The Portland daily press., 1893-03-20
Counting the Votes.
To the Editor of the Press:

May I be pardoned if I express doubt
as to the correctness of your position
| in stating-as appeared in this morning S
paper as follows-''It has always been
coDapetent for Selectmen of Towns to in
sist GA counting the vote without assist
ance, and avitbout being matched"
That such has been the practice with
some Selectmen and city wardens, is
true. but such practice is, I think a
wrong one, and not in accord with the
law. or the spirit of the law, as express
ed in the constitution, SO far as relates
to counting ''avithout being avatched."
Article 4. Part /, Sec. of the Consti-
tuition provides that the Selectmen land
receive the votes of all qualified electors
present, sort, count, and declare them
in open town (ward) meeting. What do
the words s'open'' meeting mean? To
my mind those words mean that such
meeting is to be ''open," not only as re-
lates to time of closing or adjourn
ing the meeting, but iopen'' as to the
character of the meeting-- OPEN as to
the acts Of the meeting, ''open'' not only
as to receiving but as to sorting"
counting and declaring" so that the
voters who chose may watch the count
ing, though taking no part therein; and
I can see no good reason for adopting the
more restricted construction which
would make the word s'open'' apply to
time and time only.
If this view is not correct, then in
many, and apparently increasing in
stances it wonld be as well to dispose
entirely, with the formality, getting to
be needless, of exercising the voting
right. and permit Selectmen and war
dens to make such returns of votes as
they deem advisable.
1t seems to me that a proper and
righteous construction of the language
of the Constitution MEANS and always
has meant that the receiving, counting
and declaring should all be .sopen.' Is
that an 'sopen'' meeting, which is open
to all up to the point of receiving all
ballots cast, and then closed meeting
as to its further acts. to all but the Sc
lectmen and Town clerk, in everything
but final adjournment?
Is closing the polls, closing the "open"
part Of the meeting, and are all its sub
sequent proceedings to be closed-or Sc
cret? If SO, under what law is this pro-
vided?
To receive, sort, count and declare in
open meeting'' would seem to require as
open action in regard to the sorting,
counting and declaring as in regard to
receiving All stand:alike in the Constitu-
ton. If selectmen are to receiue openly
or in open meeting, why are they not to
sort openly, count openly and declare
openly, What is the correct constitution
al meaning and intendment of ''open
meeting.'' Do the words apply only
in point of time, refer only to the mo-
ment of adjournment or also and equally
apply to the character of the meeting,
to the method and manner of performing
to voters and counting officers, alike as
regards their acts. The general practice,
throughout the state SO far as know, is
to do all these things openly, making no
distinction between the manner of doing
any of these acts. The Australian ballot
bill changed nothing upon this point. A
suggested amendment makes it the duty
of election clerks to be present and wit
ness the counting, but in making this
one of their official duties I do not APP
prehend the individual voter is deprived
eff his right to watch his counting board
in open meeting, if he has such right and
has always had it, as I contend is the
case.s Of these two constructions, one
preserves to the individual voter the
valuable privilege of holding within his
own scrutiny the result, which is so i'm
portant to him, of correct count, and
gives consistent effect to all the calls of
the constitutional requirement; the other
makes an ''open" meeting, open for some
purposes, closed or secret for other pur-
-, II