The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-06-14

The Hughes attorneys will try to get
some evidence that the most of the re-
jected ballots were never voted
The so-called double" ballots which
are being so vigorously opposed by the
Hughes attorneys are marked twice for
Parker. On the ballots Parker's name
Citizens tickets. The double ballots
are the ones where the voter marked
a cross in the box opposite Parker's
name on both tickets. The ballots
marked twice are not counted as two
votes but as one. The Hughes attor-
neys claim them to be invalid because
Parker was voted for in both the Dem
ocratic and Citizens colum rs.
The following is from the Australian
ballot law regarding what votes shall
or shall not be counted:
Sec. Is. If the voter marks more names
than there are persons to be elected to
an office, or fails to mark the ballot as
required by other sections of this act,
or uses ink or a pencil of any other col
or than black to mark his ballot, or is
from any reason it is impossible to de-
termine the voters choice for an office
to be filled, his ballot shall not be count
ed for such office.
Sec. q. Any person who shall except
as herein otherwise provided, mark or
fold his ballot 50 that it can be distin-
guished, or who shall place upon
his ballot any character or
mark for the purpose of identifying
said ballot, shall upon conviction
be punished by a fine of not less than
$25 nor more than 500, or by imprison-
ment in the county Jail not less than
ten days nor more than 80 days, or by
both such fine and imprisonment; and
it shall be the duty of election Judges
to enforce the provisions of this sec
ton.
In speaking of the situation G. c.
Clemens said:
Our statute expressly stated for
L,1 L.,
counted. The ballots thus specified
We're where too many names We're
marked for any office; where it was not
marked as the act required; where ink
or other than black pencil was used,
and where the voters choice for an Of
fee could not be determined. In each
case of this character however, the pro-
vision was, His ballot shall not be
counted for such office
The only provision as to distinguish
ing marks was the penal section, and
related only to any character or mark
put upon the ballot for the purpose of
Identifying said ballot that is, for the
purpose of Identifying that particular
ballot as the one voted by that partic-
ular voter. To put such a mark upon
a ballot was a crime which could be
punished by a fine of 500 and inpris-
onment for 80 days. and the judges OF
election were required to prosecute the
offender. How could they prosecute
unless the marx SnOWGQ precisely WIG
the voter was? How could this section
apply to scores of ballots all marked
precisely alike2 Who could identify
either OF them as the ballot voted by
any particular VOter2 It is absurd The
legislature contemplated no such thing
The mark made criminal was mark
pointing to the voter as the one who
voted that particular ballot Besides.
the mark must have been put on for the
very purpose of Identifying the partic-
ular ballot. The very fact that fine and
Imprisonment might be imposed for
putting such a mark upon a ballot
shows that. the legislature was dealing
with marks deliberately made for a
corrupt purpose, and not with mere
stupidity or inadvertence.
I'm other states where so many things
have been declared distinguishing
marks. such things We're enumerated in
the very section which declared that
such ballots should not be counted. Our
law contained no such technical provis-
IONS but outside two or three matters.
required a mark made with criminal
ballot. in order to exclude it from being
counted.
In my opinion, the only objections in
this case which are within the legisla-
tive intent are those made to crosses
outside the squares, single marks in
stead of crosses, markings with ink or
with a blue pencil, and names writ
ten on the ballots as if to tell who the
voter was: and as to all these, save the
last the objections are good only as to
the particular Office.
Our statute reads just as I contend,
and courts have no right to make some
more statute in order to agree with q
court of some other state deciding upon
a different statute