§ 163-57. Residence defined for registration and voting.

Case Name: Lloyd v. Babb

Citation: 251 S.E.2d 843

Year: 1979

Case PDF: LloydvBabb

Case Summary: The classification between potential voters as residents entitled to vote and nonresidents not entitled to vote shall be upheld if such classifications are reasonable and not subject to a compelling state interest. However, state laws which have the effect of denying certain classes the right to vote must be supported of a compelling justification. Moreover, it would not be a denial of equal protection to make certain inquiries of students who sought to register to vote as to their respective residency which were not made of other would-be registrants. Although there is no denial of equal protection under the use of the presumption that a student who leaves his parents’ home to go to college is not domiciled in the place where the college is located for voting purposes. Students seeking registration in the local of which they went to college may be asked specific questions about their financial affairs, such as whether they had an automobile, and where their banking and business connections lay as these would not implicate voting classifications on the basis of wealth or property ownership. It was not an unjustifiable intrusion into the private affairs of students when compelling them to answer certain questions concerning their residency. Furthermore, a student who merely intends to remain at his place of schooling only until graduation is not demonstrative to their domicile for voting purposes; so long as the student intends to make his home in the community where he is physically present and has no intent to return to his former home upon graduation, he may claim the college community as his domicile for voting purposes. Additionally, registrars may use questionnaires to obtain necessary facts to determine whether a student is entitled to vote in a particular locality is permissible. In determining whether such person is a bona fide resident for voting purposes, the State has demonstrative authority and may issue domicile (or "residence") test which exclude only those necessary to preserve the basic conception of a political community. However, a voter residing in a town only three months before an election, whose name was registered by one of the candidates, is not a qualified elector. The qualifications of "domicile" for voting purposes are legal capacity, physical presence, the intent to acquire domicile which requires both an intent to abandon one's prior domicile and an intent to remain at the new domicile, and the acquisition of a new domicile which may be shown both by declarations of the registrant and by objective facts which may be obtained via inquiries directed to the registrant by the registrar. If evidence adduced at trial showed members and officials of the county board had failed to require students seeking registration to prove their domicile, a court could enjoin the board from further registering students without doing so.  The courts possesses the power to order count boards to use a specific set of questions in relation to student voter registration as it relates to their domicile. However, judicial purging of voter registrants was not an available remedy in a mandamus proceeding as it would be duplicative of the statutory process for challenging voters (challenging persons were not entitled to a judicial remedy identical to the administrative remedy). But an action of the State Board of Elections in determining voter registration does not arise from a "contested case" and therefore provides no basis for judicial review.

Case Name: People ex rel. Attorney General ex rel. Boyer v. Teague

Citation: 11 S.E. 665

Year: 1890

Case Summary: An elector shall not be permitted to register an any other precinct in the county which he resides until he provides a certificate to the registrar that he has been removed, and his name has been stricken from the registration books. Although, a change in a persons true residence is a question for the jury where a voter has routinely departed his home in another county but comes to the county in which an election is held for the purpose of working there, claiming the county their new home, but then returning to the other county upon conclusion of the election season. Where it does not appear from direct testimony for what candidate an unqualified voter voted, the fact may be shown by circumstantial evidence. In voter challenges, record of a persons indictment and conviction of a voter of a crime, previous to an election, is admissible to show that they voted fraudulently. Furthermore, evidence showing that a voter voted against a contestant such as his declarations made at or before the time of voting, are admissible against the defendant. Although, a person handing an elector a ticket for a certain contesting candidate is competent evidence showing for whom such elector voted. Additionally, if a voter received a ticket from a poll table, where only the defendant's tickets were distributed, and then "came down the line within the ropes and voted" is sufficient showing he voted for the defendant. Ultimately, it is for the trial judge to say whether the evidence tending to show the illegality of a particular vote is sufficient as a foundation for compelling the voter to tell for whom he voted. However, a challenger in a quo warranto matter to try title to an office, may not demand a order requiring a bill of particulars setting forth the names of the alleged illegal voters.

