# Giles v. Teasley

> Supreme Court of Alabama · November 15, 1902 · 136 Ala. 228

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6519864

## Case

- **Full name:** Giles v. Teasley Board of Registrars, &c.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** November 15, 1902
- **Citations:** 136 Ala. 228
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Tyson
- **Judges:** Tyson
- **Cited by:** 0 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/6519864

## Opinion text

TYSON, J.
The petition in this case is for a writ of mandamus to compel the board of registrars for Montgomery county to register the petitioner as an elector. It alleges that sections 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 and 188 of Art. VIII of the constitution of 1901, fixing the qualifications of electors and prescribing the mode of registration, are unconstitutional because violative of the 14th and 15th amendments of the constitution of the United States. The prayer is in substance that these sections of the constitution above enumerated be declared null and void, and that an alternative writ of mandamus issue to the board of registrars commanding them to register as a qualified elector of the State of Alabama, upon the books provided therefor, the name of petitioner and to issue to him a certificate of the fact in disrega-of said section of the constitution, etc., etc.
•As these sections of the constitution assailed created the board of registrars, fixed their tenure of office, defined and prescribed their duties, if they are stricken down on account of being unconstitutional, it is entirely clear that the board would have no existence and no duties to perform. So, then, taking the case as-made by the petition, without deciding the constitutional ques *230 tion attempted to be raised or intimating anything as to the correctness of the contention on that question, there would he no hoard to perform the duty sought to be compelled by the writ and no duty imposed of which the petitioner can avail himself in this proceeding, to say nothing of his right to be registered.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6519864. Public record. Not legal advice.