The record-union., 1892-10-17
Special to the RucoRD-Ux1ox.

A@Ofo 1ANOElHLS. OSb. 1O.-4Hb EOuDG6IllS
| Court, sitting in bank yesterday, rendered
a decision III regard to the official ballots
| to be used at the coming election. While
the decision relates directly to the local
ticket in San Francisco, it affects all
others in the State. Its effect is that no
straight ballots can be cast simply by
stamping a cross at the head of the ticket,
but the name of each candidate must be
voted for separately, requiring the use of
the stamp for each name.
The decision is rendered on the applica-
ton of f. w. Eaton on behalf of the
Non-Partisan party of San Francisco for
a writ of mandate directing Registrar
Brown of San Francisco to insert the
name of the Non-partisan party at the
head of the official ballots.
The full text of the important decision
is as follows:
F. w. Eaton VS.. William A. Brown ct
al, spondents.-At its last session the
Legislature, by series of amendments
to the Political Code, engrafted upon our
election law the system of voting by
what is popularity known as the reform
or Australian ballot.
The main feature of the system is
Cnitorm official ballot printed and sup
pied by the proper public officers. con-
tanning the names of all the candidates to
be voted for, upon which the voter desig-
mates his choice by stamping cross.
In all cases this may be done by stamp
ing a cross opposite the name of each
candidate for whom the elector desires to
cast his vote.
But, by u clause at the end of section
1857, it is provided as follows: ''At the
head of each ballot shall be printed in
separate lines the names of all political
parties which have filed certificates of
nomination of candidates in accordance
with Sections llS6 and ll87 of the code
thus: Regular Republican Ticket
Straight, opposite the name of each
party, and on the same line Herewith
there shall be margin similar to that
therein required to the left opposite the
name of each candidate in which the
voter may place the mark in the manner
specified in Section l205 of the
code if he desires to vote for
all the candidates of each party:
bat a ballot so marked shall not be
counted if it be stamped in any other
place except to indicate voter votes
upon a constitutional amendment or
other question.
The petitioner in this case is one of the
candidates of party calling itself the
Citizens NonPartisan party, which has
nominated list of candidates for county
and local offices in the city and county
of San Francisco. He claimed that said
party has complied with all the condi-
tions emitting it to have printed at the
head of the municipal ballots to be used
at the approaching election in the city
and county of San Francisco the words
Citizens Non-Partisan Ticket as a
party designation by which it may be
voted straight by stamping a cross oppo-
site such headings. He had demanded of
the defendants, who are respectively the
Registrar and the members of the Board
of Election Commissioners of the citv
and county of San Francisco, that they
cause the ballots to be used at such cleo
ton to be so printed, and they have re-
fused. He therefore asks. by his original
proceeding, to compel the defendant, by
mandamus, to comply with his demand
The argument of counsel has been prin-
cipally devoted to the question whether
or not the party by which the petitioner
was nominated has shown that it's pro-
ceedings bring it within the terms or en-
title it to the privilege conferred bv the
provisions above quoted, but the conclu-
sion at which we have arrived renders
decision of these questions entirely un-
necessary.
We are of the opinion that, as this pro-
viso of the law is, it is an attempt to dis
criminate against classes of voters, and
its effect, if allowed to be valid, would be
to subject such classes to the alternative
of partial disfranchisement or to the cast
ing of their votes upon more burdensome
conditions than others no bettor entitled
under the fraudulent law to the free and
untrammeled exercise of the right of
suffrage.
The vital importance of the question in
volved would justify an extended and
elaborate discussion of the grounds of
our conclusion, but the extreme necessity
of a speedy decision in order to afford a
emf mt n M ho1 fe
and to inform the electors of the proper
mode of expressing their choice compels
us to rest content with the briefest state
ment of our views.
1t is a well-known fact, illustrated by
the history of the party which the petit
toner represents, that there are parties
having merely local existence-parties,
that is to say, which upon some local
issue affecting a single county or few
counties, poll in such county or counties
at least 3 per cent. of the votes cast at
given election, or which can secure the
signatures of per cent. of the voters TO
petition, but have no existence elsewhere
in the State. There are other parties, per-
haps, which at an election will cast per
cent of all the votes cast in the entire
State, but in many counties will cast
smaller percentage of the votes.
In the case first supposed the party
casting three per cent. OF the vote in a
county at one election could at the next
election, upon my construction of the
law, nominate by convention a full
county ticket, could certify it and secure
ballot heading by party designation,
but such designation would not apply to
any candidate for a State or district office,
such as Presidential Elector or member
of Congress.
The result of having a party designa-
ton at the head of the ticket would be,
therefore, to disfranchise the voter who
made use OF it as TO all State and district
officers, or if he attempted to supplement
his straight ticket by stamping his choice |
for individual candidates for such officers |
he would be disfranchised altogether, for |
under the law his ballot could not be |
counted. The ticket heading in such a |
case could do the voters of party |
no possible good, but would simply be a |
lure by which they could be, and in many |
instances would be, entrapped into loss |
of their votes.
In the second case supposed, all the |
ballots used in the State would have a !
party heading, but in many of the coun- |
ties the party would have no local ticket, !
and in all such counties the voter stamp
ing the ticket would vote for State officers !
only and would be disfranchised as to all |
district and county officers, and his vote
would be wholly lost, such being the re-
suit inevitably flowing from the operation
of this provision of the law if allowed to
be operated.