The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1917-07-17
Associated Press)
SUPREME COURTS
DECISION
Court Has Ruled that i'm Order to
Vote Man Must Have Some
Intelligence

With the exception of the leading
statements of the case, familiar to
nearly all our people, and number
Of decisions made in other states, all
bearing on the case, but too lengthy
for the Star to reprint, following is
the substance of the supreme court
decision in the Marion county wet or
dry case:
On every alternate ballot the words
against Selling" and "For Selling"
were reversed. The words Against
Selling" and "For Selling" were
printed in large, clear capitals.
The court held that the two forms
of ballots were not "alike" in the true
sense of the statute and should not
have been received or counted under
Sections 21O-219 of the General Sta
tutes of Florida, and declared the
election null and void.
The courts. that hold that an cleo
tor is not to be deprived of the high
privilege of voting on account of any
irregularity, mistake, error, or even
wrongful act of the officers charged
with the duty of providing means
for, and conducting elections, take
much higher stand than those which
insist upon strict technical con-
struction. Thus, where the ballots
| furnished by the proper officials, were
improperly separated by the inspec-
| tors before being handed to the voter,
i was held to be an irregularity which
did not defeat the election. In dis
cussing it the court said: "In this
country, the right of the elector to
have his vote cast and counted is pro-
tected from fraud or mistake by the
election officers by every possible
safeguard, where it appears that his
untrammeled right to this high priv
ilege of citizenship has not been de-
MED or abridged"
"The Individual voter may well be
called upon to see that the require
ments of the law applying to himself
are complied with before casting his
ballot, and, if he should wilfully or
carelessly violate the same, there
would be no hardship or injustice in
depriving him of his vote; but, if, on
the other hand, he should, in good
faith, comply with the law upon his
part, it would be great hardship
were he deprived of his ballot through
some fault or mistake of an election
officer in failing to comply with
provision of law over which the voter
had no control. 1t is also question
IN which the public have direct and
important interest, for the loss of
such vote may have controlling eff
feet upon public matter. The con-
stitutionaI provision aforesaid guar
antees the right to vote, and this, of
necessity, carries with it the right to
have the vote counted"
i 'Tt appears that the courts have es-
ltablished no rule which is generally
recognized by which it may be def
nitely determined, when a provision
of an election law is to be regarded
as mandatory and when merely di-
rectory, or under what circumstances
ia provision which is mandatory upon
the officials charged with the duty of
arranging for and conducting cleo
tions, will be regarded as grounds for
lnullifying an election, when the cleo
tors have freely exercised the right
of suffrage and there is no charge that
If the law had been strictly complied
with the result would have been diff
ferent. Republics regard the elective
franchise assTsacred. and the courts
should not set aside an election be-
cause some official has not complied