# In Re the Petition Filed by the Freeholders of Hudson County

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · October 25, 1928 · 105 N.J.L. 57

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3564038

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Petition Filed by the Freeholders of Hudson County, Applying for a Declaratory Judgment Concerning the Validity of a Supplement to an Act Entitled "An Act to Regulate Elections" (Revision of 1920), Passed May 5th, 1920, and the Amendments Thereof and Supplements Thereto Enacted October 9th, 1928.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** October 25, 1928
- **Citations:** 105 N.J.L. 57; 143 A. 526; 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 458
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Minturn
- **Judges:** G-Ummere, Trewchart, Lloyd, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3564038

## Opinion text

Minturn, J.
(dissenting). While in this day the right of the legislative branch of government to regulate the exercise of the franchise must be accepted as an established constitutional truism, and beyond the realm of reasonable criticism, still the books are replete with cases which exhibit the judicial effort to so guard the exercise of this undoubted power, as to prevent even its well-intentioned exercise from lapsing into the realm of prohibition or transgression, and thus unconsciously invade the clear legal right of the citizen. Eor concededly as the power to tax involves within the generic concession, when unrestrained within limitations of reasonableness, the power to destroy, so any governmental concession may be so exercised, as to seriously impair the funda
*66
mental power upon which it is based, and from which it derives its power to function. Thus in the case
sub judice
if the' necessity for reasonable remedial legislation be conceded, the inquiry persists whether any piece of legislation may not in its practical application so far impinge upon that rule of legal reason, which has come to be denominated as the constitutional doctrine of due process of law, and which invariably requires a notice and hearing as a necessary preliminary to condemnation.
Webster, in his famous argument in the Dartmouth College ease ( 4
Wheat.
518 ), clarified this essential doctrine of the common law so vividly that his language has become almost axiomatic in constitutional jurisprudence: “By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.”
The practical effect of the legislation in controversy is to reverse these prerequisites of constitutional adjudication, and to subject the voter to condemnation before the election board where he has been registered, without first giving him an opportunity to be heard in explanation or extenuation of his status before the board or the accusing official.
The act in that respect is therefore subject to judicial criticism, as an invasion of the constitutional right of the citizen to be legally protected in the lawful exercise of the franchise and to that extent is unconstitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3564038. Public record. Not legal advice.