Sacramento daily record-union., 1890-09-18
THE QUESTION OF THIRTY DAYS RESI-
DENCE IN AN ELECTION PRECINCT.

from his precinct within thirty days prior
to the election disqualifes him from vat-
ing
There is a distinct, and it is clear, also,
a vicious purpose in making this claim.
The scheme in the place of its origination
is intended to confuse electors and prepare
the way for disqualifying as many Re-
publican voters as possible. Democrats are
TO be secretly instructed not to move from
one precinct to another on or after October
4th or prior to November 5th, while Re-
publicans are to be encouraged to believe
that a man cannot lose his right TO vote in
one precinct until he has gained the right
to vote in another.
To give some color to this position it is
boldly asked that an agreed case be made
and sent up to the Supreme Court, since,
it is held, that reference by the Supreme
Court to this point in Russell VS.. Mellow
ell, SO Cal. Reps, was dictum only, and
that no issue of that character was directly
passed upon.
Now as a matter of fact the point was
emphatically decided; it was one of the
chief foundations of the judgment The
treatment of it by the Supreme Court was
not dietunl, but decision. OF this fact the
text itself is sufficient evidence, and be-
sides we know that the Supreme Court SO
intended the decision to be received
Under that decision, therefore, if an
elector removes from his precinct on the
30th day, or later, prior 10 election, and
into another precinct, he will not be en-
titled to vote at the election. There must
be made no mistake about this, for it is the
law, and it is wise provision and con-
ducive of honesty of conduct of elections
and of expression at the polls, that
one can neither r0te in precinct from which
he has renored mithin thirty days prior to the
election. nor in the nel0 precinct into whioh he
has moved uata he has resided there thirty
days.
The decision of the Supreme Court COM
pletely destroys the popular belief that the
voter retains his qualification in one pre-
cinct until he gains an electors rights in
another. The case referred to was one in
which il was claimed, among other things,
that voters had been allowed to cast bal
lots who had not resided in the election
precinct for the whole time of thirty days
preceding election. 1t was replied that
the negative proof that voter had not
lived on one particular lot the whole thirty
days did not justify the assumption of his
having left the precinct, since he might
move from one lot TO another many times
over in the same precinct. But, it was
added, even if that contention is held not
good, there is provision of the Political
Code which reads:
1888. person must not be held by reason of
having moved from one precinct to another, in
the same county, within thirty days prior to the
election, TO have lost his residence in the pre-
cinct so moved from, provided he was an elector
Ou lAG luAIllcLu Od1 pIlOE W SuCil SltC-
ton.
The Supreme Court at that point in the
argument interposes its voice, and it says;
The provision of the Political Code referred
to was sound under the old Constitution,
but is valueless under the Constitution of
1879. The reasons for this holding are
very clear. Section i, Article II of the
Constitution of 1862 provides that the cit
izen claiming the right to vote must have
been re- ident of the State si1 months next
preceding the election, and of the county or
district thirty days In the Constitution of
1879 it is provided that the citizen claim
ing the right to vote. must have been
resident of the State one year next preced-
ing the election, of the county ninety days;
and of the election precinct thirty days.
Now, says the Supreme Court, under the
Constitution we have three prere-
quisites imperatively necessary to quail
ify one to exercise the right Of a voter
on election day, to wit Residence in the
State one year prior thereto, in the
county ninety days, and in the election
precinct where the citizen proposes to
vote, for thirty days next preceding the
election. And the Court adds: alt is
Just as essential a qualification that one
should have resided in the precinct thirty
davs prior to election as in the State a
year"
Examination of the debates of the Con-
stitut.onal Convention emphasizes this
ruling of the Supreme Court. 1t was the
intention of the trainers of the organic
law that every man who removes from his
precinct within thirty days prior to elec-
tion, shall for that election be forbidden
to vote. If it is exclaimed that this
works hardships here and there, it is re-
piled that it certainly does. But it was
the intention of the builders Of the Con-
stitution that such should be the law, in
order TO give certainty to the registers of
precincts; to conserve honesty in the ballot
box by preventing repeating" and colon
izing."
That the law has not to this date been
enforced with strictness, is confessed, but
since the Supreme Court, so late as Febru-
ary, 1890, has held as we have quoted,
there should be no more laxity in this
matter. Let it be clearly set before the
people by the fair-minded press that