Case Name: State ex rel. Hannon v. Grizzard

Citation: 89 N.C. 115

Year: 1883

Case PDF: HannonvGrizzard

Case Summary: Domicile, as distinguished from residence, generally denotes a permanent rather than a temporary dwelling place. Despite being in government service at Washington, the plaintiff's domicile was in North Carolina as he paid his poll tax, voted, and previously resided in the State. In a matter challenging the residence of the parties where the registration books had been offered in evidence, but not read nor shown to the jury, it was proper of the court to prohibit the jury to view such books in deliberation without the consent of both parties.

Case Name: Farnsworth v. Jones

Citation: 441 S.E.2d 597

Year: 1994

Case PDF: Farnsworth v. Jones

Case Summary: In order to be qualified as a candidate for election to a municipal office, a person must be registered to vote in that municipality.

Case Name: Hall v. Wake County Bd. of Elections

Citation: 187 S.E.2d 52

Year: 1972

Case PDF: Hall v. Wake

Case Summary: Domicile is a fact which may be proved by direct and circumstantial evidence. There shall be no change of domicile of persons staying at summer or winter resorts, or to acquire an education, or some art/skill in which the animus revertendi accompanies the whole period of absence. When determining student domicile, it is presumed a student who leaves his parents' home to enter college is not domiciled in the college town to which he goes, although such presumption is rebuttable. The term "residence" when used in reference to election law means domicile. To constitute a domicile, there need be residence and intent to make the place of residence a home, in addition to an actual abandonment of the first domicile accompanied by an intention not to return to it and the acquisition of new domicile by actual residence at another place to make the last acquired residence a permanent home. Specifically a student may acquire domicile where his university or college is situated so long as he intends to stay there indefinitely and has no intention of resuming his former home. Nonetheless, a person's testimony regarding such intention is considered competent evidence yet not conclusive of the question as all surrounding circumstances and affirmative conduct must be taken into consideration. Determining domicile depends on no one fact or combination of circumstances but rather upon the totality of evidence showing a preponderance in favor of some particular place as domicile.

Case Name: State ex rel. Owens v. Chaplin

Citation: 48 S.E.2d 37

Year: 1948

Case PDF: OwensvChaplin

Case Summary: The term "residence" in reference to election law need be construed in harmony with the Constitution in the sense of "domicile" denoting a permanent abode as distinguished from a temporary dwelling place. Signed affidavits with a certificate of notary shall constitute prima facie truth of pertinent recitals (valid absentee ballot). Absentee ballots were wrongly rejected in action to try title to office of the superior court clerk, where the relator failed to meet its burden overcoming the presumption of the challenged electors registration in the particular county. However, any absentee ballots case by voters who were not sworn shall not be counted and labeled as defective. Any ballots administered by the superior court clerk shall be valid, despite the clerk's interest in reelection as he was merely performing his administrative duties imposed by law and was ministerial not judicial actions left to his discretion. The alleged misconduct of election officials shall not disfranchise otherwise qualified electors who had cast absentee ballots. Admissions by the unsuccessful candidate for clerk of the superior court that each elector was properly registered and that his absentee ballot was in proper form gave rise to a presumption of validity, thereby imposing the burden of showing contrary to the challenging candidate (see Stacy, C.J.; and Seawell, J. Opinion).

Case Name: State ex rel. Gower v. Carter

Citation: 143 S.E. 513

Year: 1928

Case PDF: State ex rel. Grower v. Carter

Case Summary: The qualifications for voting in municipal elections are the same as in general elections. Therefore as applied to a vote of a citizen of Syria for the office of mayor is held illegal. Furthermore, school teachers voting for mayor must have established legal residence to be deemed qualified electors. In determining such legal residence for purposes of domicile, intention may be shown by acts, declarations, and other circumstances.