Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-11-09
Ad,!castrr t,,tel.:genrer.
auEsDAY EVENING, NOV. 9, 1880.
Unlawful Ballots.

The New York election law provides
that {: 1t shall be unlawful for any per-
son to print and distribute, or to cast
any ballot printed or partly printed con-
trary to the provisions of this act, or to
mark the ballot of any voter, or to dellv-
er to any voter such marked ballot for
the purpose Of ascertaining how he Shall
vote at any election.' The act provides
the kind Of type which shall be used in
printing the back of the ticket. The Re-
publican tickets, OF some of them, were
not so printed and it seems to be rea-
sonably held that they were unlawfully
voted. Some election inspectors refused
al first to receive them, but subsequent
ly did SO under protest and reserving
the right to reject them if they should
be held to he illegal. The interesting
question now is whether they ought to he
counted. There is no disputing the fact
that the tickets were not according to
law: nor that the persons who "print-
ed, :: distributed'' or g cast" the bal
lots, violated the law and are liable to
punishment. But still it is said that
the election inspectors were not forbid
den to receive the ballots and that there
fore it was their duty 10 receive them.
That does not seem to be sound ar
gument. 1t would seem that the inspec-
tors had q right to reject the unlawful
ballot: whether they were bound to do
it may be another question; and whether,
if they received the ballot, it should be
rejected in the count as unlawful, is still
another question. The law expressly de-
clares that il shall be unlawful to cast a
ballot not properly printed and certain
ly what cannot be lawfully cast ought not
TO he lawfully received. 1t is true, that
the interpreters of the law will sacrifice
form to substance 10 secure the suf-
frage of an honest voter; but the
New York law, passed to prevent i'll
tim;dation of voters or scrutiny Of
ballcts. SO clearly expresses what shall
and what shall not he a lawful ticket
that it will not he easy for the judiciary
to nullify it. The law can hardly be SC
absurdiy construed as to declare that il
means to punisl, the voter who casts Z
wrongly printed ballot, but still will moi
deprive him of the right to have it re-
ceived and counted. The punishment
intended, and the only one applicable, is
to refuse to takehis ballot and let hin
provide himself with a lawful one, rs he
may readily do.
Something like this question come:
up in PENNSYLVANIA, though under
the language Of our law it is posi-
ble to print the tickets in any kind Of
type. 1t simply provides that the
name of the Office to he filled
'and that only" shall be printed on th'
outside of the ballot. The design wa:
the same as i'm the New York law, tt
keep the political character of the vote
frcm being detected. In our state thu
type not Icing specified, the laws object
IS nullified. In this campaign, however
the Republicans violated it literally by
putting on their tickets something mor'
than the designation of the Office. 1t wa
not ''that only, but in addition they Ia;
engraved lines and fancy designs, which
the law clearly prohibits. Our law doe
not in words hut only 10y inference
prohibit these ballots from being cast
and So does not present the stron.
question OF their legality which is afford
ed in New York and which is very sc
rioUS