Court Opinion

ID: 9665750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:56:06.414129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:18.488003
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, J.
(concurring). I agree with the result reached by my Brother Swainson, but would base my opinion on statutory construction rather than constitutional grounds.
The rule is that if a statute can be construed so as to avoid constitutional invalidity, the constitutionally valid construction is to be preferred.
*695Const 1850, art 7, § 5, which contained a provision similar to MCLA § 168.11(b) (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 6.1011 [b]), was the subject of divided opinions in this Court in Wolcott v. Holcomb (1893), 97 Mich 361.
The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Hooker, concurred in by Justice Long concluded that the provision simply meant that a student was not to be deemed to have lost his residence automatically by reason of being a student. In short, Hooker and Long believed that the proviso gave the student an option, his intention in the matter being controlling. He said it this way:
“The true construction of this section should be just what its language imports, i.e., that being kept in an alms-house, or attendance at college, or employment in the service of the United States, or the navigation of the lakes or high seas, does not work a change of residence against the intention or desire of the individual.” Wolcott v. Holcomb, supra, p 371.
That construction of the act was wise, reasonable, just and proper. It should have been the majority opinion in 1893. It should be today.
If a student in residence is given the “Hooker option”, all the senseless folderol of voter registration in some of our college towns would be dispensed with.
Hooker’s words, written in dissent almost 80 years ago, need no gilding, but bear resonant repetition.
“The only reasons given for the construction contended for are that these classes are undesirable voters at the place of the asylum; that they pay no taxes, do no work for the benefit of the municipality, and have no interest in local affairs. The same may be said of many persons in all localities, and was probably as true of these before their admission as *696after. It is as true of those admitted from the locality of the asylum, who may vote under this section, as of those who come from a distance, who may not vote under this construction. It never has been a requisite to electoral rights that the citizen should pay taxes, do work for the benefit of the municipality, or evince interest in municipal affairs; nor does the right depend upon a wise or even honest exercise of the privilege of the ballot. Doubtless there are many whose votes could be dispensd with to the profit of their respective municipalities and the State as well, but the electoral franchise is based upon broader principles. There is no man so poor or low that he is not richer and manlier for his political equality, and the ballot is essential to the protection of the rights of all classes. Immediately a class or race is disfranchised, its members are deprived of an equal chance with their fellows. This proposition is so important a part of the foundation of our institutions that it should not be eliminated or weakened by any unnecessary construction of a constitution based upon civil liberty and political equality.” Wolcott v. Holcomb, supra, pp 370, 371.
I concur in reversal.
Williams, J., concurred with T. E. Brennan, J.