The record-union., 1896-10-27
DEMOCRAT and POPULIST.
How De YrieS Will be Designated in
Placer County.
Judge Hinkson Decides That His Name
Can be on the Ballot But
Once.

Judge H1nkSOn OF the superior court
Of Sacramento was called to Auburn
Saturday night, and held court there
all day Sunday to hear the answer to
writ Of mandate that had been issued
to the County Clerk Of Placer County
by the Superior Court Of Placer and
made returnable before Judge Hinkson,
the local court being disqualified.
The Clerk had sent out the sample
ballots required under the law and had
placed thereon the name of Marion de
Nries twice, once for each of the NOM
nations he had received for Congress.
The contention was that the name
should have appeared but once, with
the designation as to the parties repre-
sented placed opposite his name.
The argument lasted half day, and
was based wholly upon the reason of
the law and how it should be construed.
No authorities Of decided cases were
cited by counsel on either side, the
question being new. The court, how
ever, ON taking the case under advise
ment, found that in Nebraska precisely
the same question had been passed up
on, and that a case in the Twenty
eight California Reports bore upon
the contention.
These authorities coinciding with the
courts view Of the reason of the law,
when the bench was again taken, judg
ment was entered requiring the County
Clerk to correct the method he had
adopted in making up the official bal
lot, SO that the nominees name shall
appear but once upon the ballot.
1t was held that placing 1t twice On
the ballot would tend to confuse the
elector. whereas the purpose Of the
election law is to give the elector the
fullest opportunity to manifest his will.
The election law is not intended to be
mysterious, but to provide means for
the clear and easy expression of the
desire of the voter 1t was held that
the law intends the ballot to be so SIM
pie, consistent with necessary safe
guards, that it shall not operate as an
obstruction or to confuse the elector;
that it would really make no differ
ence if a candidates name were re-
peated several times upon a ballot for
the same office. since it could be
counted but once, and would be counted
once only. Nevertheless, for clearness,
and TO fulfill the obvious intention Of
the law, the name should be officially
placed but once, with the designations
attached indicating the party or parties
by whom the candidate is nominated.
And so the order issued to the Clerk.
incidentally, it will be seen, this
touches upon the question raised in
some quarters as to the same Presi-
Dental Electors being twice placed up
on the official ballot in different or
ders, because the same Electors have
been nominated by two distinct politi-
cal organizations. In that case, if an
elector affixes the official stamp oppo-
site the two sets of names, there will
be but one tally made in counting the
ballots, the intention of the voter be-
ing to vote for those candidates.
This case was not, of course, passed
upon by Judge Hinkson, but the rea-
soning of the court in the Placer case
naturally leads to the conclusion we
have indicated, and in conversation
after the Placer case was decided the
Judge indicated that such construction
would be within the reason Of the law,
and In accord with its plain and OBJ
vious intention.