Arizona weekly enterprise., 1888-11-03
A Ballot Controversy.

 waging during the past few days re- garding the construction put upon the election law by some of the candidates regarding the form of the election tickets. The present election pre- sents the novel feature of having no regularly nominated ticket and from two to nine candidates are before the people for every office. For the pur- pose of saving time and ingenuity some of the candidates have placed the name of every candidate excepting their immediate opponent upon the tickets they have ordered. This, 1t is contended, is in direct violation oi both the letter and the spirit of the law, and will occasion the throwing out of all such ballots in case of legal contest arising.
 The law fully describes the kind of ticket to be used and says: "The word for comprises the top line, the margins both sides of it being equal in size. The line after the top one commences with the figure one, then follows immediately on the same line the name of the first office designated by the board of supervisors, in it's or der issued under section 2, of chapter six, of this act; and lastly on the same line, the name of the person voted for. EACH SUBSEQUENT LINE commences with the figure NEXT IN NUMERICAL OR DER, and such number is in like man ner immediately followed by the name of the OFFICE DESIGNATED and the per son voted for, so that the offices shall appear upon the ticket IN THE ORDER DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD OF SUPER vIsoRs, and be numbered IN NUNEsI CAL ORDER, commencing with number one," etc.
 A form of ticket is likewise illustrs- ted in the law, conforming to the above requirements, as follows for
 1. DELEGATE TO CONGRESS, FRANK CONFER | 2. MEMBER or CoUKClL, PaILIP Ross 3. MExsER OF ASSEMBLY, A. g. WARDEN.
 etc. etc. etc.
 The form used in some of the tick cts in this county is substantially as follows
 l. DEtEGsTs TO CoNesnss FRANK CONFER.
 2. JOINT CoUHCILaAN, B. JONES. l 3. MRMBBE or COUNCIL, PHILIP Ross
 3. MEMBKR OF CoUNctL, JOHN DOE.
 4 hEsBER OF ASSEMBLY, R. ROVE | A. MENRER OF AsSEaRLY, K. SWIFT
 0. PROBATE JgDGE, P. COKE | a. PROBATE JUDsE, c. RoKE
 and so forth, giving the names of all the candidates in the field, with the supposition that the voter will care fully scratch such names as he will not support.
 It is plainly evident that such a ticket does not comply with the con ditions of the law above quoted, and Paragraph 1873 of the election law provides that "when q ballot found in any ballot box does not conform to the requirements of sections to Il inclusive, of this chapter, it MUST, with ALL its contents, be rejected" The requirements alluded to include those above quoted
 On the other hand others claim that relief is afforded by section 1866 which reads ss follows. "No ballot or part thereof must be rejected by req son of any obscurity therein in rela- tion to the name of the person voted for or the designation of the office, il the board, from an inspection of the ballot, can determine the person voted for and the office intended"
 While the surest way is to be abso- lutely correct, yet such tickets are al ready in the field and voters are eau toned to exercise extreme care ir erasing all superhuous names from tickets, lest his friends thereon be made to suffer by reason of the ballot being thrown out as illegal