§ 1083

CONSTRUCTION OF

2. SECTION.-As this section stood prior to its amendment, in 1899, the law required, in order to entitle an elector to vote, only that his "name shall be enrolled upon the great register of the county." The law then, as now, required an affidavit of registration to be made by voter, but, prior to such amendment, facts contained in affidavit were enrolled upon great register, and entry of elector's name in great register was evidence of his right to vote. The affidavit was no part of the register. The amendment of this section in 1899 changed this. It is no longer provided that test of right of an elector to vote shall be determined by his enrolment on great register, but an entirely different test is provided, which is now that he "shall have conformed to the law governing the registration of voters." And, as law now requires that affidavits of registration themselves shall constitute precinct register upon which an elector is entitled to vote, it is essential, in order so to entitle him, that there should be strict compliance with law to extent, at least, that his affidavit for registration should be made before either a de jure or de facto officer.-Huston vs. Anderson, 145 Cal. 320, 338, 78 Pac. Rep. 626.

of voters

3. The provision of this section requiring conformity to law governing registration means no more than that elector shall have, in good faith, procured his registration as an elector so that his name appears upon authenticated list provided by law (Angellotti, J., dis. op.).— Huston vs. Anderson, 145 Cal. 320, 342, 78 Pac. Rep. 626.

4. Amendment.-By the act amending this section, and providing for use of affidavits as a register in various precincts, sections relative to keeping of great register, entry of names therein, etc., were also amended.-Huston VS. Anderson, 145 Cal. 320, 324, 78 Pac. Rep. 626.

See post §§ 1094-1097, 1103, 1105.

5. This section, as it stood before amendment of 1893, simply required that name of voter be enrolled on great register of county. This provision was amended, in that year, by adding the words, "fifteen days prior to the election."-Falltrick vs. Sullivan, 119 Cal. 613, 617, 51 Pac. Rep. 947. (See Stats. 1893, p. 124.)

6. Section 1598 post, as it now stands, was enacted in 1880, and has not been amended to conform to this section, 1083, as amended in 1893, which prescribes qualifications of voters "at any and all elections held within this county, city, town, or district within which such elector resides."Falltrick vs. Sullivan, 119 Cal. 613, 618, 51 Pac. Rep. 947.

7. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTOR AND VOTER.-There is difference between an elector or person legally qualified to vote and a voter. In common parlance, they may be used indiscriminately, but, strictly speaking, they are not same. The voter is the elector who votes-the elector

[Pt. III.

in exercise of his franchise or privilege of voting-not he who does not vote.-Bergevin vs. Curtz, 127 Cal. 86, 89, 59 Pac. Rep. 312.

8. ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE WITHOUT POWER TO VOTE.-Person may be eligible to office of supervisor of district for which he is elected, though his name was not on great register. If he is eligible to office, he is entitled to it, though he could not have voted at election.-Bergevin Curtz, 127 Cal. 86, 89, 59 Pac. Rep. 312.

VS.

one's

12. ONE MAY BE AN ELECTOR THOUGH HIS NAME IS NOT ON GREAT REGISTER.-It is not necessary to have name enrolled upon great register before he can be an elector. This section, after enumerating qualifications of a voter, adds, "and whose name shall be enrolled on the great register of such county fifteen days prior to an election shall be a qualified elector," etc. Words "qualified elector" are used in sense of elector who has right to vote. It appears plain that legislature recognized fact that there might be electors who were not so qualified.-Bergevin Curtz, 127 Cal. 86, 89, 59 Pac. Rep. 312.

vs.

13. PERSONS ENGAGED IN MILITARY SERVICE OF UNITED STATES may vote, if they have qualifications prescribed; but limits within which right of suffrage may be exercised are fixed by constitution, and elector must claim his vote in county or district in which he has his residence.-People ex rel. Orman vs. Riley, 15 Cal. 48, 49.

14. For purpose of voting persons shall not be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of their presence or absence while employed in services of United States.-Devlin vs. Anderson, 38 Cal. 92, 93.

15. POWER OF STATE TO DETERMINE WHO MAY VOTE.-Mere power of state to determine class of inhabitants who may vote within her limits was not curtailed in XIV amendment to constitution of United States. Van Valkenburg vs. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 53.

16. SOLDIERS, COLLEGE STUDENTS, OR INHABITANTS OF VETERANS' HOME, OR INFIRMARY, are not precluded by art. II §4 of the constitution from gaining residence for purpose of voting, upon proof of their intention to acquire domicile in county where they live.-Stewart vs. Kyser, 105 Cal. 459, 461, 463, 39 Pac. Rep. 19.

to state and county elections, have no bearing on election of city officers in municipality governed by freeholders, except so far as they are adopted by charter itself.People vs. Worswick, 142 Cal. 71, 75, 75 Pac. Rep. 663.

