Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1903-12-04

lat the end of the second paragraph
that the citizen Of the suburban ward
cannot vote unless he first pays the
country road supervisor his poll tax.
How can the right to vote under a
city charter be annulled by payment
or non-payment TO a county road 81.
pervisor, acting under a state law?
How docs a country road supervisor
get any jurisdiction at an election
carried on under a city charter, in a
territory who're he has no jurisdic.
ton?
VIII the judges and clerks at the
city election in the new wards next
Monday dare TO enforce such a non,
sensical rule against their neighbors-
a rule for which they can show only
Mr.. Slater's opinion?
But the purpose may be to involve
the whole coming city election in litl.
cation, and thus seek to defeat the
charter. The poll tax provision would
never stand the test OF the courts in
Oregon.
II Ia an Unjust Restriction.
The Citizens party, having a ma
jority Of the judges of election in each
ward. will have II in their power to
enforce the law, under Mr.. Slater's
opinion.
The enforcement of this provision
will work a hardship on many young
men, and men with families to sup.
port, to whom the payment of SO for
the privilege OF casting a ballot will
seem rather high.
The man who Is exempt from poll
tax by reason OF age or military or
hreman's exemption will have a great
advantage In any election, and. under
the operation Of this law there will be
each year a larger number who will
not vote, or whose poll tax will be
paid by some rich man who can AFFORD
TO operate in city politics.
Following is the only supreme court
decision touching on this question of
imposing a restriction by the legisla-
ture IN the right OF suffrage:
Judge Waldo's Decision.
In White VS.. Multnomah County, 10
Oregon. PIP. Sl7.s25, Waldo. C. j.,
says; -
AS we construe the constitution,
every law which requires previous reg.
istry as a prerequisite to the right to
vote is ipso facto void" 6 : "The
right to vote Itself has beer placed be-
You'd their interference or CONTROL"
" > "The right TO vote under the
constitution 10 a vested constitutional
right" " but under this act he
who goes to the polls on election day,
possessing every constitutional quail
hcation, may find that the legislature
has stepped in between him and the
constitution. He finds his vote denied
because he has not done something
which the Legislature has required him
TO do. He discovers that he Is not a
qualified e%lector. and yet he is told
that his omission to do the act which
had effect to disQualify him is not itself
a disqualification; or II he have per
formed the act, that his performance
does not constitute a qualification.
This viii not square with the logic OF
facts Gan the legislature,
then, take away from an eleetor his
right to vote while he possesses all
the qualifications required by the con
stitutlon9 This Is the question now
before us When the citizen goes TO
the polls on election day with the
constitution in his hand, and presents
il as giving him a right to vote, can he
be told; True, you have every quail
hcRtion that instrument requires; Il
declares you entitled to the right Of
an e%lector; but an act OF assembly
forbids your vote, and. therefore. IL
cannot be received II 90. the leals'
lslature ls superior to the organic
law Of the state; and the legislature,
Instead o. being controlled BY h may