This is not so in the present case where the complete definition of the offense is entirely separable from the exception and can be made without any reference to the latter.
The unadorned statement in Article V of the Constitution is a simple but sacred avowal of faith in the efficacy and durability of the democratic process.
It was not incumbent on the prosecution to make the allegation, because the matter was something for the accused to assert and establish in his defense.
It is a recognition that the people in their sovereign character are the fountainhead of governmental authority, and that their right to participate in the power process is indispensable for democratic government to constitute an effective instrument of social control.
For that purpose and vis-a-vis other voters, the aforequoted legal precept guaranteed her the rights 1 to vote in the order of her entrance into the polling place; 2 to freely enter the polling place as soon as she arrived unless there were then more than forty voters waiting inside; and 3 in the latter eventuality, to enter in the order of her arrival as those inside went out.
So that the key to the problem at hand lies in the determination of whether, to sufficiently charge a violation of that right, the indictment should explicitly negate the exception.