Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1903-02-10
Ought the Intention of the Voter to
be Considered?

slTlIe anu tHeiT Judgments WdTpcu di
biased by the personal bearings of til
different arguments advanced.
The rule under which we have acte
in former years was undoubtedly tina
the intention of the voter, when ascel
tanned by an inspection of the ballot b
the proper officials, should govern, bu
the learned justices of our highest cour
have apparently decided that in this state
however, since the adoption of the SC
called Australian Ballot Law" the vii
or intention of the voter is no longer
factor in determining how or in wha
manner his ballot shall be counted. Tn
exact words in which they declare thi
doctrine are I'VE are not at liberty q
seek for the intention of the voters wh'
cast these ballots" We recognize tina
such Is now the law. but the power q
change that law rests in the hands OF tn
people, and in our Judgment should b.
exercised by the present legislature
This dropping plumb line by every bal
lot To see that it is exactly perpendicula
may be an ideal theory, but that IL work,
poorly in practice il evidenced by the
large number of so-called defective bal
lots cast at each election.
We claim that any ballot law should
be administered in the spirit enunciateo
by that learned judge and text-writei
Mr.. Justice Cooley Of Michigan, when he
said "All rules Of law which are applied
to the expression, in constitutional form
of the popular will. should aim 10 give
effect TO the intention OF the electors
and any arbitrary rule which is To have
any other effect, without corresponding
benefit, is wrong, both to the parties
who chance TO be affected by it and to
the public at large. The first are de,
prived Of their offices and the second OF
their choice of public servants" The
Supreme Court of Kansas held in Clark
vs. Montgomery County, 33 Kansas 205,
that 1.-The intention of an elector is to be
ascertained from the language of his bal.
lot, and in the light of the circumstances
of a public nature surrounding the cleo
ton at which il is cast, and though his
will is not expressed with precision, yet
If it is fairly apparent and can be de-
termined beyond a reasonable doubt, ii
should be made effectual."
With all due Difference to our honor
able court, we maintain that the fore
going statements are more in harmony
with the spirit of our free institutions
than the denial of all right to seek the
intentions of the voter. Again the Su-
preme Court of Washington has declared
That all statutes tending to limit the
citizen in the exercise of the right of
suffrage should be literally construed in
his favor. If his ballot is rejected, it
must come within the letter of the pro-
hibition; and when the statute specific
ally declares under what conditions
ballots shall be rejected, courts should
not enlarge those conditions or make
other or different conditions from those
expressed in the statute grounds for re-
jecting the ballot. The important thing
is to determine the intention of the voter
and to give it effect This language
has been quoted with approval by the
highest courts in Missouri and California
in deciding recent cases arising under
the Australian law. Prof. Wigmore, the
only recognized author upon the Aus
tralian Ballot System, in the last edition
of his work says, "Wherever our statutes
do not expressly declare that particular
informalities void the ballot it would
seem best to consider their requirements
as directory only. The whole purpose
of the ballot as an institution is to obtain
a correct expression of intention: and if,
in given case, the intention is clear, it
is an entire misconception of the pur-
poses of the requirements to treat them
as essentials; that is as objects in them
selves, and not merely as means" If
this is good law for the great west, why
is it not good law for us here? Are our
people any less intelligent or discerning
or our officials any less capable and
trustworthy? Do not we wish our own
votes to be recorded in accordance with
our intentions when we cast them, and
are we not only willing but DESTROYS that
our neighbours votes should also be re-
corded in like manner? There can be
but one answer to these questions.
One of the main underlying principles
of all these decisions and declarations is
that no ballot should be rejected unless
it came within the specifications named
in the act establishing the law, and that
the courts should never add thereto.
Taking that as basis, let us briefly con-
slider the law as it now stands upon our
statute book.
The clauses which treat of the rejec-
ton of ballots cast are few and plainly
expressed. The first provision is that
none but ballots provided in accordance
with provisions of law shall be counted,
and the second that if a voter marks
more names for any one Office than there
are persons to be elected to such office,
or if for any reason it is impossible to
determine the voters choice for an office
to be filled, his ballot shall not be count
ed for such office. If the law could
stand there and be construed just as it
reads, no one would find word of fault.
The legislature must have intended that
all ballots falling outside of these ex
ceptions should be counted, that is, if it
was possible to ascertain the choice of
the voter, his vote should be counted.
How are we to determine the choice of
the voter. if we are not allowed to take
into consideration his intention as plain
ly indicated by the marking of his ballot?
1t is respectfully submitted that while
such course is not free from embarrass-
ment, the most patient and learned
thought and research have not as yet
discovered a method of dealing with the
subject which is less open to objection
and criticism.
The present legislature should say in
plain words what the former legislature
implied, i. e., that all votes, when it is
possible to ascertain the choice of the
voter beyond reasonable doubt from
the inspection of the ballot itself, should
be counted in accordance with the inten-
ton of the voter. Who would be harm
ed by such course? OF what are we
afraid? Our municipal officers are usual
ly men of more than average intelligence,
bound by their oaths. We trust large
financial and other interests to their
management without hesitation. Until
some one is able to advance better
plan, one less likely to thwart the ex-
pressed will of the voter or work ire
medal injustice. we are in favor of
counting all ballots, where, in the at
tempted exercise of his admitted right
to vote, the voter has manifestly made
an effort to comply in good faith with
the statutory requirements, and his
choice can be ascertained without doubt
from an inspection of the ballot, al
though he may not have crossed all the
It's as required by law.
To illustrate, the ballot law says and
our courts have held that to entitle a
vote to be counted, cross must be made
in a certain specified space. No attempt
has been made as yet to declare at just
what angle the lines must cross eacf
other or how far one line must be pro.
longed beyond the other, but if the at
tempt to have this law construed OF
simple technicalities prevails, it will no
be long before the courts will have t.
decide these points. For if we brusl