Court Opinion

ID: 9831808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:22:30.842486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.095765
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants say that the point made by them under article 2975 was that the law required the county tax collector and “not a City department head” to prepare and furnish the poll tax list. This proposition does not raise any issue not disposed of by the original opinion. By the statement “it was shown that the voters who had these spurious ballots in their possession were required by the election bffieers to get rid of them and not to use them in marking their ballots,” we meant only that where it was called to the attention of the election judges that certain voters held spurious ballots in their possession they were required to get rid of them and were not permitted to use them in marking their ballots.
In all other respects the motion for rehearing is overruled.