The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-11-22
The Constitutional Amendments and the
Question Of Their Adoption.

Question Of Their Adoption.
Ithas been assumed, without argument,
as plain proposition, by several newsps'
pers, in speakingo the vote on the amend.
ments, that ballots having on them both
the expressions, "For Ratification" and
"For Rejection" should not be counted.
But an examination OF the law will show
that this proposition Is not so plain, but
on the contrary probably erroneous. Now,
it may granted that under the common
law Of elections, where voter has left on
his ballot the names OF more than one
candidate for the same Office, 1t is to be re-
jeCted as to that Office Tor uncertainty, be-
cause the voter has failed to express his
choice clearly, for 1t is hot certain for
which he intended to vote. But this rule
does not prevail in West Virginia. Sec.
81, chap. lis, acts 1923, OF the General
Election law, provides that "if any ballot
be found to contain more than the proper
number OF names for any Office that, first
on the ballot shall only be counted as to
said Office"
This changes the common law. Here
the Legislature has presumed that the
voter read his ballot as far as the first
name, and being satisfied with that read
no further, and more likely intended to
vote for the first name than the second, or
than not to vote at all. For some reason
the Legislature has chosen to fix this as a
rule, that the first name on the ballot only
shall be counted. Is this the rule govern
ing the election on the amendments? II
30, then the first expression on the ballot,
whether "For Ratification" or "For Re-
lection" should be counted. Now, the
act submitting the amendment, after pro-
viding that the question otthe ratification
or rejection Of the amendments should be
voted on at the general election, provides:
1.-THE said election at each place OF voting
shall be- superintendent, conducted and re-
turned, and there's eofGscertatncd by the
same officers and in The same manner as the
election OF members OF the Legislature is
superintendent, conducted and returned,
and the result thereof asCertained at said
election. And all provisions of the law
relating to general elections, as far as ap'
plicable, shall apply to the election held
under the provisions OF this act, except
where it is herein otherwise provided"
Here the Legislature applies to this con-
test between Ratification and Rejection
the same rules Of procedure, so iaras they
can be made to apply, as between candi'
dates for the Legislature; establishes an
analogy between them; assimilates one to
the other; makes one the guide for the
other; the election as to the one is to be
superintended in the same manner, con-
Quoted in the same manner, re-
turned in the game manner, and its result
ascertained in the same manner as the
other. Not content with this, out OF
greater care, 1t declares that all provisions
OF law relating to general elections, shall,
as far as applicable, apply to the election
on the Amendments. In drafting this act
the Legislature did not deem it necessary
to make the act endless by incorporating
minute details as to the innumerable
points arising in elections, but seeing no
reason why this election between those
two impersonal candidates, Ratification
and Rejection, each representing opposite
ideas as distinctly as two competing candi-
dates for the Legislature represent distinct
persona, should not be held under the
slme rules, simply declared that the cleo
ton on the Amendment should be
superintendent, conducted, returned,
and it's result ascertained in the
some manner as in the case Of candidates
for the Legislature, and made the general
election law applicable toit. Does notthe
actmake candidates OF Ratification and Re-
lection by assimiIating them to candidates
for the Legislature? Now, in asCertaining
the result and making returns OF an cleo
ton between candidates for the Legisla.
ture, ballot with two names for that
Office is counted for the frat name. Why?
Because the general election law says so.
In that "manner" the election is TO be con-
Quoted and it's result Gscertained. So,
when ballot is found having the two ex-
pressions, "For ratification" and "For re-
lection" count it for the first expression
appearing omit. Why? Because, it was done
as to candidates for Legislature. Such
is the manner OF counting such ticket for
that'oftice, and:such the manner ofascertain-
ing the result as to It; aud the act says the
result Of the election on the amendment
shall be ascertained in the same manner as
in case Of members Of the Legislature. II
the two things are identified and as
simulated by the act in other respects, why
separate them in this? If they are the
same in some respects for election pur-
poses, why separate them in this? This
act Of counting a ticket, determining it's
effect, is essentially part OF the act Of as'
certaining the result, and pertains to the
manner Of ascertaining it and returning it.
Under the act why not adopt the same
process and manner OF counting ticket
and ascertaining the voters choice as be-
tween candidates for tho Legislature2
When the act was passed, the Legislature
know such was the rule as to two names
on ticket for the Legislature, and it
must have contemplated the probability
Of both expressions on tickets in
the amendment election. What may
reasonably be supposed to have been in
tended by the Legislature, to throw away
the vote or count It for tho flrst express
sionP Also, the voters must be supposed
to have known the rule OF counting the
first name as to candidates, and that it was
necesaarv To atrike ont other names II the