The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1916-11-10
ELECTION CONTESTS
|lR|E|: STATE AFFAIRS
Supreme Court Decisions
Wake that Point Very
Clear.

7tsWASdlNGTON. u. Z" NOV. ~
sf5overnment officials here were deep.
" Interested in and not little con.
lEerned over announcements from Dem.
ppcrafic and Republican campaign lead.
Ter that contests might be expected,
With . possibility Of legal proceedings
lover the votes for Presidential cleo.
IN several Of the close states.
Examination Of the decisions Of the
\ Supreme Court and Of the revised sta.
3tutes disclosed that electors are plain
as state officers. The high.
lest court has held in two leading cases
That question Of their proper or i'm.
IMPROPER choice are for state election
tnfdcers or state courts to determine.
skand that the Federal government is
mot lawfully concerned even II fraud
sks shown.
The revised statutes provide that
1.-THE electors shall meet In each state
land give their votes" on the second
llMonday in January following election
lat places to be designated by the State
In tho Ordinary course
ofsproceedings where the right Of the
stelectors to sit is uncontested their
Etvotes would be counted in the House
lSofl Representatives here on the second
"Wednesday in February and this
would be the legal end TO the election.
The Statutes further provide that
where a State shall have laws made
prior to the election determining meth.
DDS by which controversies or con.
:tests over elections shall be settled,
whether to judicial proceedings or 9th.
Iterwise, these laws shall be binding
aud shall govern in counting the cleo
floral vote"
Officials here were under the i'm.
Spression that It would be found that
fll the States that may be involved in
I contests by laws OF this characted.
n From the direction that the cleo.
Z toral votes of all the states be counted
In the House on the second Monday in
y january there seems to be nothing to
indicate Just how much latitude a
6tate might have at the fixed time.
When Congress meets to receive the
votes 1t is still possible for ma.
t3ority to reverse the certified results
from any State in certain cases. AS
the votes are read to the jqint session
4 the statutes give the right to any
4 member Of either House to object. the
collections to be considered in sep.
arate session. Where only one re-.
turn has been made from a State,
& Congress cannot overturn the certi.
Sded result, except the two houses con.
currently may reject any vote It ap.
pears not to have been given by the
z properly chosen electors.
The Constitution provides that
where an election is thrown into tho
House selection must be made by
the fourth Of March. follow. the
election. but this apparently e intend.
ed only to cover cases where there
50 q tie and whether it applies to those
where there is dispute over electors
nom q State or States is not clear
Z. It was believed by legal experts
! here that the final canvass could be
held open until March and that a
selection would be made by that time.
ks Upon the question of State juris.
dtction over choice of electors several
cases have been before the Supreme
Court, but apparently none directly
on the question of jurisdiction over
- recount Of such electoral votes.
In 1880, in a Virginia case upon
prosecution for fraudulent voting for
ELECTORS, Justice Gray said the only
powers Of the Federal Government
with regard to the appointment or
the votes Of Presidential electors ARE
those which authorize Congress to
Determine the time and the day on
which they shall give their votes, and
which direct that certificates Of their