The record-union., 1893-07-31
VOTING ON CERTIFICATES.
Judge Prewett Of Placer Holds 1t to
be Illegal.
he Says sThat No Person Can Vote
Whose Name is Not On the
Printed Register.

Judge Prewett of Placer County, who
ranks high among the Superior Judges of
the State, has rendered decision that is
very important to voters, inasmuch as he
declares that voting on the strength of
County Clerks certificate of registration
is unconstitutional.
There was special election held in
Auburn last week for Supervisor, at
which a number of citizens offered GER
tihcates of registration as evidence of
their right to vote. In Precinct No. 2
these certificates were refused, the Judges
of the Election Board being equally di-
vided on the question of admitting them.
To settle the matter, an agreed case was
taken before Judge Prewett, and, after
hearing both sides of the controversy and
examining the law bearing on the ques-
tion, he handed down the following de-
oision:
The petitioner claims the right to vote
on certificate at the special election held
in Supervisor District No. of said
properly enrolled on the great register in
the office OF the County Clerk, but it does
not appear on the printed register in use
in use at the polls.
His supposed right to vote is based
upon Section lll7 of the Political Code
which became a law on July g, 1874. and
which reads as follows:
certified copy of an uncanceled entry
upon the great register is prima facie evi-
dence that the person named in the entry is
an elector of the county.
The foregoing section has never been
repealed except by implication. Up to
April lG, 1850, Section I2SS of the same
code read as follows:
When the ballot has been placed in the box
one OF the Judges must write the word "VOtedT
opposite the name of the person in the printed
copy OF the great register; or If the person
voted on certificate of registration, then
ufon the lace thereof
And up to May 60 1873, Section 1927 of
the same code read as follows:
II the name be found on the copy of the
great register, or If the party produce and tile
with the board an uncanceled certificate OF
registration on the great register OF the
county. the inspector or judge acting such,
must, in the presence of the board of election
place the ballot without being opened or ex-
amlned, III the ballot box"
These two sections which are the only
ones found in the law dealing with the
question Except said section mo were
wholly changed in their scope and mean
ing and now read as follows:
Section 1928. When the ballot has been
placed IN lie box one OF the judges must
write the word voted opposite tile number OF
Iile person ON the printed copy OF the great
register (Approved April s, 1SSOD
Section 1927. If the name be found on the
great register III use at the precinct where
the vote IS offered, ana the vote is no5 rejected
upon a challenge taken, the inspector or Judge
acting as such, must, in the presence OF the
board Of election. place the ballot without
opening or examining the same, in the ballot
box; and no person shall be allowed to vote
whose name is not on said great register in
use at the precinct. (Approved March 30,
1879
In the face of these statutes discussion
would be useless. 1t appears to be about
as certain as anything can be made bv
written law that party has no right TO
vote on a Certificate" The opinion of
the Deputy Attorney-General 10 which
l have been referred wholly overIooks
the provisions dissection l227 and the yerv
explicit language there used. 1t is there
fore not authority in this case. Much of
The confusion on the questions has arisen
from neglecting to observe the provisions
of the law, as they formerly permitted
voting on certificates and the radical
changes in 1875.
Ii party could vote on a certificate the
provisions of sections 1904 and 1905 of the
Political Code enacted in - could not be
enforced. My opinion is that a ballot
cast on "Certihcate' is illegal and void.
Let the prayer for a writ of mandate be
denied. PREwETT. !.
THE DECISION ADHERED TO.
Following the above decision comes a
further explanation from Judge Prewett,
us follows:
Since rendering a decision in this case
much question appears to have arisen as
10 whether the attention of the court was
called to the amendment to Section 1893,
enacted on March 30, 1873. l examined
tins section, but in my opinion it does not
bear upon the question at all.
As judgment has not yet been entered
60 | -,
constantly recurring discussion of this
question at every election, to quote the
section and amendment as part of this
opinion. As it formerly stood it read as
follows:
Section 1888. Every male citizen
whose name shall be enrolled on the great
register of such county fifteen Gays prior to
an election shall be qualified elector =
1t is thus readily seen that before the
amendment party was an elector even
If registered the day before election,
while under the amendment he is not
even an elector unless registered fifteen
days before election.
IL frequently happens that party is
an elector, yet is unable to produce the
only sufficient evidence thereof IA printed
copy OF the great register) and therefore
loses ms vote. The amendment to Sec
ton 1858 is really a strong argument that
! the Legislature recognized the fact that a
party could not vote on certificate"
A reregistration ceases under the law
on the fifteenth day before general elec-
ton tSection 1864, and as party cannot
vote on a certificate" the Legislature
wisely shut off even the possibility OF
cavil as TO his right, after the copy goes
TO the printer, by providing in so many
words that he was not even an elector
during that period.
Section l Of Article II. of the Constitu-
ton IS infinitely stronger in its terms
than Section 1883, and il expressly states
that the persons therein described are
entitled to vote at all elections" yet no
one for moment pretends that COM
piiance with the usual registration laws
Is therefore unnecessary.
PREwETT, Judge.