The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-24

by elocftor orF,9e~s can practically dis
franchise all the eIertors OF precihct
where the electors themselves are not q
fault? II go the constitutional guarantee
Is Of small consequence Legislation gong
10 promote the honesty OF elections IS
most beneficial In character. and as a
means Of securing this end the general
uol.ev Of the law Is that the ballot shall
be a secret one that il may not be known
for which candidate any particular voter
voted in order that bribery may De pre-
vented. Provision is also made as TO the
duties OF election officers 10 the end that
a fraudulent canvass Of the votes cast
may be prevented. There is good ground
for recognizing distinction between the
obligations placed upon the individual
voter and those matters which relate 10
the duties Of election officers. Great care
should be taken 10 distinguish between
those requirements designed 10 prevent
fraud and which are necessary to the
purity OF elections and those which. while
designed for the same purpose, are not es-
sentfal thereto. or we may oyerreaeh the
salutary effect sought TO be obtained from
provisions OF the character first mentioned
BIZ going so far in constituting as valid and
mandatory provisions of the second class
as 10 open the very door TO fraud that was
sought 10 be closed thereby.
The Duty of the Voter.
The individual voter may well be called
upon TO see that the requirements of the
law applying to himself are complied with
before casting his ballot, and IL he should
wifully or carelessly violate the same
there would be no hardship or injustice in
depriving him Of his vote but If, on the
other hand, he should in good faiSh COM
ply with the law upon his part, IT would
be a great hardship were he deprived of
~ k.zff mr. lat al a
of an election officer in failing TO comply
with a provision Of the law over which
the voter had no control. 1t is also qnes-
ton in which the public has direct and
important interest, for the loss Of such
vote may have a controlling effect upon a
public matter. The constitutional pro-
vision aforesaid guarantees the right TO
vote and this OF necessity carries with II
the right TO have the vote counted. OF
course the manner of voting and can
wasting votes must be subject 10 all rea-
sonable legislative requirements. Many
cases have been cited by counsel as sup
porting the positions taken by them re-
spectively. and many Of these involve
consideration OF various phases OF the
law commonly known as the Australian
ballot law in force here, but which rs
comparatively new thing in this country.
These cases cannot all be harmonized, but
the general trend thereof has been to rec
ognize a clear distinction between those
things required OF the individual voter and
those imposed upon election officers
There is a disposition to hold the former
valid and mandatory. but where there has
been substantial compliance with the Jaw
en- the part of the individual voter, and IL
is made 10 appear that there has been In
fact an honest expression of the popular
will. there is a wel-defined tendency 10
sustain the same. although there may
have been failure 10 comply with some
OF the specific provisions of the law upon
the part OF the election officers or some OF
them Language may have been employed
In some OF the cases In conflict with this
position but when such cases are exam
ined with reference TO the specific facts
decided II will appear that this distinction
has been adhered TO, and II may truly be
said 10 be the one great underlying prin-
ciple of all the cases. In case OF a viola
stion of the law on the part of an election
officer punishment may be provided there
for and In this way the law can be rem
dered effectual without going to the ex-
tent OF depriving the voter OF his right TO
have his vote counted in consequence OF
such violation. In this connection it may
be well TO note that while there is a pun
lshment provided for depositing an I'M
stamped ballot in the ballot box by an
election officer. there is none provided for
falling to write his initials thereon Sec
ton $50 General Statutes, Is as follows:
No inspector or Judge Of election shall
deposit in any ballot box any ballot upon
which the official stamp as hereinbefore
provided for does not appear. Every per-
son violating the provision of this section
shall be deemed guilty OF a misdemeanor.'
He can deposit ballot properly stamped.
but without the initials without mourning
any penal liability This may be an omis
sion due 10 fnadvertence upon the part OF
the lawmakers. but IL is the law neverthe-
less. and II a ballot so deposited cannot
be counted door Is open whereby great
frauds may be committed with impunity,
the voters OF an entire precinct as in this
case. practically disfranchised, and the
popular will nulllfed.
The Vote Honest and Fair.
cit appears from the facts found that
the vote Of this precinct was honestly and
fairly cast and counted and that there
was nothing upon the face of the ballots
to indicate how any particular voter
voted. and that the objections raised there
10 apply 10 all the ballots cast for each of
the candidates. The failure 20 comply with
the law appears 10 have been due to ig-
norance Of its provisions on the part of
the election officers. That the prohibition
aforesaid against the counting OF these
votes under the ABOVE CircuFlSldnCtS Is an
unreasonable one and in conflict with the
right guarantees by the constitution
seems 10 us clear proposition. Were we
authorized 20 hold otherwise. such a hold
ing would be subversive of the best inter
ests Of society. and might result In great
peril 10 our governmental structure. Such
a holding IS not necessary 10 preserve the
purity Of elections. for provision can be
made for an investigation Of charges OF
actual fraud upon the part Of electors and
election officers. II would be an inter
minable task 10 refer 10 each OF the cases
cited IN detail. and we content ourselves
with giving our conclusions drawn from
all Of them No decision cited has gone
10 the extent that we are asked 70 go by
the appellant I'm this case: and 10 accord
with the general holdings Of the courts as
We understand them in the light OF what
has actually been decided I'm the cases. we
are compelled 10 hold that the provision
aforesaid against counting ballots where
no initials are placed thereon cannot he
sustained and the decision OF that ques-
ton sets this controversy at rest. The
finding In question by the lower court sup
ports the conclusions OF law based there
on ana the Judgment rendered. The fact
that the election officers failed TO have
booths erected which compiled with the
law. found in the eighth finding. was also
but an irrCCuiarity which would not
vitiate the election. None Of the other
questions raised by appellant tn the pres
eut aSv,>-t Of the case are material 20 the
controversy as they relate 10 defects IN
particular votes cast I'm the various pre-
clncts and included ga the other findings
AMI IN case any % these votes were i'm