The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-11-16
MARKING THE TICKET
Important Decision by Michi-
gan Supreme Court.
A SINGLE MARK IS a VOTE.



printed. in an Associated Press dispatch.
a synopsis OF decision By the Michigan
supreme court or the marking of the Aus
tralian ballot. The decision is important
because il leaves no ground for ". a.
Mover 10 contest the election Of A. T. Wan
de yanter as sheriff of King county.
Tire Detroit Journal prints 9 summary Of
the Michigan decision in the following
dispatch from Lansing:
No more important and far reaching de-
cision has been made in the supreme
court in years than that in the opinion
fled yesterday in the. case of the Attorney
General ex rel James A Scott VS.. James
Chaser, by which the latter is ousted from
the Office OF comptroller Of West Bay City
snd Scott declared elected. There was a
dispute over the result OF the election, and
q recount was ordered. Scott complained
that on the recount some forty ballots
which should have been thrown out were
counted for Chaser, ard the latter declared
elected.
The main question which the court va.
called upon TO decide was what consti-
tutes distinguishing marks on ballot
within the meaning of the law. This
question has never before been before the
court for determination, and Justice
Montgomery treated 10 in an exhaustive
opinion, which was coneurred in by all the
other justices. Similar statutes and de-
cissons Of other states were considered and
the opinion concluded a. follows:
These cases support what We believe to
be the true rule, that any mark upon
ballot. other than one appropriate to des-
ignate the intention of the voter, must be
regarded as a distinguishing mark. Any
other rule would result In endless confu-
sion and would make the local inspectors
judges Of the voters intention and lead to
t.
purpose of the legislature 10 provide
against the necessity for this by laying
dow rules for the guidance of the voter
and providing q simple method of regis
terlng the vote: and while. in some IN
stances a rigid adherence to the prescribed
method may Result IN throwing out honest
ballots. we have not been able to find any
safe middle ground 10 occupy. Either the
question Of the voters intent must be
he'd question of fact in all cases to
be determined by the inspectors on an
examination OF the ballot, or Ii must be
held that such marks and such only as
can, under the law, be properly placed
upon the ballot. and as are necessary to be
there placed to register the voters intent,
are permissible. The only instance in
which an unnecessary mark Is recognized
as possible Is in section "a. where it is pro-
v!ded that II the elector votes for more
than one person for the same Office, such
ballot shall not be counted for those per-
sons. but shall be, as 10 them, null and
void. This implies that mark may be
made in such manner as not to ind cate
whom tie voter intended to vote for. This
might we'll have occurred under the law of
1891 through an unsuccessful attempt to
vote for candidate on the opposing
ticket as, under section 20 /: was not only
necessary TO mark the name of such can
didate with 8 cross. but also 20 erase the
- a.. l.k. 4. -.
ticket. BY the law Of 1898 the legislature
has wisely dispensed with the necessity Tor
the erasure of the name.
Applying the rule of construction
which we think should obtain, in this case
there can be no doubt that the relator was
elected. A large number of the defective
ballots had a cross under the party name
OF the Republican and also OF the Citizens
ticket. The tickets were, il is true identi-
Cal but a single mark constituted \ VOTE
and the second mark was wholly unneces-
sary and inappropriate TO register the
voters intent as much so as would have
been any mark placed under the Demo-
cratic ticket. Such mark might have been
an agreed means for identification of the
ballot and must be held to have been
distinguishing mark. There were also a
number of tickets in which the names of
the candidates as they appeared on both
tickets both being Identical, were marked
These are subject 10 the same considera-
tons
As above stated, the law provides that
where the candidate desires to vote a
straight ticket, il shall only be necessary
10 mark a cross under the party name In
such cases there are no conditions under
which the voter Is required 70 erase names
on another party ticket. or place any
mark on such tickets. unless he desires TO
vote for some candidate whose name an
n ~ Ia ha
to place cross in the square opposite the
name of such candidate. There are a
number of ballots counted for respondent
in which tue voter has, after marking one
party ticket, erased By cross or straight
mark the names on the opposing ticket
AS these marks or erasures are no;
only wholly unnecessary. but under the
law inappropriate To express any iu-
tent. they must be treated as dis
tnguishing marks. There are numer-
Gus other tickets which IT is not neces-
sary to specially designate. A large
number contain not only the necessary
cross under the party's name but from
one 10 a dozen other crosses. Others con-
tain particular devices. In one instance
name Is written on a portion of ticket
which does not purport TO be the name of
a candidate for any Office. These tickets
fall 50 clearly within the rule that il is uu-
necessary 10 further particularize.
the certificate of the inspectors was illegal:
was not signed until the day alter election;
whereas. the law provides that immedi-
ately on closing the polls the board shall
proceed 10 count the votes, and after the
count has been completed the result shall
Immediately be publicly declared. On
this point the court says:
THE board dad not IN tact complete the
canvass on the night Of the election, bat
the return bears date the next day We
do not think the delay in csnvassing the
vote should result ia Observation-Disclosures of
the voters. Ii would be a dangerous rule
10 establish. that the board of election in
spectors could thwari the giil of the vot-
ers by 4 neglect 10 perform the duty
imposed upon them BY statute, except
where the plain provisions Of the statute
require H.
There can Re no doubt that the effect Of
this decision wlll be far-reachinx, as in a
great majority of the precincts Of the state
ballots TIA, were marked in one or another
OF the ways the court now holds 20 he
Illegal we're counted. In many precinct.
rubber stamps we're provided for the ex-
press purpose OF eraslng the names Of can
dsGates for whom electors Sho sp.it their
tickets did not desire TO vote.