Court Opinion

ID: 9612492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:09:15.839996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:21.618701
License: Public Domain

LOHR, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in parts III and IV of the majority opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from part II of that opinion, in which the majority holds that the trial court erred in dismissing the four felony counts charging the defendant with voting by knowingly giving false information regarding his place of present residence in violation of section 1-2-225, IB C.R.S. (1980). I agree with the trial court that as applied to the facts that form the basis of the charges in this case, section 1-2-225 proscribes conduct that is identical to that prohibited by section 1-13-709, IB C.R.S. (1980), a misdemeanor statute which prescribes a lesser penalty. As a result, the defendant’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws precludes his conviction of the four felony charges.
In order to violate section 1-2-225, the felony statute at issue here, a person must *541vote by knowingly giving false information regarding his place of present residence. It is a violation of the misdemeanor statute, section 1-13-709, knowingly to vote in any election precinct in which one is not qualified to vote. No person is permitted to vote without being registered. § 1-2-201(1), IB C.R.S. (1980). In order to be qualified to register to vote, a person must have resided in the precinct for thirty-two days immediately preceding the election. § 1-2-101, IB C.R.S. (1980).1 Upon applying for voter registration, one must provide accurate information regarding his residence. § l-2-203(l)(a), (2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(b), IB C.R.S. (1980); § l-2-203(2)(b), IB C.R.S. (1986 Supp.); § 1-2-204(1), (2), IB C.R.S. (1980). The voter must also provide accurate information about his residence on his voter’s signature card, which must be presented at the precinct polling place. § l-7-107(l)(a), IB C.R.S. (1980). Under this statutory scheme, one can vote in an election precinct where he is not qualified only if he gives false information about his place of residence either when he registers or when he votes.
If a person votes by providing false information regarding his current residence, in violation of section 1-2-225, he necessarily votes in an election precinct in which he is not qualified to vote, in violation of section 1-13-709. As applied to the four felony counts in the present case, precisely the same conduct violates both the felony and the misdemeanor statutes. Because the two statutes proscribe the same conduct but impose different penalties, the felony statute as applied to the conduct charged in this case is not consistent with the requirement of equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and by the due process clause of article II, section 25, of the Colorado Constitution. See, e.g., People v. Oliver, 745 P.2d 222, 227 (Colo. 1987); People v. Mozee, 723 P.2d 117, 126 (Colo.1986).
The majority, however, claims to discover a distinction between the conduct proscribed by the two statutes as applied in this case because “[w]hen the defendant registered to vote and provided false information, he violated an element of the felony statute, but not an element of the misdemeanor.” Majority op. at 538. The purported distinction is illusory. Neither the felony nor the misdemeanor is complete until a vote has been cast. Under the statutory scheme previously outlined, one cannot vote in a precinct where he is not qualified by residence to cast his ballot, in violation of the misdemeanor statute, unless he provides false information concerning his residence either at the time he registers or at the time he votes. Although not formally an element of the misdemeanor statute (section 1-13-709), providing false information about current residence at one time or the other is essential in order to enable a person to vote in an election precinct where he is not qualified. Viewed against the statutory background, the supposed distinction evaporates.
This is not a case like People v. Czajkowski, 193 Colo. 352, 568 P.2d 23 (1977), in which we held that the legislature could prescribe more severe penalties for theft of automobile parts than for other types of theft. There, the additional requirement that the subject of the theft be automobile parts distinguished the two statutes, and we also observed that “[sjimply because an act may violate more than one statutory provision does not invalidate the legislation in question, so long as the legislative classification is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and the differences in the provisions bear a reasonable relationship to the persons included and the public policy to be achieved.” People v. Czajkowski, 193 Colo, at 356, 568 P.2d at 25. Unlike Czajkowski, where the statutes distinguished between two types of theft, the statutes as applied here proscribe identical conduct: voting by providing false information about one’s residence.
It is true that the reach of the misdemeanor statute is more extensive than that *542of the felony statute. Specifically, the misdemeanor statute, section 1-13-709, can be violated by one who knowingly votes even though not qualified to do so because he is underage or not a citizen of the United States, or by a knowing offer to vote in an election precinct in which the voter is not qualified to vote. The felony statute, section 1-2-225, does not extend to such conduct. In order for an equal protection violation to exist, however, it is not necessary that each statute proscribe identical conduct in all the possible applications of each statute; it is sufficient that with respect to the conduct charged, both of the statutes apply and prescribe disparate penalties. People v. Bramlett, 194 Colo. 205, 210, 573 P.2d 94, 97 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 956, 98 S.Ct. 1590, 55 L.Ed.2d 808 (1978).
The People suggest that the statutes do not proscribe identical conduct because a person could elude precinct monitors and vote without providing false information about his place of present residence, thereby violating section 1-13-709, but not section 1-2-225. I do not believe that equal protection determinations should turn on such imaginative hypothetical possibilities. There is nothing in the record to suggest that such unusual facts are present here. As we said in People v. Calvaresi, 188 Colo. 277, 281-82, 534 P.2d 316, 318 (1975), in order to satisfy equal protection requirements, “[t]here must be substantial differences having a reasonable relationship to the persons involved and the public purpose to be achieved.” No such differences exist as the two statutes are applied in this case.
I would affirm the dismissal of the four counts of violation of section 1-2-225.
I am authorized to say that ROVIRA and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., join in this concurrence and disssent.

. A properly registered voter who moves from the precinct where registered within thirty-two days prior to the election is permitted to vote in the precinct where registered. § 1-2-101(2), IB C.R.S. (1980).