The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-01-31
MARK YOUR BALLOTS RIGHT.


MARK YOUR BALLOTS RIGHT.
The supreme court has made a de-
cision in the case of Sego VS.. Stoddard.
which is of much interest to the entire
state. Sego was the democratic candi-
date for sheriff in Porter county at the
election Of 1892, and the voters of that
county seem to have exercised their
ingenuity to see how many ways they
could vote without voting as the Law
provides. The board of canvassers did
not count sixty-lve ballots that had
been protested. and gave a majority OF
three to Stoddard. Sego contested and
in the circuit court part OF these were
counted. but Stoddard's majority was
increased. As the case reached the
supreme court twenty-five ballots were
in controversy. and these were marked
in all magma BILE ways.
ono ballot had a lead pencil mark
across the name of one candidate ON
another stamp-mark had been erased
by knife and hole had been scraped
through tho ballot Another is stamped
in the square containing the device Of
the eagle ana also between the word
republican" and the name Of the first
candidate. Two others were stamped on
the rooster and also on each square 10
the left of the name Of democratic
candidate one was stamped on the
eagle and also on The squares opposite
the names Of two democratic candidates,
although there were candidates opposing
them on tie republican ticket. Another
was stamped on the rooster and also
to the left Of One democratic candidate.
Two or three were stamped in squares
TO the left Of places left blank in the
prohibition ticket. where no candidate
had been nominated. but properly else
where. Five We're stamped more than
once in the large square containing the
party device.
The court (opiniOn by Judge NIcCabe)
holds that all Of these ballots were void
as having distinguishing marks under
the statute, and. therefore, sustains the
statute I'm the strict construction that
which. indeed. is necessary for the ef-
fective enforcement Of the law 1t does
away with the idea that ballot is 70
be counted if the intent of the voter"
appears. even if the ballot is marked
contrary to law. The court says:
Appellants counsel earnestly insist
that though the ballot is not stamped
as the statute requires, and in violation
of its terms vet unless there IS proof
that the unauthorized or prohibited
marking was done by the voter for "A
corrupt motive the ballot must he
counted. Such a construction would be
utterly subversive of the leading idea,
thought and purpose Of the act.
After reviewing the evils Of vote-buy
ing and intimida ton which the act was
intended TO prevent the court en-
phasizes the point that the purpose Of
the act was not to afford relief against
the fraud of vote-buying and bribery
after its commission" but Ito absolutely
shut the door against making merchan-
disc of his vote by the corruptible voter.
as nearly as human ingenuity could de
wise such a plan" This is clearly the
intention of the law. and il is gratify
ing that the court has decided that the
law is to be enforced to the utmost limit
of the intent. In this case it gives an
Office to a republican. and therefore,
notice is given that the law viii not be
weakened a particle for partisan pur-
poses by the present bench. The court
and the people are to be congratulated
on the decision.