Graham guardian., 1922-01-27

thNpdyST IHuSt hoNS P0''" AS
before he can vote on bond election
1t would appear that this is not neces
sary II a man is taxpayer as shown
by the roll, whether he has paid has
taxes or not he is entitled to vote.
With kindest personal regards,
Very truly yours,
IL. NJ. FENNEMORE
With reference to the qualifications
OF voters for road bond elections in
the state of Arizona find that Chap
ter 81 Session Laws of Arizona 1917,
provides that road bond elections
shall be conducted in the same man
ner as other county bond elections are
required to be conducted. Chapter 2,
rtle So, Revised Statutes OF Arizona
1918, relating to county and munich
pal Indebtedness, provides that
az a majority Of the property
taxpayers, who must also, in all
respects, be qualified electors,
therein voting at said election, In
such county. shall vote In
favor Of the creation Of the in
debtedness to an amount exceed
ina per cent Of the value Of the
taxable property In such county
9 shall be permitted to become
Indebted to an amount exceeding
4 per cent Of the value Of the tax.
able property therein"
Our statute does not in terms de-
fine property taxpayer" but it ap-
pears from the defination occurring in
the cases generally that the term is
applied to the owner of property sub
ject to taxation rather than to one
who has actually paid taxes.
In Endom, VS.. City of Monroe, &c
Sou, 6S1, $50, property taxpayers"
entitled to vote at special munich
pal election, was held to mean the
owner of property assessed, and a
joint owner of realty was held to be a
property taxpayer" to the extent Of
his interest. In Rails VS.. Sharpe, 131
S. w. 99S, 1t was held that one owning
an interest in store in partnership
with his father is taxpayer" within
Kentucky statutes, Section 4464 au-
thorizing petitions by voters who are
taxpayers, for a graded school cleo
tion, and this Notwithstanding the
store was assessed in the name of the
father, the tax being paid out Of the
hrm assets. In Lasityr vs.. City of
Olympia, l12 Pac. 752, it was held
that, under Rem Bal Code, section
"a providing that no person shall be
competent TO serve as juror in the
Superior Courts of the state unless he
be an elector and taxpayer of the
state, taxpayer" was person own
ing property In the state subject TO
taxation and on which he regularly
pays taxes. In State VS.. Fasse, II S.
w. 745, taxpayer" is defined to be
a person owning property in the state
subject to taxation and on which he
pays taxes. In Hillsman VS..
Faison, 81 S. w. 92O, the word tax.
payer" as used in Texas Revised Stat
utes, Article 3942, providing that all
persons who are regularly qualified
voters of the state and of the county
OF their residence, and who are resi-
dent taxpayers in said dis
trict, as shown in the last ass
essment rolls of the coun-
ty, shall be entitled to vote in any
such school district, does not mean
only those whose names appear on
the last assessment rolls Of the county
but means one owning property within
the territory subject to taxation.
This case holds that in order to con-
stitute taxpayer" within the mean
ing of the statutes it is not neces-
sary that the taxes on his property
should have been assessed
find no Arizona case In which it
has been required, as a condition pre-.
cedent to voting, that the property
taxpayer shall have actually paid his
taxes.
An Arizona case bearing slightly up
on this question is that of Hicks vs.,
IL Arizona 237.
1t will be noted that in the road
bond act 1917 as well as the county
bond act found in the Revised Statutes
there is no express limitation placed
upon the condition property taxpay.
err" Other legislation in this state
does limit this term by adding the
phrase as shown by the last assess
ment roll of state and county taxes,
or some similar terminology. This
further indicates the intention of our
Legislature, in respect to the road
bond act to merely require that the
voter be one owning property subject
to taxation.
L. Z, SPALDING
Editor Graham Guardian;
In order To be q truly progressive