Washington v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal-from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. S. IT. Sprott. The facts .are sufficiently stated in the opinion. contended that section 3 of article 8 of the Constitution was not retroactive, but merely disqualified persons convicted of the designated crimes after its adoption.
Read the full summary
Appeal-from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. S. IT. Sprott. The facts .are sufficiently stated in the opinion. contended that section 3 of article 8 of the Constitution was not retroactive, but merely disqualified persons convicted of the designated crimes after its adoption. The case comes clearly within both the letter and spirit of section 3, article 8 of the Constitution of 1875, the purpose of which was to purify the ballot box by excluding all dishonest and infamous men from participation in popular elections. To accomplish this, it must be construed to be retrospective…
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The defendant is indicted for illegal voting at the general election held in August, 1884, and was convicted on the ground that he had voted while laboring under a constitutional disqualification, having been convicted of the crime of larceny in the year 1871. At the time of his conviction of the latter offense, he was not disqualified by this fact, the Constitution of 1868 being then in force.
Whether the present conviction for illegal voting was right dr wrong depends upon the proper construction of section 3, article vm, of the Constitution of 1875, now the organic law of this State, which…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ex Parte GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Kring v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Minor v. HappersettSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Anderson v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1865
- Pierce v. CarskadonSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Otsuka v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Bibb v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Amended August 21, 2014 Ned Chiodo v. The Section 43.24 Panel Consisting of: Secretary of State Matthew Schultz, Auditor of State Mary Mosiman and Attorney General Thomas MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
- State Ex Rel. Olson v. LangerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
- Snyder v. KingIndiana Supreme Court · 2011
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.