Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-16
EACH NAME MUST Be STAMPED
The Supreme Court On the New
Ballots.
Only Electors Can Be Voted For in a
Group.
A Most Important Decision Rendered
Yesterdsy-Part of the Election
Law Decided to Be I'm
constitutional.

The supreme court yesterday declared
certain sections of the new election Law
relative to ballots unconstitutional.
The case was from San Francisco, il
which F. W. Eaton applied for writ o
mandate to compel the election com
missioners to give the Citizens non
partisan ticket heading on the ballots
The supreme court denies the petition
for writ OF mandamus.
A decision in the case has been awaited
with much anxiety all over the State
The petition was the result of an opinion
given by Attorney General Hart, hold
ing that the Peoples party ticket wal
not entitled to heading on the ballots
Following the lead of the attorney-gen
eral the non partisan ticket was refused
a heading, and the application for 6
mandamus followed.
The decision was announced early yes
terday afternoon, and the news was
spread about the city in very short
time, causing much discussion amongst
politicians as to the effect it will have
upon the ensuing election. Telegrams
were sent in every direction, and by
night it was known in many parts of the
State. The full text of the important
decision is as follows:
THE OPINION.
T. w. Eaton, petitioner, vs. VIM. A.
Brown, ct al, respondents.
At it's last session, the legislature, by
q series of amendments to the political
code, engrafted upon our election law
the system of voting by means of what
is popularly known as the reform or
Australian ballot. The main feature OF
the system is uniform official ballot,
printed and supplied by the proper pub
lie officers, containing the names of all
the candidates to be voted for, upon
which the voter designates his choice
by stamping cross. In all cases this
may be done by stamping the cross op-
posite the name of each candidate for
whom the elector desires to cast his
vote. But by clause at the end of Sec
tion 1897 it is provided as follows:
SAT the head of each ballot shall be
printed in separate lines the name of
all political parties which have filed
certificates of nomination of candidates
in accordance with sections 1855 and
1lS7 OF this code, thus: Regular Repub.
lican ticket (straight). Opposite the
name OF each party, and on the same
line Herewith, there shall be margin
similar to that therein required to be
left opposite the name of each candi-
date, in which the voter may place the
mark in the manner specified in section
1905 of this code, if he desires to vote
for sll the candidates of each party; but
a ballot so marked shall not be counted
if it be stamped in any other place, ex-
cept to indicate vote or votes u pom q
constitutional amendment or other ques-
tion."
PETITION BY THE NON PARTIsANs.
The petition in this case is one of the
candidate of a party calling itself the
Citizens non, partisan party, which has
nominated list OF candidates for coun-
ty and local offices in the city and
county of San Francisco. He claims
that said party has complied with all
the conditions 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
Partizan ticket as a party designation
by which it may be voted straight by
bbhupiuk CIOSo OPPOclpC puOb bCod7
ing. He has demanded of the defend
ants, who are respectively the registrar
and the members OF the board Of elec-
tion commissioners of the city and
county of San Francisco, that they
cause the ballots to be used at said
election to be 80 printed, and they have
refused. He, therefore, asks by this
original proceeding to compel the de-
e. + Inv, IN nj NTH
his demand.
The argument of counsel has been
principally devoted to the question
whether or not the party by which the
petitioner was nominated. has shown
that its proceedings bring it within the
terms, or entitle it to the privilege con-
ferred by the provisions above quoted.
But the conclusion at which we have ar
rived, renders decision of the ques-
tions entirely unnecessary. We are OF
the opinion that this provision OF the
law is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WHOLLY VOID.
It is an attempt to discriminate
against classes of voters, and its effects,
If allowed to be valid, would be to sub
iect such classes to the alternative of
partial disfranchisement, or to the cast:
ING of their votes upon more burthen-
some conditions than others, no better
entitled under the fraudulent law to
the free and untrammeled exercise OF
the right of suffrage.
The vital Importance of the question
involved would justify an extended and
elaborate discussion of the grounds of
our conclusion, but the extreme neces-
sity of speedy decision. in order to
afford sufficient opp rtunity, to print
the ballots, and to inform the electors
of the proper mode of expressing their
choice, compels US to rest content with
the briefest statement OF our views.
II is a we'll known fact, illustrated by
history of the party which the petitioner
represents that there are parties having
merely local existence-parties, that is
to say, which upon some local issue af-
fecting single county or q few counties,
poll in such county or counties at least
3 per cent OF the votes cast at given
election, or can secure the signatures OF
5 per cent, to petition, but have no
existence elsewhere in the State. There
are other parties, perhaps which at an
election will cast 3 per cent of all
the votes cast in the entire State, but in
many counties will cast smaller per-
centage of the votes. In the
case first supposed the party costing
8 per cent Of the vote in county at
one election could at the next election,
upon my construction of the law. nomi.
ma Q by a convention full county ticket,
could certify it and secure ballot