3.

It is apparent from this and succeeding sections of this chapter, concerning registration of electors, that register which is to be commenced on January first and is not to be completed until September, is intended solely for general election for state and county officers which occurs in November. They do not apply to election for city office of mayor.-People vs. Worswick, 142 Cal. 71. 75, 75 Pac. Rep. 663.

4. CANCELING OLD REGISTER-COMMENCING NEW ONE. Statute does not make provision for canceling the old register before commencing new one.-Falltrick vs. Sullivan, 119 Cal. 613, 619, 51 Pac. Rep. 947.

5. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REGISTRATION LAWS.-Registration is not constitutional qualification of voters. It is simply reasonable method of identifying qualified voters, and in this view only is registration law itself constitutional.-People vs. Worswick, 142 Cal. 71, 76, 75 Pac. Rep. 663.

6. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION.-General registry law should not be so construed as to seriously impair practical workings of city government and leave it without any legislative department, unless such construction is clearly imperative.-People vs. Worswick, 142 Cal. 71, 76, 77, 75 Pac. Rep. 663.

7. All provisions to be considered together. In construing this section all its provisions must be considered together; and they must be reconciled as far as possible; and particular provisions must be so construed as to promote, and not to defeat, general purposes and policy of law.-Welch vs. Williams, 96 Cal. 365, 367, 31 Pac. Rep. 222.

8. Power of board to give more than statutory time for registration.-Under this section, as amended in 1889, requirements that registration, when new register is ordered, must have commenced one hundred days before general election, meant that it must commence at least that soon, and effect of requirement is, that board of supervisors could not cancel old registry and order new one less than one hundred days before election; they could not, in other words, deprive voters of that period of time within which to secure registration. But there was nothing to prevent them from giving longer time, which, by various other sections, they were directly and impliedly authorized to do.-Welch vs. Williams, 96 Cal. 365, 370, 31 Pac. Rep. 222.

9. Time for reregistration.-Under this section, as amended in 1889, board of supervisors was prohibited from canceling existing register and ordering new registration less than one hundred days preceding general election. It could not allow

one

less, but it might allow more, than hundred days for reregistration, and such registration had to cease fifteen days before election, for purposes of that election. Registry of name in new register made at any time after old register was canceled, and more than fifteen days prior to election, was lawful and valid.-Welch vs. Williams, 96 Cal. 365, 370, 31 Pac. Rep. 222.

10. DUTY TO KEEP REGISTER.-Under this section it is duty of person charged with registration of voters to keep in his office "a register in which shall be entered the names of the qualified electors."-Huston vs. Anderson, 145 Cal. 320, 324, 78 Pac. Rep. 626.

11. LIMITING BEGINNING OF REGISTRY.-There does not seem to be any very weighty reasons for narrowly limiting beginning of registry. On the contrary, it would seem to be better in every respect, not only with view to convenience and security of honest electors, but more especially for purpose of challenging right of such persons as may fraudulently procure their enrolment, to commence registration as soon as practical.-Welch vs. Williams, 96 Cal. 365, 368, 31 Pac. Rep. 222.

12. NECESSITY OF REGISTRATION.— Legislature has required that all electors, as condition of right to vote, shall have their names properly, and in due season, entered on great register of county.-Bergevin vs. Curtz, 127 Cal. 86, 88, 59 Pac. Rep. 312.

13. OBJECT OF REGISTRATION LAWS is to prevent illegal voting by providing, in advance of election, an authentic list of qualified electors. Necessarily, any efficient system of registration must involve certain amount of inconvenience to voters, and probably under best system that could be provided some qualified electors would lose their votes through inability to avail themselves of opportunities or to comply with conditions of registration. Law should be so framed, therefore, and when its terms are doubtful should be so construed as to give fullest opportunity to voters to procure entry of their names upon register that is consistent with reasonable precautions against fraudulent registration.-Welch vs. Williams, 96 Cal. 365, 367, 31 Pac. Rep. 222. 14. Legislature has made no attempt, in this section, to change or add to qualifications of elector, but has simply provided means whereby elector who is entitled to vote may be known, by having his name enrolled on authenticated list. Object of registration law is to prevent illegal voting by providing in advance of election an authenticated list of qualified voters.Bergevin vs. Curtz, 127 Cal. 86, 89, 59 Pac. Rep. 312.

15. PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTERS.-In 1889 there were passed amendments to general laws governing election of state and county officers; and by these amendments it was provided, among other things, that in every even-numbered year there should be a new register "of the names of the qualified