The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-08-15
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
voting for senator In November.

To the Editor Of The Appeal
In an editorial Of the 10th instant you
state that question might be raised as to
the validity Of a ballot, ii II should contain
the expression OF the choice Of the elcctor
for senatorial candidate. have exam.
ined the law upon this question and am
clearly OF the opinion there is nothing in
the objections raised. Article 4, section |
OF the constitution makes no provisions as
to the ballot other than that the General
Assembly shall pass laws to secure the
freedom Of elections and the purity OF the
ballot box. My suggestion does not, in
any way, conflict with these sacred rights.
Section 1854 simply declares "that n
ballot is a ticket, or scroll Of paper, pur-
porting TO express the voters choice"
This is Just what ask TO be done. II may
be conceded, however, that the words,
"voter's choice, refers to his choice for
some person for one OF the offices TO be
filed at said election. Yet II the ballot
give an expression OF choice for person
Tor some other office, this would not inyal-
idatc the ballot. Such expression would
Do no part Of the ballot, and could
not be held 10 be such, aud could
in no sense affect the ballot, which
in all other respects meets the
requirements OF the law. The other sec
ton of the code 1903, referred 10, is Ms
follows, viz "lf there be two tickets
rolled up together, or II the ticket con-
tains the names OF more persons than the
clector has right TO vote for, in either OF
these cases, such ticket shall not be mum.
bcred in tabing the ballots, but shall be
adjudgcd void" ID Is manifested that the
purpose OF the first clause Of this section,
Is TO secure the purity of the ballot box by
making invalid not only the extra vote
80 cast, but also the vote that the elector
had the right 10 cast. And the other
clause applies solely 10 tickets containing
more names Of persons for particular
Office 10 be filed by the ballots in that
election than the number 90 be elected.
For illustration, there are two Stltc scna-
tors 10 he elected nj the November cleo.
ton, and II any voter east ballot con.
tanning the names Of three persons for the
office OF senator his ballot would be void,
as 90 that office, but valid as TO other can.
didates voted for. There are many author.
tiles holding that ballot NAV he void as
to persons voted for for one office, and
valid rs 10 the persons voted for for an.
other Office, "a will be seen by n reference
90 McCreay on elections This provision
was made 10 aid the judges in counting
the vote and preventing confusion, for
no judge In such case could omit the
votes for one Of the persons voted for and
count the ballots for the other two. There.
fore II will be- seen that the provisions on
the subjects OF the validity OF the ballots
apply ohly 20 the security Of an honest
ballot and has no reference whatever %
anything that may be annexed 10 the bal.
lot not affecting this right. There Is no
law, Oi course, requiring the judges of
elections 10 count aud report such vote,
but II Is highly improbable that they
would decline TO do 80. My object In
suggesting such expression Of choice for
United States senator was 10 limit this
expression Of choice 10 those electors who
vote the Democratic ticket, and thus avoid
any charge on either side that the matter
was determined by Republican votes.
But my chief object was TO remove this
cause Of discord from tho coming conyen.
ton aud the canvass and settle IL on the
day Of the general election. But 20 far Ms
! am individually concerned, II my party
In IL wisdom should determine 20 have
separate ballot boxes 30 hold said primary
election | will be content Either mode
will be satisfactory 10 me.
w. w. McDowELL.