.\
72
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
"5. Persons convicted of bribery, perjury, larceny
or any infamous crime in this or other states, or inter­ ested in any wager depending on the result of any
election."
With respect to these disqualifications, attention is directed ta Sec­
tions 4 and 5, Art. VI, Florida Constitution.
.
In view of the holding of our Supreme Court in Duggar v.
State,43 So. 2d 860, construing the effect of §40.01 relating to the
qualifications and disqualifications of jurors, it is concluded that
the provisions of above paragraph (4) of §97.041 apply only to
convictions of felonies in courts of record in this state. The
question now remains as to whether conviction of a felony in
the courts of another state constitutes an "infamous crime"
within the meaning of paragraph (5) of §97.041.
. On the basis of the reasoning employed in former opinion
051-387, we assume the position that unless and until our courts
shall hold otherwise, conviction of a person in the courts of
another state of a felony, entailing imprisonment in the state
prison of that state, constitutes an "infamous crime" within the
meaning of paragraph (5) of §97.041, F. S.
My immediate predecessor in office held in effect in opinion
042-427, 1941-42 Biennial Report of Attorney General, 784, 785,
that the State Board of Pardons under its constitutional powers
set forth in Art. IV, §l2, Florida Constitution, was granted the
right to restore civil Tights under the laws of this state, the for­
feiture of such rights being accomplished under the laws of
this state, although in consequence of conviction of a criminal
offense in another state. Opinion of this office 050-453, 1949-50
.Biennial Report of Attorney General, 625, 626, in effect followed
the conclusion set forth in opinion 042-427.·
The question occurred again in opinion 052-45, copy of which
is attached, to which reference is made.
In view of the foregoing, in my opinion the above questions
are answered as follows:
(1) As stated above, this question is answered in the affirm­ ative.
(2) Until our courts shall settle the question of whether
the State Board of Pardons has the power to restore to a person
the civil right of suffrage lost in consequence of that person's
conviction of a felony in another state, should such person obtain
passage by the Legislature of Florida of a law restoring to him
such civil right, the same should be accepted by election officials
as fully effecting the restoration of such right.
March 10, 1953.-053-60.
ELECTORS-CONVICTION OF PETIT LARCENY
-LOSS OF RIGHT TO VOTE
QUESTION: Is an otherwise qualified elector deprived of
his right to vote when he has been convicted of petit larceny?
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ny
~r-
ny
to Sec­
'gar v.
to the
that .
Inly to ­
.'. The
)ny in
crime"
~d
pinion
courts
rts of
state
in the
pinion
i, 785,
lowers
ed the
le for­
ws of
iminal
.949-50
Howed
73
To: Honorable Roland X.Droit, Supervisor of Registration, Se­
bring, Florida:
Article VI, §5, Constitution of the State of Florida, provides
in part that "The Legislature shall have power to, and shall,
enact the necessary laws to exclude ... from the right of suffrage,
all persons convicted of bribery, perjury, larceny or of infamous
.crime .. ." The Legislature has complied with this mandate
through an enactment Which now appears as §97.041, F. S.
. In a caSe which arose in 1881, during the June term of the
Supreme Court of Florida, it was decided "that a person con­
victed of a petty larceny is not a qualified elector in this State."
It was also stated in the opinion that "The Legislature· may, or
may not, under this Constitution, so legislate as to annex to
petty larceny the puniShment of a misdemeanor, but neither such
a statute, nor any other which the Legislature might pass, can
disconnect from it that punishment which the Constitution makes
it the duty of the Legislature to annex to it, which is disqualifi­
cation to vote." (State ex reI Gordon v. Buckman, 18 Fla. 267)
Although the Supreme Court opinion referred to herein was
decided before the adoption of our present Constitution, there
have been no substantial· changes in the constitutional pro­
visions applicable to the question here involved, and apparently
the decision is still the law in this state.
It is therefore, my opinion that the question involved should
be answered in the affirmative. An individual who has been
.convicted of petit larceny by a court of this· or any other state
is not entitled to vote in Florida until his civil rights have been
restored.
REGISTRATION OFFICE, OFFICERS AND PROCEDURE
which
March 17, 1954.-054-66.
~stions
ELECTIONS-PRIMARY-REGISTRATION BOOKS
-TIME FOR CLOSING
ffirm-:­
QUESTION: In view of the fact that the date for the first
1954 regular primary election falls on May 4 and that the thir­
tieth day "preceeding" or "before" such date is Sunday, April 4,
under the provisions of §§98.011 and 98.051,· F. S., on what date
do the registration books close prior to said first primary?
hether
Jerson
~rson's
obtain
;0 him
ficials
red of
ly?
1'0: Honorable R.A. Gray, Secretary of State:
At the outset let it be understood that this opllllOn is not
necessarily applicable in those counties which have permanent
registration systems under special or population acts or which
may have other special or population acts, presently in effect,
prescribing a time for closing of the registration books different
from that set forth in the mentioned sections.
Section 98.011 provides that, "All the registration books close
on the thirtieth day preceding the day on which there is a primary
or general election and remain closed for. five days following the