The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-11-26
TWO MARKS TO0MANI
An Additional X Renders the
Ballot Void.
MEANS or IDENTIFICATION.
Ths Mschixna Lsw Of 1881 ara tne
msshfnxton statute Are frse
ticzsIy the same.


IDEA Of what the provisions mean ihis
viii be welcomed b. the members oil al
uart,es. who uoa look 20 the courts for an
interpretation that will make mistakes a.
future elections the fault OF the voters
themselves. Every one will Re grained
TO learn lust what Is permisssbas and what
fornleiIsa under the isw.
The three cases Of Moyer IS. Van oe
yantsr. EAnses va Askam and Jones W.
Nsexerson turn on the same point, thss
i~ can q voter mark his ballot Ia more
than one place for one nomineeI Ihs de-
eislon under tbs NJ chigan Law - that the
additional mark might be made 70 serve as
q marx Of Identification, and therefore
that il vitiates the ballot as far 81 the par
ticular NOMINEES Is concerned. The stat
utes Of the two states have been drafted
after the same model.
Section IS OF the Michigan Law provides
that ANY ballot which shall bear any
distinguishing mark or mutlatlon Shall
be void, and shall not be counted, and any
ballot or part OF ballot from which IL IS
impossible TO determine the electors
choice Of candidates shall be void as 20
the candidate or candidates thereby al
fected.n The provision OF the Washington
Law for the preservation OF The secrecy OF
the ballot Ia contained ia section $50 OF
volume of Hili's Annotated Statutes and
Codes OF Washington. and is as follows;
"go elector shall place any mark upon
his ballot by which il may Afterwards De
identified a. the one voted by htm. ANY
eIector who does not vote the ballot deliF-
cred 10 him by the judges OF election haT-
ing charge of the ballots shall. before ieay-
ing the polling place, return such ballot TO
tnE 4ssA hx1
OF the provisions of this section shall be
deemed guilty Of mlsdemeanor, and upon
conviction thereof in any court OF compe-
tent Jurisdiction shall be fined in any sum
not exceeding 800. and adjudged to pay
the costs of prosecution.
This provision does not expressly say
that any ballot containing distinguish
ing mark shall not be counted. but IL does
make the marking of the ballot IN way
TO be distinguished penal ofiense. and II
IL an old established principle in Law that
whatever II prohibited as illegal and pun
ished by fine cannot IN any respect stand
as a legal act Ii the marking of ballot
unnecessarily is Illegal il IL contended
that the ballot itself, so far concerns
the candidate In question. 10 illegal. The
Michigan law of isei provides that ballot
so marked s'shall not be counted" These
latter words are not contained IN the
Washington law. bat it is claimed that
they are necessarily implied in it. Our
law tsection S9i) provides that in the
canvass Of the votes any ballot which
Is not Endorsed, as provided in
the law, by the official stamp and initials
OF the inspector 'sshali be void, and shall
not be counted. and any ballot or parts of
ballot from which IL IN impossible 10 de-
termine the electors choice shall be void.
and shall not DO counted; provided, that
when ballot Is sufficiently plain to
gather therefrom part of the voters in
teniion it shall be the duty of the judges
OF election 10 count such part"
II will be seen that the law does not
provide that the whole ballot shall be
counted. but only that part which il suffi-
GENTLY plain In intention.
The prineipl pervading all these pro-
visions. no matter how they may vary in
wording, Is that IL is OF the FIRST impor-
lance to preserve the absolute secrecy OF
the ballot. There had been for over twenty
years great com plaint made throughoN
the country that employers were exereis-
ing undue influence over their employees
and compelling them 10 vote at every inn
poriant election as the employers wished.
old system of writing voters name on
the back of his ticket. or putting thereon
number corresponding 10 his numerical
rank as voter on election day, the vote
which any eiector cast might be ascer-
tanned by the election officers. or in an
election contest afterwards. IL Was TO
guard against this evil that the diff
ferent states have adopted stringent
provisions against any mode. system
or practice which could possibly
lead 20 the revelation of the voters action
ut the polls. This intention is SO we'll
known 10 the courts that they are all
strongly disposed 10 consider these provi-
sions most favorably for the protection OF
the secrecy Of the ballot. These provisions
are all OF remedial nature, and the courts
endeayor 70 carry cut the remedy In ali its
fullncss as the legislatures intended.
Whether the words "shali not be counted
are necessary 20 render Illegal a ballot
containing a distinguishing marx, is a
question which has not vet been decided
by the supreme court OF Washington. but
Republican lawyers generally. and many
Democratic LAWYERS. believe that the court
viii take strong ground ia favor of uphold
ing the secrecy Of the ballot and will hold
that those words are not absolutely neces-
sary to render Illegal ballot which is
marked contrary 30 the intention Of the
legal provision.
The supplemental decision rendered by
the supreme coart Of Michigan. on the
18th inst, Was made a. a matter 81 puhIie
convenience. and not upon any point
raised in the original case 81 the ATTORNEY
General rs. Chaser. IL ~ shat the lAwy ers
cali an obitsr dictum that = a voluntary
EXPRESSION Of opinion not binding on any
body nor affecting any point la coutro-
vsrsy in tho case before the coart. la thts
supplemental opinion the supreme court
Of Michigan holds that under the act OF
fS'a in shas state il Is proper To erase the
name 81 candidate for whom the
electoF does not desire 20 vote
The original opinion ~ the court
in the CHASER case Is no.
modified in any respect TIE Michigan
law al is9i and the Washington iaw Of
isgo are very much alike, and il Is quite
likely that our courts w0l follow the
Michigan court in taking strong ground
against any unnecessary marking ~ the
ballet
igt dces. Or Easnvs will bs the next
ecr0aer sal Mr. Meyers hcpes all van
lsh toto thin air. Is Is oaly BY allowing
unnecessary marking Of ballots that M
Asian can be coansed IN ar Nj Van lie
Nsnter COUNTED out The friends II Mr.
Van de Nantss. Dr. Esmss snd Mr. Nick
eFson have sntsre confidence thss the de-
essten o. the courts wiIg hs IN their favor