Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-01-21

In the case of Dragon VS.. Navarro,
/ l02 Michigan Reports. 259, the court
says. "A voter. finding the ticket up
, on the ballot cannot be requir,l to de-
termine it's regularity at his peril. This
might involve the necessary knowledge
OF facts difficult TO ascertain. He may
/ safely rely upon the action of the OF
/ ticers of the law. who he has a right to
| suppose have done their duty.
I'm the case OF Allen VS.. Glynn. II
Colorado, 33S, it is held that: while
election laws are mandatory in the
. sense that they impose a duty upon
those who come within their terms. yet
/ when public officers are entrusted with
I the preparation of the ballots voted,
/ the election viii not be invalidated be-
/ cause of every departure on the part
I OF such officers from the terms OF such
law and that when the name of an Op-
/ posing candidate is enormously placed
upon ballot prepared by public otti-
GERS. such ballots, properly marked by
the voter, will be counted for such can
+ didaJe and it will not be presumed that
. Jhe electOr casting such ballot does not
wish or intend TO vote for any candidate
f for that particular Office"
In the case of people VS. Wood. 14S n.
Y. Reports, it is held as follows: The
votes of innocent electors are not in
validated by irregularity or unauthor-
lied acts on the part of public officers
charged with the duty of preparing and
printing official ballots when no irreg-
u.drity or want of authority appears on
the face of the ballots. and that while
the action of a county clerk in insert
ing i'm the local party column the name
of candidates who had not been nomi-
mated and certified by that party, was.
under the election law as amended in
1885 unauthorized and without right,
it was latent defect. and did not dis
franchise qualified innocent voters who
had used the official ballots so furnish
ed them, and that where the local party
column had been duly crossed by voters
to express their choice. a county board
of cauvassers should not be required to
reject the ballots from the count. for
candidates, so Improperly included in
that column "
The same doctrine is held in the cases
+ of Bowers Us. Smith decided by the
Missouri Supreme Court. November,
1891. IL Southwestern Reporter, 716;
SJackpole VS.. Hallahan, Montana, re-
ported in Is Lawyers Reports. Annot-
ated, 502 and in many ether cases which
might be cited
Now, the irregularities complained of
here are that the clerks should not
have placed Mr.. Shaffer's name on the
ballots because the nominating papers
did nor show his residence, and some Of
them did not show the residence of the
voters signing such papers. 1t cannot,
with any degree Of confidence. be
claimed that these Irregularities had
any effect upon the election. His name.
with his residence. was properly placed
upon the ballot. and the ballot was reg
uiar I'm all respects. No voter at the
election was misled by these Irregular
tiles i'm the nominating papers. The
same observation applies to the alleged
irregu'arity arising from the fact that
the nominating papers were not fled
with the clerks of Berkeley and Nor
gan. but only a certificate from the
clerk of Jefferson. This is provided for
I'm section 21. of chapter 3, of the Code,
which provides as follows; In case
SHAH appear TO the clerk of the Circuit
Court of any county by satisfactory
evidence that nominations have been
u7da I'm conformity with the provis-
ions of this cbapter. and no certificate
thereof has been received by him. he
shall include such nominations among
the names of candidates to be printed
upon the ballots as hereinafter pro-
viied. So that these clerks of Berke-
/ ley and Morgan having satisfactory
| evidence by the certificate of the clerk
OF Jefferson county that these nOmind-
ti0rs had been made. were justified i'm
f placing the name upon the ticket. under
this section.
+ Tt will De seen. therefore. that there
is nothing i'm these irregularities COM
planned Of. which could have i'm any
way affected the election and that these
. provisions with reference - the state
ment Of the residence Of the candidate.
and of the voters, and the form and
manner of making the nomination by
petition are simply directory, and IL
they are disregarded by the public Off
GERS. they cannot have the effect to
dlsfranchise the voters. without a vlo-
lation of all the authorities and preci-
dents upon election law.
The objection that some Of the per
f sons who signed the nominating papers
wero not members of the National Dem
0cratfc party or supporters of it's caudi-
dates for President and Vice President
is equally untenable The statute does
net authorize the clerks or the ba'lOt
+ commissioners to inouire into the DOlit-