The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-11-16
COUNTY SEAT ELECTION CONTEST
Decision 81 State Supreme CoUrt)

leNing that such marx was made 10y the
voter with the intent that his ballot
should be distmgui he'd from others In
/ the box that, IN determining what bal-
I To- should be counted, the court shnuld
/ look at the questioned one ana from such
/ inspection aided by the notorious facts
and circumstances Of the election az
which Il was cast. determine whether
! the questioned ma wis in ended hN the
4 vote as distinguishing mark or NOT
| and NJ. upon such Inspection and consld-
/ Grafton aided by evidence aliunde u Of
| fercd. the court should Conclude that tho
| mark WAS made for the purpose Of dis
| tingushing the ballot. or might be ren-
sonably thought TO be 50 intended, the
! ballot should not be counted
| We are not referred 10, nor have we
been able TO ma any case wherein this
Identical question has been decided. The
| ncaiest approach To IL is "a case decided
by the Supreme Cou OF Nevada. Buck
| ner ". Lynip. % New, 426. 30 r. A.. Boa.
The statute Of Nevada provides hat any
! ballot on which appears names. words,
or marks. written or printed except ns
| provided IN this act, shall not be count
/ ed" The statute 0f oklahoma on the
/ same proposition. section S. chapter n,
article 4. session Laws, 1908, provides
| hat "any ballot which bears any dis
tlngulshing ma 6 or on which any Writ
Ing appears with nen or pencil, ana any
| ballot upon which the Judges are unable
te gree as 70 how II shall be counted,
be designated as mutimted ballots. and
shall be preserved and kept separate from
the ballots counted" Tho scope and
|
observed. are practically the same
Under the election act OF Nevada the
ballots are prepared in three pa U.s. inc
stub. separated by a perforated line from
the ballot proper. and a slip, also scpa-
rated In the same manner, the stub and
the slip each bears a corresponding num-
Der Under the law, u was the duty y
the election official TO deliver to earh
vote OF the ballots detached from the
stub and bearing the slip with the num-
Der stated After being stamped as pro-
| fst1 Loo htH NJ IN q
10 the election official. II was his duty
O detach from the ballot, the slip bear
l9s 5Re nHoSr 10 one go s PTsohhSt hg, d5e
posted the ballots with the number stlll
attached, and counted the ballots as cast
Just as the ballots In the case at bar
were counted. Notwithstanding the fact
that they contained numbers placed
thereon by the election oiiiciuls. on q
contest being brought on the statue
| which divided as above set out, tae
Supreme Court of that state said In cOa-
STRUNG the same.
| viewed IN the light Of the circumstances
under Which II Is used. II plain and ul-
ambiguous, IL must be construed as Il
reads, no matter how unreasonable It's
operation may be, But as II is not TO be
presumed that he legislature Intended 10
enact an unreasonable or unjust law,
ahero such would be the csult Of It's
| operation, IN construed In a certnin way,
and the language is not positive and d.
| tttt 70 lial tHtft. II is me uuiN OF tnt
courts 10 cast anout to see If II Is not
| susceptible OF some other construction,
and IN doing this they should consider
not only the language used In some par
lcuiar section but the whole SCOPE and
purpose Of the act, and adopt. II pos
! sibic such a construction as VIII mar
monize the various sections with this
purpose, and with the demands OF justice
Where Il is forbidden TO count
ballots containing names, words, on
marks other than those provided for In
I / tlp 10
OF the language only such as to tend to
distinguish me ballots were Intended
placed upon the ticket for that purpose
They are instances OF where
the language has overrun the Intention
isut la the case we have 10 deal with
ne e. the marks upon the ballots lad.
Giittng that marks upon the strip AZ
taehed TO the ballot are ma ks upon The
lallpt itself as is doubtless within the
Intention. II not The letter, OF the lawl
dthougn not placed thereon Intentionally
nor with the voters knowledge OF con-
sent. are such as to identity the ballots
Jocs this alter the case2 Under the cir.
eumstances existing here could this fact
have been used for the purpose OF intm-
ldutlon @ bribery? 10 Is not possible
intimidate man into voting Tor men
or measures against his viii, unless he
.ds a reason To believe that II he does
not so vote IL win become known to the
/ ihtimiddtor. Here the voter knew that
the law was compiled with no one
could ever ascertain how he had voted
I |
was not being complied with. ana in fact
the fair Inference from the testimony Is
tnat Il was not known TO anyone until the
os closed. An supposed that the slips
We're being removed, and II follows that
none could have been inundated by
the fact that they were left on the bal
lots But the principal reason TO for
bidding these distinguishing marks was
undoubtedly TO defeat bribery II waa
believed that the vote buyer would not
invest money IN the purchase OF votes II
I Iy NH ue
certain whether the voter had voted as
agreed, The only way in which thus
be by some mark being placed upon the
ballot which had been agreed upon be-
tweea them; and IL must be done either
| ,sf the vote himself o. by some one
else with his knowledge and consent. II
- clear tbAt TINS slip WAS lett ON the
ballots accidentally. aud not for any such
purpose as that; and therefore il Is no
"itln the spnit or meaning ct the
Nv, 50 TAR as corruption Is concerned
ny the blundcr OF The inspectu 5, the
! strips and numbe were left upon the
certain just how each one had voted This
WAS done unintcntiOnallN. and without tho
voters kuowledge. Consequently as We
nave tried 20 show, II could not have
hccd made the means OF intimidation nos
| the agent OF corruption. But by reason
OF a., without being az all Ia fault ~ 9n-
| selves the voters have Incurred all the
| odhm and disadvantages OF having the
lMoWfeugo OF how they voicd made pub
] iis Mhl reason can tntrc be Tor add
ing to their punishment thaU Of disfrau-
| g. usomcEt2 10 so hold would be like
piing Ossa upon Pelion. and, Il would
seem. was clearly not intended by the
law. 10 hold that Il was would be not
10 literally cOnstule the act in favor Of
the voter but strictly against him"
The reasoning OF the court Ia this
case, II seems 20 us. Is entirely 0ppl-
cable To tbs facts In the case az bar, and
| 20 hold that these ballots were not dis.
tinguifhed but should be counted as cast
/ where otherwise valid, Is IN conSOnauce
with authority as wen as good reason aud
justice A voter ought not 20 be disfrat-
Chised aud his ballot rejected Whereas Ia
this cas-, an election ohiciN hnpnperly
marks or numbers % when II IL not
| shown Il was done or that IA was done
with the conniNancc, consent, or knowl-
edge of the voter, and for the purpose
lf Distinguishing ~
| Another thought In this connection
vhicn in our Judgment strengthens the
| lew c'hawc above exp ressed Is this.
II three Of the precincts were not to be
counted by reason OF the innocent ig-
'-n' npmherine of TIE ballots by the
officials, many more. one- -half-indeed 10
H.riN ,he eNamule to the ieNifemc, the
ballots in an huf one preciuct might
have been SO treated and II contention Of
counsel be- sustained, thc9 the majority
Icf the valid vote east iu pns precluct
would determine The location of TIE