The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-06-30
Alabama's Grandfather Clause
: the Editor of The Age-Herald


 To the Editor of The Age-Herald:
 The effect on this state of the federal supreme courts holding the, grandfather clause" unconstitutional is by no means easy to determine.t Unlike others whose opinions have appeared in your paper Il am not so sure that we are unaffected by it. The question is one for serious cunsid- eration IL may call foi rewriting of at least part of our state constitution.
 Our constitution of 1901 provides that only registered voters shall have right to cast ballot. Prior to the first ,.ay of January, 190S a modified form of the so-eailed grandfather claase" was the standard by which men qualified for reg istration. In other words. il some one of q mans ancestors had honorably served in the war of 1s12, the Mexican war. any of the lndiaii wars, or in the war between the states. the man could register without further qualification. except as to citi- zenship, age. etc. Careful provision was also made for naturalized foreigners who could not qualify unuer the honorable service test.
 In order not to keep this grandfather clause alive, provision was made that after the fist day of January, l9os it should no longer apply. Sinte tnat date, : in order to qualify for res istfation, man must show that he possesses either a cer- tain amount of pr s9eiry or an education. | But the effect of registering is permanent ! Accordingly, those who registered prior to the first day of January, 1903, have not been required to stand the property CT | education test Their qualification was made under ,the grandfather clause. l We have today in Alabama the two classes of voters-those who registered prior to the first day Of January, le3 and those who have since than registered.
 We see now the basis for an argument that the supreme court s decision uoe not affect us. We do not have. in active op- eration todSy the "gra ndfather clause ' Hence it Is said there is nothin5 for he supreme court to knock out"
 The trouble with this argument is that when court declares an set unconstitu- tional, it does not kill the act by the de- csion. it declares that the act never cA- isted at any time as a law; that there i; never was such law; that what people | thought was a law was not law al all, l h,1e was still-born and never came into ex- l ielence as law. Consequently everything which has been done under void sfatute | is void.
 How, then would it affect our list of voters if the supreme court should de- 1 clare that the men who registered prior to the first day of January, 190S regis | tered under a void act? Would 1t merely | disqualify part of the lIst-that part com posed of those who had registered under 1 the cid law-or would it wipe out our en- | tire erection law? Sometimes court can declare part of statute void without l affecting the rest of 1t. Could it. do SC | in this case? I believe it was "Puddin | Head Wilson, who wished he owned hall of certain dog so that he could Kill his half. Sometimes statutes are SC framed that it is impossible for only part of them to be void. What If all of oul election law is void?
 II But, it is argued, the framers of oui constitution could provide that those whc registered prior to the first day of Jan uary 1.03, should be allowed to vote re- II careless of whether the act of registering was in and of itself, valid or not. Bu the trouble with this Is that the supreme court would probably do just what i T. has done-look behind the form to dsceri the substance. In other words, the cour might find, just as it seemingly has foun' in it's recent decision, that although th' form of the law is good, nevertheless 1t substance and purpose makes it void For the framers of the constitution t withhold the ballot from those who faile' to register prior to the first day of Jan uary, 1903. and give it to those who di
 register >prior to that date,s there mus
 be valid basis for such a classification "One of the essential requirements as t cassficd ton in order that it may not vio
 late the constitutional guaranty as t equal protection of the laws. is that tn classification must not be capricious O