Evening star., 1951-08-06

There are two-way contests In
four districts, a three-way fight in
one district and one is unopposed
Inasmuch as the county will
adopt the executive form of gov
ernment next year, there are NO
candidates for the offices Of treas
urer and commissioner of revenue
which will be abolished January /,
The Senate race is not confined
to Fairfax alone. The district also
embraces Falls Church and Alex
andria and Prince William County.
The House district consists OF
Fairfax ard Falls Church. The
same two areas win vote for Com
monwealth's attorney. Each su-
pervisor will be nominated only
by the voters within his own dis
trict. Balloting will be between
$50 am. and 1880 pm.
Mr.. Lynch has made much oi
his fight with county election off,
cials who tried to keep his cam.
paign workers from examining
the list of voters and who also
apparently failed to list the names
of the candidates on the official
ballots in an orderly manner.
The voting lists were made
available after Mr.. Lynch proddeo
election officials to obtain an opin-
ion from the State attorney gen.
eral. The order of listing candi.
dates was not changed, however
because the ballots already hao
been printed.
Mr.. Lynch claims the ballots are
illegal because they neither place
the incumbent first for each office
nor do they list the candidates
alphabetically for all Offices. Fol
example, in the Senate race, Mr.
Clarke's name appears before Mr.
Donovs-n's. That is both alpha.
betical and with the incumbent
first. In the House race, however
Mr.. Keith's name appears before
that of Mr.. Lynch in alphabetical
order. but with the incumbent
last. For Commonwealth's attor.
ney, Mr.. Marsh is first and Mr.
Hudgins is last-which has the
incumbent first but not in alpha
betical order.
Other Variations Noted.
Similar variations are carried
on down through the races fol
supervisors.
ut represents" Mr.. Lynch said
"the old trick of the machine
placing its candidates first ano
telling the voter to mark the first
name for each Office. It clearly
violates the law requiring an or.
derly listing of all candidates.
This is not the first time Mr.
Lynch has met this kind of oppo.
sition. He and his colleagues were
placed last on a ballot for elect.
ing delegates to State Demo
cratic convention to nominate q
successor to the late Senator Car
ter Glass several years ago. The
top 10 Organization" candidates
won.
In 1943 Mr.. Lynch was defeated
by Delegate Robert j. McCandlish,
jr. Two years later Mr.. Lynch
defeated Mr.. McCandlish. In
1947 the unofficial count gave Mr..
Lynch a two-vote win over Mr..
McCandlish, but the official tally
made it a tie. A drawing was
held in Richmond and Mr.. Lynch
won. MIR. McCandlish then took
the case to court and recount
made him the winner by one vote
Two years ago Mr.. Lynch won
nomination over w. Lewis Leigh
by 1872 votes.
In the current campaign. Mr.
Keith says, Charges Of unfair
ness by the Electoral Board and
machine politics are only smoke
screens put out by one who is
certainly acting the part Of a
politician in an effort to mislead
the public and to confuse the
issue.
I'm the few times when Lynch
or his friends have reluctantly
met the issue and let the record
be discussed. their statements are
mere generalities-Lynch has
worked for or Lynch 'favors';;
but nowhere does he or his or
ganization mention concrete re-