Opinion Per Curiam.

parties contesting the same shall have the right, after a prima facie case of fraud, mistake or error is shown, to have said ballots opened and all errors made in counting corrected.

It is clear that if the word "elections" in this section shall be held to include primary elections, and the phrase "contested elections" to include contested primary elections, then the provisions of the statute regulating contested elections would have to be followed, and under the provisions of Section 5148, General Code, supra, the jurisdiction in such case is conferred upon the court of common pleas.

It is contended that Section 5006, General Code, contains authority to make the recount sought in this case. By the provisions of Section 5005, General Code, it is enacted that certificates of nomination and nominating papers shall be preserved and be open under proper regulations to public inspection, and that if in apparent conformity with the provisions of this chapter (Ch. 7, Tit. XIV, Part First) shall be deemed to be valid, unless objection thereto is made in writing in five days after the filing thereof; and Section 5006 provides that "Such objections or other questions, arising in the course of the nomination of candidates, shall be considered as follows." Then follow provisions under which the objections, or other questions, as to state, district, county, township and municipal offices, shall be considered by the different boards of supervisors, in each instance it being provided that the decision shall be final.

Before the writ of mandamus can issue it must be shown that the defendants were clearly invested

Opinion Per Curiam,

with the authority to do the thing which they are here sought to be ordered to do.

If the language "such objections or other questions arising in the course of the nomination of candidates" shall be held to be broad enough, and that the legislature intended thereby to clothe the supervisors in the different subdivisions of the state, and the state supervisor with respect to state officers, with authority to conduct a recount of the ballots at a primary election, it would seem to logically and necessarily follow that the language would be broad enough to include everything involved in any proceeding to contest a primary election.

Such a conclusion we think is not warranted from the language used. Section 21, Article II of the Constitution, provides: "The general assembly shall determine, by law, before what authority, and in what manner, the trial of contested elections shall be conducted."

As already pointed out the statute has conferred such authority upon the courts of common pleas as to contests of elections. If it had been the intention of the legislature to confer upon the supervisors the power to conduct proceedings for the contest of primary elections, apt and definite language would have been used for that purpose.

For these reasons the demurrer will be sustained and the writ refused. Writ refused.

NICHOLS, C. J., JONES, MATTHIAS, JOHNSON, WANAMAKER and AVERY, JJ., concur.

ROBINSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

24

Stater..ent of the Case.

THE STATE, EX REL. KLEIN, v. HILLENBRAND ET AL., DEPUTY STATE SUPERVISORS AND

INSPECTORS OF ELECTIONS, ETC.

Elections -Registration of electors - Statement of age in years, in months-Section 4906, General Code - Constitutional lawSection 1, Article V, Ohio Constitution — Article XIX, Amendments to U. S. Constitution.

Sections 4892, 4903, 4906, 4908, 4909 and 4911, General Code, in the respect that they require an applicant for registration as a qualified elector of a municipality to state his or her age in years and months, do not deny or abridge the constitutional right of citizens to vote, or injuriously, unreasonably or unnecessarily restrain, impair or impede its exercise, but are reasonable, uniform and impartial provisions to regulate, facilitate and secure the exercise of this right, and to prevent its abuse; and said sections are in that respect not in conflict with Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of Ohio as modified and controlled by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(No. 16809 — Decided October 5, 1920.)

IN MANDAMUS.

This proceeding is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants, as deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections, and their agents, to register the relator as an elector of the city of Cincinnati at the election to be held November 2, 1920.

The petition in substance alleges that the relator, Eva Klein, is and has been for more than one year a bona fide resident of Cincinnati; that she is a citizen and an elector of said city, more than twentyone years of age, and entitled to register and vote at the election on November 2, 1920; that she lives

Statement of the Case.

at No. 833 Blair avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, within precinct K of the 13th ward of said city; that the defendants R. J. Hillenbrand, J. Harry Asmann, Thomas J. Noctor and W. J. McDevitt are the deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections in Cincinnati, and that the defendants Prescott T. Mitchell and Guy Hattaway are agents of said deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections, and acting registrars in said precinct K of the 13th ward; that on the 30th day of September, 1920, one of the days for registration in said city, the relator presented herself at the place appointed for the registration of electors in said precinct K of the 13th ward of said city, as an applicant for registration as an elector qualified to vote at the election to be held on November 2, 1920; that the defendants refused to register her as such for the reason that she would not state her age in years and months in answer to the questions put to her by said regis-. trars, although she did state to said registrars that she was more than twenty-one years of age and a citizen and an elector of Cincinnati, Hamilton county, Ohio; that Section 4906, General Code, has made it mandatory that the age in years and months of an applicant for registration be given before said applicant can be registered; that said Section 4906, General Code, in so far as it compels each applicant for registration to state said applicant's age in years and months, serves no necessary or useful purpose or public good and prevents many persons of the female sex from registering, by compelling them to submit to the tests of giving their exact age in months and years, which is

Opinion, per AVERY, J.

wholly unnecessary; and that said Section 4906, General Code, is therefore in that respect unconstitutional as in derogation of the rights conferred by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution of Ohio, as modified or controlled by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The defendants having notice of the application appear in opposition to the granting of the writ by filing a demurrer to the petition on the ground that "it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or to entitle the relator to the relief sought."

Mr. Nicholas Klein, for relator.

Mr. John G. Price, attorney general; Mr. Louis H. Capelle, prosecuting attorney; Mr. C. H. Bell and Mr. B. W. Gearheart, for respondents.

AVERY, J. The adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States conferred upon women no greater or different right with respect to the exercise of the elective franchise than had theretofore been possessed and enjoyed by men under the constitutions and laws of the states. This case is therefore to be considered without regard to the sex of the relator. The question then is whether Section 4906, General Code, in the respect that it requires the age in years and months of an applicant for registration to be stated, is unconstitutional, in that it constitutes a denial or abridgment of the constitutional right of citizens to vote, or unreasonably or unnecessarily restrains, impairs, or impedes the exercise of that