W. (2) 

1076;' Sutherland v. Board of Trustees, 261. S. W. 489.' 

We think this well-settled rule applies to the case 

before us. See: 

City of Fort,Wcrth v. Hsrr$s, 177 3. W. (2) 

308, 180 s, w. 131; 

Abernathy County Line School District v. New 

Deal County Line District, 175 9. W. (2) 446; 

Kinohelo v. State., 175 US. W. (2) 593; 

Walker v. State, 116-p. W. (2) 1076;.‘ 

Lowery v. Red Cab Company, 262,s. W. 47; 

: 

Ds Sfiv1a.v. State;~ 229 S. W. 542; 

M;.K. & T. Ry. Coy--v. State, 113 S.~W. 916; ,.. 

..: ., 

Gulf Production Compsny~v. Osrrett, 24 S.'W< 

(2) 389. 

Praetorla3m v. State,'184 8. W. (2) 294, by Jdge Baugh" 

.of the Court of Civil App&Qs for the Third Mstrlct, declares: 

,- -- 

I, 

. . . A somewhat strlo%er rule of conformity 

of the title tb the subjeot-matter 1eglXlated upon 

in the body of~the act Is applied to emendmeiits than 

to titles of original aat. See: Doeppensohmidt v;’ 

International & C. *. R. Co.,.101 3. W. 1080; and 

Rutledge v. Atkinson, 101 5. W. (2) 376. . . . .” 

~~uli' Insurance CO. v. James, State Treasurer, 185 S. W. 

(2) 966, de&ares: 

,I The rule of liberal oonstruotion Will not 

be foliowe: to the extent that Itwill relieve the 

Legislature of the neoessgty of dlaolosing the reel 

subjeot of the Act in.the title thereof, nor will It 

be extended so as to hold acts velld, the titles of *'. <.:. 

which are deceptive or misleading as to the real oontents of the Acts." 
RonoPab1e H. Pat EdwekMi page 7 

There 83.e other 'perlous 0onstltutiona;l puesti'dns which 

mlgiSbe raised, but in vigx of our d33poslt~on OZ the matter, It 

beoomee unnecessasg to discuss the same. 

We trust that wha$ we have s&id sufficiently answers 

your inqriitiy. 

Very truly yours 

Al'TORNE!f 0RmA.L OF TEXAS 

-. 

/s/ Wm. J. Fanning 

OS-MR:fb 

.BY 

__ 

.Wm, 3. Fanning 

Asslstr+nt 

/s/ O&e Speei’ 

BY \ Ooie Speer 

Asststant 

APPROVED JUL.‘~~, 1946 

‘,S. 

. 

/s/.O@rlos I?,, Ashley 

FIRST ASSISY!ART ATTORNEY QENE& 

i _- 

This opka2on oonslde~~d,~and approved In limited aonferenoe; 

.:.: . 

, 

.