The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1910-04-29
What the Law Provides

| What the Law Provides
THE legislature of the state of
Idaho in this act has provided that if
none of the candidates receive ma
jority of the voters cast for that Of
flee, the second choice vote shall be
counted, and the candidate receivign
the largest number of first and second
choice votes shall be declared the
choice of the people. We direct your
attention to the fact that at no place
in the actis it provided that the in
dication of a second choice is manda-
tory. The act is mandatory to the ex-
tent that 1t does provide that ballots
shall have placed upon them an in
struction to the voter to indicate his
first and second choice This, we
have shown, however, must certainly
be interpreted as merely extending a
privilege to voter, ofrWhich he may
avail himself or not, as his inclination
directs him.
I'VE further direct your attention
to the fact that there is no clause of
the act prohibiting the casting of
vote for first choice unless a second
choice is likewise indicated.
1--WE do not doubt but what there
may have been some decisions by the |
courts of some states upon this propo-
sition, but so far we have not been
able to find them, if they exist.
Decisions Supporting Contention
There are, however, any number
of decisions in support of those posi-
lions which We have indicated, and
upon which premises we have based
our opinion. For instance, as indi-
cative of the tenor of the decisions,
that the evident intent of the voter
must govern, the facts in an Illinois
Jase were briefly as follows. There
was to be an election for school di-
'ectors at which two director were to .
De elected, one for an uneXpired term
Ind one for long term. There were ,
only two candidates. The instruc- !
ions upon the ballot were to the eff 6
ect that the voter should indicate
which candidate he voted for for the
ong term, and which for the unex- ,
tired term. A ballot was cast in which q
voter wrote after the name of one !
II the candidates the words, long 1
erm, but failed to indicate for what r
ERIN he intended to vote for the 9TH =
r candidate. In contest an attempt .
vas made to cast out this vote upon E
he dictatorship, but the court, while +
ot deciding as to the effect upon the =
ecnd candidate of the omission Just u
Mentioned, ruled that the vote for h
he director after whose name the q
lords, long term appeared should !.
e counted, Page VS.. Kuykenhall, 80 q
:. R. A. 656, 43 N. E., lila. g,
The Montana courts have held %
lat statutory provisions as to voting a
re to be considered as directory on !,
I, unless they are expressly declared y,
be mandatory, or by clear infer n
nee were necessarily intended to be f.
}. Dickerman VS.. Goldsthrope. 10 -
[ont,, 249; Al Pac., 999. 10 +,
This court also holds that ballot ~ ~
hich is marked in substantial COM r. r'
lance with the law and clearly indi- ~.
ties the intent and choice of the vot-
: must be counted unless the statute ~
or by clair inference FOR or
IDS 1T. Phillips VS.. Board of Can IN
users of Raleigh County, w. Va. GO, b hu
. E. 1872. T.; T..
I'VE are, therefore, compelled to -,
~ that in our opinion a ballot con- ~
lining first choice should be count III
whether or not second choice is IN
dicated. 1t is sincerely to be, hop To-
|, however, that an opinion upon ~
at point will be given by the at Is
rney general of the state of Idaho oh
reasonable time before the prmar- nf
es." VI