St. Paul daily globe., 1894-07-15

whether this provision of the city char
ter imposes greater restrictions upon
eligibility or adds qualifications for
eligibility additional to those prescribed
by the constitution? 1t seems to us
that they do; and that is the way we
think it would naturally strike the
common sense of men. The situation
plainly stated is just this: All the
electors OF the city may vote for all nine
assem6lymen, but no elector is eligible
to any of these offices except the four or
one, as the case may be, belonging to
the district in which he resides. We
cannot see this In any other light than
as an attempt to impose restriction or
limitation upon eligibility, which is
equivalent to imposing quail iication
for election in addition TO those fixed by
the constitution. 1t Is urged with a
good deal of plausibllity that this pro-
vision of the charter does not render
any elector inc ligible to the office of as.
Semb!yman, for every one is eligible
either to one Of the Offices included In
one or the other of the two groups Of
four or TO the single office pertaining to
the Sixth ward: and therefore no elect
or is deprived Of any substantial consti-
tutional right. The very subtility and
refinement Of reason resorted to in sup.
port of this proposition tends to create
d)ubt as to its soundness. We cannot
view this provision of the charter other
wise than as imposing a Limitation upon
or adding condition to eligibility not
permitted by the constitution. To
illustrate thescase more fully, suppose
vacancy occurs in the office of
assemblyman residing in the Sixth
ward. who is qualified under
the charter to be appointed to
fill the vacancy? Certainly only those
who would be eligible, to-wit, the elect
ors residing in that ward. Or suppose
the charter had provided for filling va
cancleS by election, then, under this
charter provision, we would have all
officer to be elected by the electors of
the whole city as one election district,
but ouly the electors residing in the
Sixth ward would be eligible. 1t would
not be claimed that. as applied to such
an election, the provision OF the charter
as to residence would be constitutional,
for it would render Ineligible all the
electors In the city residing north of the
Mississippi river. But if this provision
be held invalid as applied to such an
election. but valid as to the election
now under consideration, we would
have the anomaly of the same law being
valid as to one election and invalid as
W dHulileT lOI lue same ONCE In the
same election district.
In short, the charter has attempted a
scheme, which, however commendable
in spirit. is impossible under our con-
stitution, to wit: To retain the city as
one election district, and vet secure
local representation for the different
sections by limiting eligibility to the
office of assembly by geographical lines.
This is not the case of mere regulations
designed to secure a pure and orderly
election. which may incidentally affect
a persons opportunities to run for an
office, but a case of a direct attempt to
impose additional qualifications for
eligibility.
TO avoid misappreheusion we remark
in conclusion that in our opinion the
unconstitutionality of the provision as
TO residence does not affect the validity
OF the remainder of the city charter,
which can stand in full force and effect
with this Objectionable clause eliml-
mated