Imperial Valley press., 1935-01-07
GRANTEES To
Be INCLUDED
ON BALLOTS
Continued from page II

four propositions mentioned in
your letter of the 3rd, our opinion
IS as follows:
A person to be eligible to vote at
! the February election must have
/ his or her name upon the equalized
/ assessment roll of the Imperial r.
rigation District compiled in the
fall OF 1884, and in addition thereto
must. as of the date of February g.
1885, be still upon the great regis
ter of voters under the general elec-
ton laws of California. In this last
connection, under the present law.
although people are duly and
properly registered, they lose their
right TO vote under the general
election laws by failure TO have
voted, and many people were in ef-
feet disfranchised by their failure
to vote at the last general election.
Under the law the County Clerk
withdrawS or strikes from the great
register those people thus disfran-
chised, and only those who remain
and whose names actually appear
on the last equalized assessment roll
Of the Imperial Irrigation District
are eligible to vote.
With respect to proposition No
. in your letter, only the person
whose name appears upon the
assessment roll is entitled to vote;
where only one of a husband or
wife or joint owners appear as the
person to whom the property is
assessed on the district rolls, if the
husbands name is the only one
given on the equalized assessment
roll the wife may not vote and vice
versa.
With respect to proposition No. 8,
relative to the deeds TO lots where
in many parties appear as grantees,
the fact that the assessor, in mail
ing the statement OF assessment,
mails the same only to the person
heading the list Of grantees, has no
effect whatsoever on the eligibility
Of the grantees to vote. Under the
wording of the amendment OF 1893
of the Status es Of 1915, page !, it
is provided that one Of the neceS-
.sary qualifications to an irrigation
district voter is that his name ap-
pear on the last equalized assess
ment roll as an owner of property
within the district, and the interest
of the party to the property may be
either that of an actual owner, an
entryman on government land, or
purchaser under contract, so long
as his name appears on the assess
ment roll. The fact that the asses
Sor only sends the notice to one of
such grantees has no effect what
soever on the eligibility of the
balance, as the question of how the
assessor may treat the grantees.
with respect to the mailing of notice
is not involved.
The question Of the eligibility OF
all persons who are named as gran
tees on such deeds, SO far as their
right TO vote is concerned, is prob
ably a controversial question, but
in preparing the roster for the
February election all of those names
should be included in the list of
voters.
With respect to proposition No.
4, as to the eligibility of parties
buying land from the district to
vote by virtue of their contract of
purchase with the district, wherein
they are buying district lands, II
their names do not appear upon
the assessment roll as parties to
whom land is assessed by the dis
trict, they are not eligible to vote,
despite the fact that they may hold
a contract of purchase with the dis
trict. A contract of purchase with
the district, plus their names ap-
pearing on the assessment roll as
the party to whom the property is
assessed, must both occur for them
TO be entitled 10 vote.
.. HARRY w. HORTON,
Chief Counsel.