Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1906-12-11

than there are Offices to be filed is in.
applicable to County ballots which
pace on one ticket the names of can.
uidates for a series of different Offices
unless such tickets tor that is what
lncy are) be regarded as containing a
series OF ballots, any one OF which Is
to be rejected II II contains too many
names voted Tor In any one of the sc.
rics. '......
10 sum up the foregoing: IL Is con.
trary TO law to vote Tor too many per.
sons Tor an Office and such votes must
be rejected as illegal whether their
rejection Is required by statute or not.
The statute which makes void and re-
quircs the rejection of a Senatorial
ballot in which too many Senators are
voted Tor or Representative ballot
Tor more Representatives than can be
erected Is literally inapplicabc to an
entire ballot for all the County officers
IN which too many persons for any
one OF those Offices are voted for and
such ballots could not have been In.
tended by and be contrary to the law
relating to election of Senators and
Representatives, for no Counties were
then In existence. The County Act.
which prescribes the number of per.
sons who may be elected for any one
Office. makes vote Tor more than
such number for that Office Illegal but
does not make Illegal the votes on the
same ballot Tor the proper number of
persons for the other Offices. Voting
Tor too many persons for any one
! County Office is not the Identifying
mark or symbol intended by the gen.
cral election law.
There Is no reason why the statute
which requires rejection of marked
Senatorial or Representative ballots
should not equally apply but there Is
every reason for applying It to County
ballots In order to accomplish the oh.
jcct of the statute which Is the same
In one class of ballots as in the other.
on the other hand. there is no reason
for applying and there Is abundant
reason for not applying. to County bal.
lots the statute which requires rejec.
ton Of a Senatorial or Representative
ballot for too many persons In order
to accomplish its object Of ascertain.
ing for whom the vote is cast.
The statute. for the purpose for
which II was made. is applicable to
County ballots to the extent only OF
the incorrect vote.
CHEF Justice Frear In his opinion
sums up the case as follows:
To sum up. starting from the In.
spectors' standpoint. the inspectors
counted for Iaukea 2735 but made mis-.
takes of 3 in one direction and I In
the other which made his total 2733
on the inspectors showing. the
court counted for him i5i of the 1876
votes rejected by the inspectors and
rejected 81 counted by the inspectors.
giving him n net gain of 1913 or a to.
tai of 1862. The inspectors counted
for brown EEL votes and made mis-.
takes Of ~ in one direction and l in
the other. which made his total 1888
on the inspectors showing. The court
counted for him III Of the 149 which
the inspectors rejected and rejected
IS that the inspectors counted. max.
ing net gain of SO and total of
1892. thus making Iaukeas majority
40.
To sum up differently. from the
standpoint of the court, there were
cast AT the election for County officers
in this County G256 votes. or these
1879 were not marked for either candi.
date for Sheriff or. In few in
stances, were marked for both and
q therefore could not properly be count
ed for either. This leaves 5S17 cast
! for one or the other of these Candi'
dates, of which 2935 were cast for
} Iaukca and 2SS2 for Brown. making a
majority of SO for laukca. or those
, cast for Iaukca 70 are rejected and OF
those cast for Brown 60 are rejected
leaving Iaukca with 1862 and Brown
. with 1922. a majority OF 40 for laukea
/ In ruling upon the ballots the court
! construed the statute literally In ia
vor of the voter and very few, II any
votes were rejected for any cause
which might not easily have been
avoided by any reasonably intelligent
voter and the counting Of which would
open the door for fraud In future cleo
tiOns