thewwd~bituatr~rasu lllq eter o f& is r wk la s aa taxc s nc o ip t or cart.Ulcato,AOt lose thml feur &p prior to rush electionor primaryrlrc-. tion er mede rffitivitaf ita,lossand eating iA muh affldarttlchue ho peld : ruch poll tax or ncei~ed mmh oa'$lfl~te, , .
Edn. Jack Boberts- Page 4 : . .
of.memption; and the collector&all there- : upon add his name-to the list of qualified voters of the precinctof his new residence; and, uiiLesssuch voter has done this and his name appearsin the,certifled list of voters : ._ of the precinctof his new residence;he- shall not vote.' ':_ _' -TourQuestion.ho.2 is as.follows:, ,,_ ,. 1.2. Ii case.of'servicemen or women. entitledto vote,withoutpoll tax, are they- requiredto make any showingas to whether. they live.in the precinct?" . . This~question we think,. is answeredin Opin- ion.Ho. O-7034 of this fiepartmentdated January17, 1946, ...'&n the'answersto questions7 and 8 therein; a co _ - uh+h is herewithenclosed. In this opinionthia%zf -partmentruled that such personswere entitledto vote withoutbeing includedon the certifiedlists of voters :preparedby'the tax assessorand collector;that the Y, udgas could.require them to show by their ownoaths .:. :' ..and if.in a city or town of.10,000or more .$nhabltants, : by the oath of one well known resident)that they were qualSf%edto 'vote: and that the election' officialscould .. ~0%:requirr more. ...: " .. . .. : %8 as follows: Tour &estion ?0..,.3 : " l3d If a personactA.ly'~reaide*~ 'in ... y .a' precinct.one night.preceding' the electton .bymerely sta ing in it overnlght,.anddoer' not move'his Eouseholdgoods, etc.) and then : returnsto -hisusual residencein ,someother _' $reainct,is .hesubjeotto prosecutionfo.r'.' voting.inthe el;ection?" Iike vr6 are faced with a que&ion of fact. 'iou6tate that the person actuallyresidesin a pre- 'cinctone night, yet at the sametime you say he did not mow hia householdgoods, etc.. The facts ou 'their face are hot consistentwith modng to a new residence '.. wI.h a bona fide Intent of making it his perrnaA~At .' reeidenci. 2 A6 atoted by JueticiHorvellin the aaae of Ii&de vs. Cantu, reportedin 143 9. W. (2) 126, ue' find the .follorring: .. .. _, .' . .
Hono Jack Roberts - Page 5 V-129
'*Thetestimonyof a witnessas to his intentionis, of course,not.necesaarily controlling. It is, however,an element which may be consideredby the authority authorizedto determinefact issues- the jury or the trial judge. "In our opinionthe correctrule Is stated in Strattonvs. hall, Tex. Civ..App., 90 S.W. (2) 865, 866, by the El Paso Court of Civil Appeals,wherein It was held that althoughthe declarationof a voter as to his intentionis not controlling, %z isbT element.whichmay be considered. Words, the questionof the residenceof a marriedperson for voting purposesunder Article 2958, is one which'muatbe deter- mined by referenceto the actualfacts and . circumstances; one of which will.behis in- tentions.'* ; The&ore, since yourquestion'ls~one of fact, thiaDepmtmeat aannot pasauponthe same. QuestionNo. 4 of your requestis,as follaua: ..' '40 &,there a differentregulation - for voters of rural and city precincts,aa. to their qualifyingto vote in a precinct Idto which they have