The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1906-11-02

10 Marx Bauots According 20 New


10 Marx Ballots AccordIng 60 EeE
In response to q request from TIE
county attorney OF Saline county.
i through Joseph L BristOEs OF Salina,
/ Attorney General G G Coleman has
! given an opinion relative to the marx
ing O. ballots at the approaching cleo
I ton Coming at this time. the opinion
I IS Of peculiar interest
I The text OF the opinion shows ex-
I actiy the questions raised and the
| manner in which Attorney General
I Coleman dealt with them
Hon J L BristOW, Salina, Kan Ny
Dear SIR I have your favor encIOs-
ing me a marked sample ballot as
you say, marked BY q gentleman who
wishes TO vote for Humphrey, KanaFel
and Ryker for railroad commission
ers.' and I note your inquiry as to
whether or not the ballot is legally
marked.
note that the voter in question has
made a cross mark in the circle at the
head OF the republican ticket and in
addition thereto has made a cross
mark opposite the names Of Ryker
and kanaFel on the republican ticket
and opposite the names Of James
Humphrey on the democratic ticket,
and / find no other marks anywhere
upon the ballot It viii be noticed
that the names Of George W. Kama
vel and Of James Humphrey are oppo-
site TO each other on the two tickets
Under the law, as it stood prior to
1905, it is probable that the ticket 50
marked could have been legally
counted for the three names marked,
but for the mark in the circle, and
possibly mark in the circle might
not have made any difference. But I
call your attention 70 the following
paragraphs appearing In the amend
ment Of the election law OF 1905:
Second, subdivision Of the instruc-
tons TO voters laws OF 1905, page
Second. If you prefer not to vote
a straight party ticket, make a cross
(X) mark in the circle as before, and
then make cross (x) mark in the
square to the right Of the names Of
vote for found under any other party
name"
Also, same book, page $40:
When a voter has properly marked
his ballot in the circle at the head Of
the ticket, the marking OF the names
by proper cross. mark in all, OF a
part Of the squares to the right OF the
names on the same ticket shall not
prevent the counting Of such ticket"
Also, on page 36T:
If the voter prefers not to vote a
straight party ticket, he may make a
cross mark in the circle and then
make cross mark in the square TO
the right Of the names Of such other
candidates as he may wish TO vote for,
found under the same or any other
party name, or independent nomina-
ton"
Also, on page 366:
Whenever any party convention
shall nominate candidates for presi-
dental electors, justices Of the su-
preme court, or railroad commission
ers, such candidates SHALL be nOmi-
mated one at a time, and shall
be placed on the official ballot in the
order in which they are certified to
the secretary Of state, and the candi-
dates so nominated and so certified
shall be construed to be, and shall be-
come CANDIDATES OPPOSED TO
EACH OTHER for such once as GER
titled IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY ARE CERTIFIED 70 the said
secretary Of state"
Also, on page 367:
Whenever a cross (x) mark shall
be made in the square at the right Of
the names Of more than one candidate
for the same office, such vote shall not
invahdate the ballot NOR SHALL
THE SAME BE COUNTED FOR ANY
SUCH CANDIDATE.
All four of these quoted paragraphs
are new features Of the election law
made by the amendments, and the last
two seriously affect the question sub
mttted by your friend. Prior to 1906,
the theory was that where more than
one person is to be elected to the
same Office, such as supreme court
judges, or railroad commissioners, no
candidate on one ticket shall be con-
Sldered as opposed to any particular
person on the opposite ticket, but the
three candidates for railroad commits
siOner receiving the highest number
OF votes upon whatever ticket, could
be held to be the persons elected. But
II IS apparent that under the para
graph next to the last quoted above,
such is no longer the law. Under the
law, as there stated, Ryan is a can
didate against Cooper, Ryker against
Mcmillan and RanaveI against
Humphrey The language OF the law
cannot reasonably be construed to
mean anything else, and therefore, by
virtue Of the last provisions above
quoted, If the voter makes a mark op-
Humphrey, his ballot viii not be
counted for either, although it viii not
thereby be otherwise invalidated. It
therefore appears that under the law
as amended in 1905, and upon the
ballots as nominated, certified and
printed for this year, KanaveI and
Humphrey are candidates against
each other and II is impossible for
any electOr to vote for both.
1t has been suggested in conference
that your friend besides voting for
kanavel might also vote effectually for
Humphrey BY writing his name in the
blank column opposite the name Of
Ryan. This would not accomplish the
purpose intended, because it could not
be counted as a vote for Humphrey
FOR THE OFFICE FOR WHICH He
WAS NOMINATED; but could be
counted only as a scattering vote
c G COLEMAN,
Ar~nrrnvr Tzn-ar-71