Bisbee daily review., 1916-06-09
COUNTY RECORDER IS PERMITTED TO CANCEL
 OLD REGISTRATIONS
Maricopa County Attorney Gives Opinion Which May Allow Changes In Registra- ton All Over The State

The county recorder is permitted to cancel a registration entry and allow the elector to re-register for the pur- purpose of correctly stating his party affiliatson which he has changed since first registering, according to the opinion handed down by County Attor- ney Clyde Candy of Maricopa county.
 MT. Candy based his opinion on par agraph 2S99 of the Civil Code, Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1913, which reads:
 Upon demand first being made in writing therefor, and his refusal so to do, then any person may proceed by action in the superior court to compel the Recorder to cancel any entry made on the register illegally, or that ought to be cancelled by reason of facts that have occurred subsequent to the time of such entry, but if tho person whose name is sought co be cancelled be not a party to the action, the court may order him to be made a party defend ant"
 County Attorney Candy declared in a statement that the statutory con struction was the only question in- volyed.
 AS this exhausts the statutory pro- vision on this question" continues the opinion. we have only left ro deter mine whether or not paragraph 2e9y shodld be so construed to permit re- registration for the purpose of stating a changed party afiiliation. If there be a bona fide changed party atiilia- tion since the registration, that would be a fact that has occurred subse- quent to the time of the entry. 1t Goes not appear that the operation of paragraph 2S99 should be limited to those instances enumerated in para graph 2S97, because, if that were the intent. section 2S99 could have read: Upon demand being made in writing therefor and his refusal so to do, then any person may proceed to compel the Recorder to cancel any entry which he should cancel under the pro visions of paragraph 2S97 of this cade'
 According to County Recorder Owen E. Murphy, re-registration will involve an enormous amount of work in his. He said that he estimated the number wLo registered mo party at about 800. He stated that the re- registration would double the work, for a simple change could not be made in the books in place of the former registration but would necessitate con ceiling the old registration, in addition to filing an affidavit and making out the new registration.
 The Maricopa county attorney has placed this as the lawful interpreta- ~t.f in light of the authorieies and the decid- ed cases. He says:
 Tt will be apparent that the right of franchise of an elecror is greatly restricted if he be not permitted to re-register and thereby change the statement of his party afiiliation if he has actually and in good faith changed such utilization. If the statute means that he cannot re-register for the purpose of properly stating his changed party aGiliation or stating a party utilization when he formerly registered as being affiliated with no party, then such elector will be dis franchised and will not be able to vote at the primary. He no longer belongs to the party under which he registered and he cannot vote the ticket of the party to which he really belongs. because he has not registered as of that party"
 He then cites authorities, adding:
 While l would not go So far as to hold that writ of mandate would lie against a county recorder to compell him to cancel an entry because the said entry no longer stated the cleo tors correct party affiliation, yet I am of the opinion that the proper con struction to be placed upon the word ing of paragraph 2S99 permits the county recorder to concel registra-