Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1906-10-12
SEPARATE BALLOT
NOT NECESSARY
ForStatehood Terri.
torial and County
Tickets.
EITHER WOULD .BE LEGAL
Says Attorney General -.-
Homesteaders Can Vote
If Living on Claims.

Appended are two legal opinions
given by Attorney General w. c.
Reid They are of particular interest
al the present time on account of the
coming election. One is in response
TO an inquiry from w. B .Childers of
Albuquerque, who is member of the
statehood committee appointed by the
Republican and Democratic parties, in
which Mr.. Childers asks if the ques-
tion to be submitted to the voters
under the Hamilton enabling act can
he printed on the same ballot together
with the names of the various candi.
dates and delegates to- the constitu.
tional convention and also in regard
TO the length of the ballot. The other
is in reply to John w. Corbett. pro.
bate clerk and ex-officio recorder of
Torrance County, who asks If the new
settlers there are entitled to vote in
the Territory six months after filing
homestead claims. They are as fol-
lows:
October IL, 1906
Hon. w. B. Childers:
Dear Sir-I have your favor of Oc
tober 9th. requesting my opinion as to
whether the question to be submitted
TO the voters of New Mexico under
the statehood bill, approved June 16,
1906, can be printed and submitted
to the voters together with the names
of the delegates to the constitutional
convention on the same ballot on
which appears the candidate for dele
gate to Congress and candidates for
legislative and county officers, stating
that something was said in the Cover
nor's proclamation which would indi-
cate that he thought separate bal
lot was necessary.
Ballot Conditions Have Changed.
At the time the Governors procla.
nation was issued. with reference to
the delegates to the constitutional con.
vention, it was quite probable that in
portions of the Territory, the election
of delegates to the constitutional con-
vention would be non-partisan and in
view of the fact that our territorial
election law prohibits any candidate
having his name printed on the tick
cts or ballots of more than one poll
tical organization. it was believed
that separate ballot on the statehood
question would be advisable, if not
necessary. 1t is believed now that
each political party in every county
in the Territory will nominate candi-
dates to the constitutional conven-
tion and can see no reason why the
names of the candidates to the con-
stitutiOnal convention Should not be
printed on the same ballot used for
the names of county and territorial
candidates. The act of Congress pro-
viling for the election of delegates
to the constitutional convention, pro-
vides:
"That at the said general election
and on the same ballots on which the
names of candidates to the conven-
tion aforesaid are printed, there shall
be submitted to said qualified electors
of each Of said territories a question
which shall be stated on the ballot in
substance and form as follows.
"Shall Arizona and New Mexico be
united to form one state? Yes. No"
There Is nothing in this law that
would prevent the use of either
separate ballot for the statehood vote
or the use OF the same ballot as is
used in county and legislative cleo
tions and am of the opinion that
either would be valid.
I do not find anything in our terri
torial election law that would pre-
vent the printing of the names of
the candidates for the constitutional
convention and the question as to
statehood on the same ballot used for
the election of county and territorial
officers.
Same Ballot May Be Used For Both.
! am, therefore, of the opinion that
the same ballot may be used for the
submission of the statehood question,
the election of delegates to the con-
stitutional convention and for the
election of county officers, members of
the territorial legislature and dele
gate to Congress, provided that no one
candidate shall have his name appear
printed on the tickets Of more than
one political organization.
You also request my opinion as to
whether the provisions of the law a.
1t stood prior to the last legislature
with reference to the length of a bal
lot is still in force or whether a de-
parture from that length is legal
In my opinion section 3, Of chapter
1877, of the Laws of 1905, contains all
the provisions that the Legislature in
tended should apply to the description
of the ballot and that If such ballots
shall be printed from the same kind
of paper and of the same size, the
length is not limited to eight inches
as provided in section 1884, Compiled
Laws of 1897. 1t is essential, however,
that the size of the tickets shall be
the same for all political parties in
each county.
Respectfully submitted,
w. G. REID,
Attorney General.