Powell v. City of Baird

128 S.W.2d 786, 133 Tex. 489, 1939 Tex. LEXIS 334
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 31, 1939
DocketNo. 7554.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 128 S.W.2d 786 (Powell v. City of Baird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Powell v. City of Baird, 128 S.W.2d 786, 133 Tex. 489, 1939 Tex. LEXIS 334 (Tex. 1939).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Critz

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is before this Court on certified questions from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh District at East-land. The certificate sufficiently states the case. It is as follows:

“TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS :

“On September 30, 1938, an election was held in the City *491 of Baird, Callahan County, Texas, for the purpose of determining whether the City of Baird would be authorized to issue bonds for the purpose of financing construction of an electric light and power system for said city. At said time, and for many years prior thereto, the City of Baird had, by ordinance, levied a poll tax on the citizens of Baird under the age of 60 years and over the age of 21 years. At said election payment of a city poll tax, by those subject thereto, was required as a prerequisite to a right to vote in said city election. One hundred sixteen persons who were in all respects qualified to vote at said election, except that they had not paid a city poll tax, to which they were subject, did not vote in said election because of the rule enforced and promulgated by the City of Baird and election officers to the effect that payment of a city poll tax, by those subject thereto, was and would be held a prerequisite to the right to vote in said election. The majority of those voting at said election voted for the issuance of bonds. T. E. Powell and others, residents and owners of property situated within the City of Baird and qualified voters of said city, instituted a contest of said election. Upon trial before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered for the contestees, the City of Baird and its Mayor, Hon. H. Schwartz. Upon the trial of the case one of said 116 persons aforesaid, who did not vote at said election because of said rule to the effect that residents of Baird subject théreto who had not paid a city poll tax were not qualified to vote at said election, testified, (over the objection of contestants that such testimony was incompetent, irrelevant and prejudicial, and that it was not permissible to prove how any of the 11.6 persons would have voted, and that the exclusion of the said 116 persons was the exclusion of a class of voters sufficient in number that they could have changed the result of said election) ; that if he had been permitted to vote he would have voted for the issuance of said bonds. Thereupon it was agreed, subject to said objection, and without waiving same, that 58 of said 116 persons, who would not have been permitted to vote at said election if they had offered to vote because they had not paid their city poll taxes, would have, if they had been permitted, voted for the issuance of said bonds, and 58 would have voted against the issuance of said bonds.

“Upon appeal to this court by the contestants, the majority of this court held that requirement of payment of a city poll tax, as a prerequisite to a right to vote at a city election, by a city such as Baird, incorporated under the provisions of the statutes referable to ‘Cities and Towns/ was not in contra *492 vention of the Constitution of Texas, for the reason that the laws of Texas authorized such a city to levy and collect a city poll tax and Art. 6, sec. 2 of the Constitution of Texas in stating the qualification of voters contains the following language: ‘* * provided further, that any voter who is subject to pay a poll tax under the laws of the state of Texas shall have paid said tax before offering to vote at any election in this State * * *,’ and Art. 2955, R. S. 1925, after reciting the qualification of voters in this State, contains, among other things, the following recital: ‘Provided that any voter who is subject to pay a poll tax under the laws of this State * * shall have paid said tax before offering to vote at any election in this State,’ and Art. 1030, R. S. 1925, as amended in 1931, authorized the City of Baird to levy and collect an annual poll tax, as was done in this instance, from which we concluded, not that the ordinance of the City of Baird levying a poll tax was a law of the State of Texas, but that such ordinance and the requirement of payment, by those subject thereto, of a city poll tax as a prerequisite to the right to vote at said municipal election was authorized, within the meaning of said constitutional and statutory provision, ‘under the latos of the State of Texas.’

“Because the members of this court were unable to agree as to the proper answer to the questions presented, and because of the great importance of said questions to the entire citizenship of Texas, upon motion of the contestants (appellants) , while the motion for rehearing of said cause is pending, we deem it advisable to and do hereby most respectfully certify to your honors the following questions, and herewith transmit our opinions in said case.

“1. Is requirement of payment of a city poll tax, by those subject thereto, as a prerequisite to the right to vote at said municipal election in contravention of the Constitution of Texas ?

“2. If the first question should be answered ‘Yes,’ then was evidence admissible to show how members of the excluded class of voters would have voted had they been permitted to vote?”

OPINION.

Before proceeding to answer the first question certified, we deem it expedient to set out in this opinion the constitutional and statutory provisions in force in this State which are either directly or indirectly involved. Such provisions are the following:

*493 Section 1 of Article VI:

“The following classes of persons shall not be allowed to vote in this State, to-wit:

“First: Persons under twenty-one (21) years of age.

“Second: Idiots and lunatics.

“Third: All paupers supported by any county.

“Fourth: All persons convicted of any felony, subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may make.

“Fifth: All soldiers, marines and seamen, employed in the service of the Army or Navy of the United States. Provided that this restriction shall not apply to officers of the National Guard of Texas, the National Guard Reserve, the Officers Reserve Corps of the United States, nor to enlisted men of the National Guard, the National Guard Reserve, and the Organized Reserves of the United States, nor to retired officers of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, and retired warrant officers and retired enlisted men of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. (Sec. 1, Art. 6, adopted election Nov. 8, 1932.)”

Section 2 of Article VI:

“Every person subject to none of the foregoing disqualifications, * * * shall be deemed a qualified elector; * * * and provided further, that any voter who is subject to pay a poll tax under the laws of the State of Texas shall have paid said tax before offering to vote at any election in this State and hold a receipt showing' that said poll tax was paid before the first day of February next preceding such election. * * *”

Section 3 of Article VI:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Reed v. Rook TX
2025 Tex. Bus. 34 (Texas Business Court, 2025)
C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox
2025 Tex. Bus. 1 (Texas Business Court, 2025)
Chek Investments, LLC v. LR
260 S.W.3d 704 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1964
Tondre v. Hensley
223 S.W.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 S.W.2d 786, 133 Tex. 489, 1939 Tex. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-city-of-baird-tex-1939.