Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1906-12-11
SUPREME COURT DECLARES
CONTINUED from PAGE y

NJ the ends of the arms. or when the
lines are of varying lengths so az To
give the cross the appearance Of n V
or T or Y. or when the cross has the
appearance of figure 4: ballots on
which the lines of the cross are per.
pcndicilar aud horizontal instead Of
obliuuc. or on which the crosses are
unusually heavy or one of which Is
unusually heavy. or In which there are
small puncturcs. ballots on which
there are small dots or other marks
near the crosses: or on which there
are other accidental irregular indef.
mite marks. ballots on which crosses
have been made and well erased: bal.
lots on which there are impresses of
other crosses. the result Of marking
marking on n colored shelf or Of fold
ing after marking with n soft pencil:
ballots on which the cross marks arc
substantially though not entirely with.
in the proper space.
The following classes Of balNts arc
invalid. ballots on which cross Is
not in proper place, as when II is
ON the left of the name or In the name
space or to the right Of n blank space:
ballots on which there are marks that
might he regarded ms distinguishing
marks. such AZ single line left after
starting TO make cross in proper
place and not completing It, or small
dots or other marks made in checking
on names not voted for, or n heavy
line made under cross for emphasis;
ballots on which there are conspicu
Gus crasurcs. or through which there
! Is large hole caused by repeated
rubbing with Il pencil. A voter who
spoils his ballot should surrender II
and obtain another.
A ballot marked for too many oi
one class Of officers is not thereby IN
validated ms To other classes.
The County Act requires the names
o. candidates.. for all classes of Coun
| ty officers elected at one election ia
he placed on the same ballot.
In his dissenting opinion Associate
Justice Wilder says:
Dissenting Opinion OF Wilder
am compelled to dissent from that
part of the majority opinion which
holds that ballots with more names
voted for than Offices To be filled
should be counted.
| Section 80 of the County Act pro
vidcs that the general laws and rules
governing the election of Senators ant
Representatives Of the Territory shall
apply In the election Of County officers
wherever applicable except as hcrcif
provided"
| II IL conceded by the majority tina
y ballot marked for too many name
lghould not he counted so far as tina
particular part of II IN concerned. Yet
by the express provisions OF the stat
lutte. a ballot must be rejected as ;
whole or not at all. There Ia abso
1lutely nothing in the statute givin'
the inspectors the right or authorit!
Ito reject n ballot In part and coun
1.-The balance. The only provision 70
rejecting ballots at all Is found In thi
Isection - Il. H., which Is that "sucl
ballot and all II contains" must be RI
Ijcctcd. That section further provide
lhow rejected ballots shall be marked
namely, by being Endorsed on the bacl
Iby the chairman Of the inspectors witt
Ibis name or initials and the word "rC
ljeCted.' But the majority of the cour
would add 10 the statute provision
flor rejecting part Of ballot an
marking II accordingly.
In my opinion subdivision | of sec
ton - Il. l.. applies to County cleo
lions.
But. irrespective of that FIRST subd
vision. these ballots must be rejeCte
because they clearly come within tn
other subdivisions Of that section
namely. they are ballots contrary /
land unauthorized by law. The propt
lsition that ballot with too man
names voted for on It is authorized b
law Is so clear that II requires no dis
cusslon. And where Is the authorit
TO count ballot In part when tina
ballot Is unauthorized by law?
FINALLY, n rule which was followe
AT the iieit election under the Count
lAct, which course was approved b
this court in Fernandez VS.. Adam
unrcported because petitioner discor
tinued after the ruling was made,D an
which was again followed at the SCI
lond election under the County Ac
should not be reversed unless the fol
mer ruling was clearly 1erroneoui
which Is not the case. The result
that whichever course Is adopted b
the inspectors at future elections
liable to be again reversed By thi
court.
Hartwells opinion says In part: