The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1902-03-14
Prince Georges Election Cases.

Court below is sustained by the Court of
Appeals, Judge Page delivering the opin-
ion. The questions in this case arise up
on the rulings of the Circuit Court TOR
| Prince Georges county sustaining de-
murrer to the petition fled by the appel
Iants. After stating the qualifications OF
each of the appellants to be County
Commissioner and that they were candi-
dates for the same at the last election,
Duvall and Wells, Republicans, allege in
their petition that Miller and Manning,
Democrats, were certified as elected to
these offices, but that they themselves
were in fact elected, but owing to errors,
irregularities and wrongful acts they
were returned as defeated. They allege
that between 500 and 1000 votes intended
for them were rejected by the judges Of
elections for three unlawful reasons:
First, because the marks after their names
| extended in slight degree outside of the
square provided for them; second, many
tickets were rejected because they were
not folded as the ticket was given them,
| and third, tickets were rejected because
| there were more marks thereon than the
respective officers to be voted for.
The Court Of Appeals takes these up
and discusses and decides them in order,
and regarding them as follows:
"Clause A of the fourth paragraph of
the petition is in effect that between 200
and 400 ballots were wrongfully rejected
| because portion of the cross marks of
the voter in one or more of the spaces
provided on the official ballot for the
same slightly extended beyond the lines
bounding said space, without however,
in any manner furnishing clue to the
identity of the voter voting the same or
any doubt as to his intention. At the ar
nument it was contended on one side and
denied on the other that by a proper in
depreciation of the statute to constitute
legal ballot the whole of the cross mark
must be within the space provided for it
on the official ballot and the ballot will
be invalid and should not be counted If
any portion of the cross extended beyond
the lines of that space
1t is contended by the appellants, Du-
vail and Wells, that Section 66 of the Act
of 1899 should govern this matter, which
contains a clause providing that "if for
any reason it is impossible to determine
the voters choice for any office to be fill
ed, his ballot shall not be counted for that
office" This clearly indicates that the
Judges had power to make in, uiries as to
the voters intention. though his ballot
might not in all respects conform strictly
to the requirements of the law. Under
such provision we might have very east
| ly considered this case So far, at least, as
| to hold that if the cross mark were Sub
stantially' within the square and the irregu-
larity was due only to laundering of igno-
| race, the ballot should be counted if the
intention could fairly be ascertained. But
the provision that permits the election
judges to attempt to ascertain the inten-
| ton of the voter otherwise than by
compliance with the strict requirments
as to the marking the ballot was left out
of the law by the Act of 1901, Chapter 2,
so that as the law now stands the pro-
visions for marking the ballot must be
regarded, not only in the spirit but by the
letter of the law, as mandatory and oblig
atory upon voter and judges alike. II
is possible that the Legislature deemed
it safer that the ballot should be protect
ed by fixed rules than by permitting the
judges to determine in any case whether
a defective ballot was yet good enough to
be counted. For instance, if the con-
structlon of the appellees be accepted
what rule would or could be laid down for
the guidance of the judges of election? If
much or what part must be within the
space? How arc distinguishing marks
to be detected? Is the judge at one poll
to adopt one rule and another a different
so that ballot be rejected here and an
other exactly similar be counted else
where? Shall we decide, therefore, that
fixed system of voting is less conducive
to the Acknowledgement of the voter exer-
| with result that more stringent rule
shall apply in some places than in others?
1t is not for this court to make this de-
| cision, as it is quite enough to say that in
enacting the Act of 1901 the Legislature
has so determined. We are of the opin-
ion, therefore, that the statute requires
the cross marks to be within the square
and there is nothing in the spirit of the
act, etc which warrants US in making any
other construction on the language con
tanned therein. The second ground, in
clause B, IS that certain ballots were re
| jected because they were mot fold
ed in the same way they were when re-
ceived by the voters, but were SO folded
as not to display the marks thereon, or
| the name or names of the candidates
voted for, the back of said ballots being
to view" The provision of the law which
requires that the ballots shall be properly
| folded is to insure the secrecy of the bal
lot and to prevent decetful and fraudu,
| lent NOGlHS. IL luC UdiOI, 10
not folded, when returned by the voter to
the judges, in the same manner as it was
received by him, it is illegally and, there
fore, decetfully folded, and by the terms
of the statute should be rejected.
The third error assigned is that the
Judges rejected ballots on which the voters
had respectively marked more names
thereon than were persons to be elected
The provision of the statute is too clear
upon this point to require discussion. 1t
is provided by Section 66 ''if the voter has
marked more names than there are persons
to be elected to an Office the ballot shall
not be counted" This provision is SO ex'
plicit as to leave no room for construction
Finding no error in the ruling of the
court below, the order must be affirmed.
Judges Boyd, Schumacher and Jones dis
scented on the first proposition, but con