The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-23
|MAyHanjb


ing paid poll tax post-dates registra-
ton in all cases, il is evidently re-
garded in the Constitution and statute
as a temporary disability to vote and
not as barrier to becoming a regis
tered voter. The failure TO pay this
tax does not authorize the erasure of
the delinquent's name from the regis
try of voters. II only disables him
to vote at the succeeding election.
When he registers he is made a regis
tered voter by force of the Constitu-
ton. He may fail to pay poll tax
for ten years and then exercise his
right to vote by the payment of poll
tax for one year only. But ordin
ariy and with unchanged conditions
he is not required TO register but once.
The failure TO pay the tax does not
effect in any way his status as a reg
istered voter. So that when the law
says one-third Of the registered voters
for the preceding municipal election,
it does not mean registered voters
who might not be free to vote at Il
present election from failure to have
paid poll tax by the first of the pre-
ceding May. but it means all whose
names are upon the registration
books as standing. permanent voters,
that is, all who are potential voters.
+ have not reviewed the authorities
cited in defendants brief, because
they are not noticed in the opinion of
the court and have, in my judgment,
no application TO the point under dis
cusSion for the reason that we are
now considering the law which pre-
scribes qualification for petitioners
for an election. and not qualifications
for voters at an election.
. We were invited by counsel on
both sides to scrutinize this record
with care. ] have done so, and in the
investigation of the case another rea
son, not mentioned in argument or
brief, has occurred TO me which great
ly strengthens my conviction that the
General Assembly used the words
registered voters advisedly and in
the sense they have always been
used That is. because the statute
fails to give to the city authorities
any power to determine who has not
paid poll tax and fails to declare how
the fact shall be proven and what
evidence is necessary. 1t provides no
machinery for this purpose. Wheth-
er a man IS a registered voter can
be easily determined by a simple in
spection of the registration books.
Whether or not he has paid his poll
tax cannot be determined by an in
spection Of the tax books. If tina,
were allowed. the sheriff or tax collec-
tor could temporarily disfranchise
any one by failing TO enter the pay
ment. The Legislature of 1901 was
not willing TO place the registered
voters in the power of The tax COZ
lector. and so under the general cleo
ton law enacted at that term the tax
lists constitute no evidence whatever.
They are utterly incompetent TO
prove anything. The entries of pay
ment are OK parte. The voter has no
control over them and they are not
evidence against him upon the fact
of payment There is no law that |
can find that requires the sheriff TO
make the entry of payment Of taxes
upon the lists Such entry is his
OWN act, for his own convenience. and
is not a public record. Noble V.
Douglas, 56 Kansas %.
The act of 1901 provides that it
shall be the duty of every sheriff and
tax collector. between the st apd
] 9th days of May, 1902,and biennially
thereafter, to certify under oath true
and correct list of all persons who
have paid their poll tax for the pre-
vious year on or before the first day
of May, to the clerk of the Superior
Court. who shall, within ten days.
record the same in book TO be pro-.
vided for that purpose, keeping each
township separate, and certify a true
copy thereof To the chairman of the
Board of ELECTIONS for such county.
This is evidently for Information for
purposes Of challenge. If it were
permissible to refer to the tax books
TO determine who has paid poll tax
this certified list would be the best
evidence of that fact, and not the
sheriff's entries on the books. This
list is the evidence provided for the
Board of Elections. but it is not made
evidence against the voters. The
record in this case shows that the
committee of the Board of Aldermen.
appointed for the purpose of de-
termining who had paid poll tax, re-
ferred only TO the sheriffs tax books
and accepted the entries there. as
conclusive evidence.
If tho construction of the statute
adopted by the majority of the Court
is the true ono. and il was the inten-
ton of the Legislature that the words
Registered voter" olaln and unequiV-
Deal as they are. should mean quail
fed voter" is Il not strange that the
governing bodies of cities and towns
arc given the naked power, necessar-
lily implied under the Courts conStruc-
ton, TO determine who are qualified
voters, and left without a vestige of
machinery for such determination?
Is il that the Qualifications Of voter
are to be left for determination to the
uncertain judgment of a Board Of AL
dermen to be allowed or denied in the
absence of the voter and without the
right To be heard? The statute does
not suggest any means of determining
who are and who are not qualified
voters. 1t is silent as to the textbooks.
Where then is the authority TO consult
the sheriff's office for guidance; where
is the right to accept the sheriff's en-
tries or lack of entries as conclusive
of the payment or non payment of poll
tax? It cannot be found in the stat
ute. And yet, the logical result of the
opinion of the Court is to conStrue
into the act this authority. Is such a
construction reasonable? | answer
this by again referring to the general
election law enacted by the Legisla-
ture OF 1901 ar considered and ap-
proved by the Legislature of 1908. to
show an unWillingnesS on the part of
the Legislature to leave the right of
suffrage to any such control and TO
show the unusual care in providing
machinery for the determination OF
the qualifications of a voter. Follow
ing the requirement that no person
shall be entitled to vote unless ne