Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-12-04
AN ELECTION OUTRAGE.


A school election was held in this city
yesterday, at which fragrant outrage upon
voters was committed The law requires
that the polls shall open at a. NJ and
shall not close until P. NJ. A simpler,
more clearly stated law does not appear
upon the statute books Yet, in the face
Of this provision, which the Judges and
Inspectors of Election had solemnly sworn
to support and enforce, the polls through
out the city closed at about 4:3l. The
election officers defended their action by
citing the Trustees call for the election,
which prescribed that the polls should
open at o'clock morning was not named)
and close at "sundown." 1t does not seem
to have occurred to the Judges and In
spectors that they were sworn to obey the
election laws Of the State and not
the illegal and blundering proclama-
ton. 1t is simply amazing that after the
experience of last year, when this same
matter was gone over and just such another
blunder was made by the City Audi
tor, who is said to have this year also
drawn the Trustees proclamation, that the
thing should have been repeated. 1t was
an odd mixture at best. The old law re-
quired the polls to open one hour after
sunrise and close at "sunset; ;" the pro-
clamation adopted the new State law
so far as o'clock was concerned,
but omitted in the morning."
and placed the closing hour
at sundown," whatever hour that may
be. In the Santa Clara school election case,
where the polls were not opened, by order
of Board of School Directors, until P.
M. and closed at P. NJ, the Supreme
Court held the election to be invalid as
against any protest, and that the illegal
call would not validate the election.
People VS.. Scale, 81 Cal. Rep.) The
Court could not hold otherwise, since, if
the officers of election boards have the
right to close the polls a moment earlier
than the hour fixed by law, they have an
equal right to close them an hour, two,
four, six or ten hours before the legal time
arrives, and thus rob the citizens of the
most sacred right guaranteed to them. 1t
makes no sort of difference that the prob
ability is different result would not have
followed had the polls remained open until
P. NJ. yesterday. The right of the hum
blest citizen to vote ten seconds before the
stroke of is as sacred as the right of ten
thousand who may have voted earlier.
Any voter had the right to trust the de-
posting of his ballot to the limit pre-
scribed by the statute, and any deprivation
of that privilege was an outrage upon
him. In this case it is improbable that in
two of the wards any different result
of the election would have followed obe-
dience to the law; in one ward it is prob
able change would have resulted. 1t is
the principle involved, not the specific
election of yesterday. If the election
laws can be trifed with as they were yes
terday without rebuke, the liberty of the
citizen is in imminent peril. Incompe-
tency manifest in the drawing of the proc
lamation cannot excuse fiat violation of
the Code, especially when at every polling
place the election boards were warned that
in closing at that mythical hour, "sun-
down." they were defying the very law
under which the election was held.
AS the Supreme Court has held it to be
essential that a notice for an election shall
conform to the general election law, and
state the time when the election is to be
held, and that if it fails to do so, it Is ille-
gal; and as no time specified in any law
was stated in the notice referred to, the
question forces itself to the front whether
legal election was held at all Yesterday,
and whether voters were not justified in
holding the notice to be valueless because
not in conformity with the law. If the
election is so tainted with illegality, the
Trustees ought not to condone it, but
should, of their own motion, refuse to can
vass the returns, simply and solely because
it is dangerous to ignore violations of
election laws, and because no citizen
elected yesterday desires to hold an educa-
tional office, and act in it in matters affect
ing public interests, under cloud as to his
title to the place. He is entitled to have
his selection at the polls cleared of all
doubt, even if it requires special election
to do it. There is this simple proposition
for the Trustees to consider-their procla-
nation for yesterdays election reads:
''The election will be conducted according
to the general election law" and then
proceeds to call an election at hours not
provided in the General election law
can such a call be recognized as legal?