Los Angeles herald., 1906-11-04
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ISSUES STATEMENT
ON MARKING BALLOTS

After having received several hun
dred requests for enlightenment on the
ballot to be used at the election next
Tuesday, Deputy District Hartley
Shaw, representing the county, yester-
| day issued an exhaustive statement
setting forth in detail the meaning of
the ballot and the instructions to vot-
! ers.
The ballot this year is one of the
most complicated affairs In the polit-
ical history of California and 1t will
take a great deal of instructing on the
part of the election officers to straight
en- out the voters, many of whom in
years past have had hard work in vot-
ing a simple ballot the way they had
| intended to.
The great number of candidates on
the various tickets, the number of
parties in the field and the fact that
| the names of many of the candidates
appear on several tickets has caused
condition of confusion which, ac-
cording to Mr.. Shaw's statement, will
be hard to overcome without intelli-
| gent instruction.
Following is the statement issued
yesterday:
ITO all election officers:
Certain questions have arisen re-
garding the counting of the ballots
at the general election to be held No
| NeIlDeT D. WHlCIl dT6 IlOJ answered. OK
| pressly in the provisions of the law
upon the subject. AS there has been
considerable inquiry upon these points
| 1t seems proper for this office to ex-
press it's opinion upon the matters for
your guidance.
Voters Intention Considered
"First-The first question presented
is as to the effect of stamping crosses
in two or more party voting circles.
! It is our opinion that a ballot so
marked is not to be rejected for that
reason, but must be counted as far
as the intention of the voter can be
ascertained The law says that a cross
stamped in the circle at the head Of
party ticket shall be deemed a vote
for every candidate named upon that
ticket. 1t is our opinion, therefore
that ballot containing crosses
stamped at the head of two different
| tickets is to be counted as If the voter
had separately stamped cross op-
posite the name of each candidate upon
each Of those two tickets. In many
cases this would result in the voter
| having marked more names than there
| are persons to be elected to the office,
and therefore his ballot could not be
counted for that office; but in some
cases the same person is a candidate
upon two or more tickets for the same
: office, and in other cases there are
: no nominees upon one of the tickets
: for offices for which nominees appear
upon the other ticket. In the last two
cases the ballot could be counted.
ITO explain the matter more in de-
tall If q voter should stamp the Re-
publican ticket and the Socialist ticket
his ballot could not be counted at all,
except perhaps for township Officers
in some townships because each of
these tickets contains a complete list
of nominees for all offices, with the
exception just noted, and the nominees
upon the two tickets are different per-
sons. On the other hand, If voter
should make crosses at the head of
the independence League ticket and
the non partisan ticket, or at the head
Of the Union Labor ticket and the
non-partisan ticket. his ballot should
be counted as a vote for each candi-
date upon the two tickets stamped,
for the non-partisan ticket contains
nominees only for county offices and
the other two tickets named contain
nominees only for state offices.
Care In Marking Crosses
'If voter should stamp crosses at
the head of the Republican ticket and
the non-partisan ticket his ballot
should be counted as a vote for each
ticket. Upon the county ticket the
| Republican and non-partisan nominees
are the same for the offices of county
clerk sheriff, recorder, auditor, treas=
urer, district attorney, surveyor and
| constables of Los Angeles township
and the ballot should therefore be
counted as one vote for the nominee
for each of those offices.
"In some districts this would also
be true of members of the assembly
and supervisors. But for the offices
of superior judge (unexpired term),
tax collector, assessor, coroner, public
administrator, superintendent of
schools and justices of the peace for
Los Angeles township and in some dis
tricts supervisor, member of the as
sembly and senator the nominees are
entirely different and the ballot could
not be counted as to those offices
Neither could such ballot be counted
as to the offices of judge of superior
court (full term) and justices of the
peace of Los Angeles city. For each
of these offices part of the Repub-
lican candidates are also upon the nom
partisan ticket, but not all of them.
Upon the two tickets there are alto
gether eight candidates for judge of
the superior court Qull term) and four
candidates for justice of the peace of
Los Angeles city.
I'm each of these cases, therefore,
the voter would have attempted to vote
for more persons for the office than
he Is entitled to, and hence the ballot
could not be counted for these offices.
In some townships there are no nom
inees for township offices upon the
non-partisan ticket and hence such a
ballot should be counted as vote for
the Republican nominee.
ANY other combination of tickets
that might be voted should be counted
in the same manner. according to the
principles set forth in the foregoing
illustration.
Eraslng Not Permitted
"Second-The question has also been
asked, what win be the effect II a
voter votes a straight ticket and then
scratches off some name on that ticket
with pen or pencil or otherwise. I'M
der the law as 1t now stands we think
this should not be regarded as a dis
tinguishing mark and therefore the
ballot should not be rejected. But
voter Is not authorized to express his
choice by scratching off names upon
his ticket and therefore the attempted
erasure must be disregardSd and the
ballot counted as II the saRle had not