Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1914-02-03
JUSTICE BURNETT DOES
NOT AGREE WITH HIS
ASSOCIATES IN CAST
Holds Inuffcency of Petition Calling Local Option EIec
ton in HisbOrO Is FatalB Petition Is Invalid Elec
ton Following 1t Is Invalid Quotes Length Laws Which
He Believe Supports His COntention--opiniOn in Full

|petition with their signatures on tho
registration books of the election then
pending, or if none is pending, then
with the signatures en- the registration
books and blanks on file in his office
for the preceding general election. The
court, speaking by Mr.. Chief Justice
Moore, then says:
Constituting these clauses in pari ma
teria, 1t is manifest that not qualified
elector or legal voter is competent
petitioner for local option election un-
less his signature appears on the regis
trative books Of the election then pend.
ingj or, if no election be pending, then
his signature must appear on the regis.
tration books and blanks Of the pre-
ceding general election. The privilege
Of signing petition to initiate local
ion election is not a right Of fran
chise in which all electors enumerated
in the organic law {sectiop 2, article II
Const.) can participate
Must Be Registered.
No voter has an inalienable consti-
tutional right to sign a local option
petition, for that privilege is conferred
by mere statute which may be
amended or abrogated at any time by
the legislative power The people them
selves having declared that signers Of
such petitions must be registered
voters" it is not for the courts, the
creatures Of the people, to say that the
word registered" may be eliminated
from the statute to suit the occasion
or under the circumstances.
Where then are we to turn for a
definition of the term Registered
votersi Manifostly not to the regis.
tration law Of 1913, for this court in
the case of City Portland vs.. Coffey,
supra, has solemnly decided that law to
be unconstitutional Lot only as to it's
affirmative provisions but also as to its
repeating clauses Six judges of the
court, sitting in banc, have declared
witout u dissenting opinion that in en-
acting that statute Of registration the
legislative assembly violated the fun
damental law Of the state ordained by
the people themselves It that statute
is void as thus determined, no lawful
procedure can be founded on its pro-
visions II it is unconstitutional at
all, it is unconstitutional for all per
sons and for all purposes. II is void
for both saloon keepers and prohibitions
lists, for both alike are protected or
restrained by the constitution. If the
1913 registration law is pOwerless to af.
feet city election in Portland, as de-
cided in the Coffey case, It cannot af
feet local option petition in Hills
boro, nor make It's signers Registered
voters.
We cannot properly speculate what
the county court would have done II a
petition had been presented to it
signed only by voters registered under
the former statute. If that were .
question before tho court we oughs not
to presume that tribunal to be ignorant
; Of the law, but rather that IL wold be as
= loyal TO the constitution as We are.
: Neither is II within our province to
disturb tho settled principles Of the
law about jurisdiction in an effort TO
ally the disappointment possibly ex.
porienced by some oe the electorate
= over tho error Of the legislature in pass
0 ing an unconstitutional enactment, The
? situation thus arising can be remedied
I rightly only by legislative action which
: lies beyond our authority.
/ The validity Of the state election in
9 November, 1913, is not here involved,
for It was held under a general law
! authorizing II, and this court upheld
. that statute by unanimous decision OF
{ the case Of Equi vs. olcott, r. Or. ~
. 1873 Pac. 775, The right to vote is an.
! other question to be determined ac.