Case Name: Robert H. Jeffrey (Mayor) v. State ex rel. Butler (City Solicitor)
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1904-07-01
Citations: 16 Ohio C.C. Dec. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert H. Jeffrey (Mayor) v. State ex rel. Butler (City Solicitor).
Judges: Sullivan and Wilson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 16
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
ELECTIONS — INTOXICATING LIQUORS — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
[Franklin (2d) Circuit Court,
July 1, 1904.]
Sullivan, Dustin and Wilson, JJ.
Robert H. Jeffrey (Mayor) v. State ex rel. Butler (City Solicitor).
1. Presumption is that Election Officers will Peopep.lv Construe Election-Laws.
The legal presumption is that ’election officers will adopt the true construction of election laws, and will so conduct elections as to give every-elector an opportunity to register and vote.
2. Electos Moving into Resident District Entitled to Transfer and Vote at Brannock Law Election Under Sec. 2926v Rev. Stat.
An elector of a municipality who moves, after the regular registration days, into and becomes a resident of a “resident district” wherein an. election is about to be held under the act of April 19, 1904 (97 O. L. 87), commonly called the Brannock local option law, is entitled to a transfer from his former residence, and to vote at such election under favor of Sec. 2926v Rev. Stat., although there is no express provision in said act whereby such elector could register and vote. Hence, said act is. not violative of Sec. 1, Art. 5 of the state constitution which provides that every citizen having the qualification of an elector shall be entitled to vote at all 'elections, notwithstanding a provision therein that “in municipal corporations having registration, only registered voters shall be entitled to vote.”
Error to Franklin common pleas court.
Janies M. Butler, for the mayor.
T. M. Clarke, L. D. Lilley and W. B. Wheeler, for the Brannock law. ,
Gumble & Gumble and James Caren, for defendant.

Opinion:
DUSTIN, J.
We concur with the views of the common pleas court of Franklin county as to all the questions raised in the hearing before that court.
One new question is presented to this court. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the Brannock law (97 O. L. 87), is unconstitutional, because in contravention of Sec. 1, Art. 5 of the constitution, which provides that every-citizen having the qualifications of an elector, shall be " entitled to vote at all elections. '
In the provision for elections under the Brannock law, it is stipulated that "in municipal corporations having'registration, only registered voters shall be entitled to vote. ' '
Now it is claimed that an elector who should move into the residence district wherein a Brannock law election is about to be held, and become a resident thereof, after the regular days of registration for such election, cannot be registered and vote, because there is no provision for his obtaining a transfer from his former residence; the election officers therein not being necessarily in session.
i We think this point is not well taken, because Sec. 2926v Rev. Stat., of the election law makes full provision for such contingeueies.
It is suggested in'argument that while See. 2926v Rev. Stat. may be so construed as to afford every facility for the registration of removals, the secretary of state and the deputy state supervisors have put another construction upon the same and will issue orders accordingly, thus depriving a removing elector of the right to vote.
This is denied. But, whatever the fact, this court must presume that the election-officials will adopt the true construction of the statute and will so conduct the elections as to give every elector an opportunity to register and vote. .
The judgment of the common pleas court granting the writ4 of mandamus upon the mayor of the city of Columbus as prayed for will therefore be affirmed.
Sullivan and Wilson, JJ., concur.