Case Name: SLAYMAKER v. PHILLIPS
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1895-07-01
Citations: 5 Wyo. 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: SLAYMAKER v. PHILLIPS.
Judges: ■ Pottle, J., concurs; Groesbeck, C. J., dissents.
Reporter: Wyoming Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 453–500

Head Matter:
SLAYMAKER v. PHILLIPS.
Elections — Mandatoby Statutes — Endobsement op Oppioial Ballot — Void Ballots — Constitutional Law — Constbuction op Statutes.
1. The statute prohibiting the counting of any ballot which is not indorsed by the official stamp and has not the name or initials of the judge of election written. thereon, is mandatory. (L. 1890, Ch. 80, Sec. 130.) (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
2. The statute requires both the official stamp and the name or initials of a judge of election indorsed upon a ballot to make it valid, and the absence of either will cause its rejection. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
3. Either the name or initials of the judge may be used. Both are not required.
4. The official stamp and the name or initials of a judge of election must appear upon the exterior of the ballot when it is folded, after having been prepared by the elector, so as to conceal the tickets it bears upon its face.
5. Such indorsement of the ballot is the legal and best means of identifying it as the identical ballot which was furnished to the elector, and of certifying to the latter that it is official. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
6. The legislature has the power to define and prescribe what shall constitute a lawful ballot, and to enact that none but lawful ballots shall be received and counted. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
7. The statutory requirement that the elector shall fold his ballot so that the indorsement may be seen implies that he shall look for such indorsement. If he neglects that duty, and, in consequence thereof, loses his vote, he has no cause for complaint. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
8. Courts should hesitate long before declaring an act of the legislature invalid, or unreasonable to the extent of being unconstitutional, and then should not do so unless such conclusion is unavoidable and necessary.
9. In case of apparent conflict between statutory and constitutional provisions they should be harmonized if possible.
10. There is no conflict between the constitution and the statute invalidating a ballot not containing the required indorsements. Such statute is a reasonable, constitutional and efficient exercise of the legislative duty to pass laws to secure the purity of elections, guard against abuses of the elective franchise, and make the secrecy of the ballot compulsory. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
11. The statute is not unconstitutional either because its enforcement will result in the rejection of ballots cast by persons possessing the constitutional qualifications of electors. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
12. Section 130, Chap. 80, Laws 1890, is not in conflict with Section 131, which regulates the canvass of the votes by the election officers. (Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
[Decided July 1, 1895.
Rehearing denied December 6, 1895.]
Reserved questioNS from the District Court of Converse County, HoN. Riohard H. Scott, Judge.
This was an election contest, and was tried to the district court without a jury. The court found the facts in the case, and then reserved certain questions to the Supreme Court for its decision. Samuel Slaymaker and Arthur W. Phillips had been opposing candidates for the office of clerk of the district court at the election held in November, 1894. The findings of fact were as follows:
“And the court, having heard all the evidence, and the arguments of counsel, and being sufficiently advised, does say and find for the plaintiff, and that on November sixth, A. D. 1894, a general election was had in the County of Converse, in the State of Wyoming, for the purpose, among other things, of electing a clerk of the district court for said county, for the term of two years, commencing on the seventh day of January, A. D. 1895; that at the time of said election, and for more than one year theretofore, the plaintiff and defendant were, and ever since then have continued to be, residents and qualified electors of said county; that at said election the plaintiff and defendant were opposing candidates and nominees for election to the office of clerk'of the district court of' said county, for the term aforesaid; that the plaintiff and defendant respectively had been theretofore duly and regularly nominated as candidates for said office at said election,’ by the county conventions of their respective political parties, held in said county, and the said nominations had been duly and regularly certified, made, signed, authenticated and verified as provided by law, which said certificates of nomination had been duly and regularly filed in the office of the county clerk of said county, at and within the time required by law, and the names of the plaintiff and defendant were duly and regularly printed as such candidates and nominees for said office upon the official ballots prepared for and used at said election; that at said election votes -were cast for the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, and for ho other person, for said office, in each of the voting precincts in said county, and the said votes after being canvassed and counted by the judges and clerks of election, at the several precincts, were certified, returned and transmitted to the county clerk of said county; that thereafter, and on the 19th day of November, A. D. 1894, all of the returns of said election in said county had been received by the county clerk thereof, and on said day, the same being within fifteen (15) days after the close of said election, the said county clerk, taking to his assistance two justices of the peace-of his county, one of whom was .of a different political party than himself, did proceed to open and canvass, the returns of said election in said county, and to make abstracts of the votes, in the manner provided by law, and did complete such canvass on that day, and did then, and on the said 19th day of November, A. D. 1894, find and declare from said returns that the said plaintiff had received four hundred and eighty-five (485) votes at said election, for the said office of clerk of said district court, and that the said defendant had received four hundred and eighty-eight (488) votes for said office; and did then further find and declare that the defendant had received the highest number of votes for said office, and had been duly elected thereto, and thereupon the county clerk of said county did make out and deliver unto the defendant a certificate certifying the defendant’s election to said office.”
■ “And the court further finds that at said election there were in said county, in addition to others, three voting precincts designated as Voting Precinct No. 11, in Election District No. 3, commonly known as ‘Boyston’s Banch Precinct,’ Voting Precinct No. 26, in Election District No. 2, commonly known as ‘Gray’s Banch Precinct,’ and Voting Precinct No. 13, in Election District No. 5, commonly known as ‘Duck Bar Precinct.’
“That in the said ‘Boyston’s Banch Precinct,’ at said election, the plaintiff received two (2) votes for said office of clerk of the district court, and the defendant received six (6) votes for said office; at the said ‘Gray’s Eanch Precinct’ the plaintiff received nine (9) votes for said office, 'and the defendant received fourteen (14) votes for said office; and in the said ‘Duck Bar Precinct’ the plaintiff received eleven (11) votes for said office; thus making a total of twenty-two. (22) votes for the plaintiff in said three precincts for said office, and a total of forty-six (46) votes for the defendant for said office in said three precincts.”
“And the court further finds that in the said precincts, and each of them, the judges of election therein at said election, wholly failed and neglected to write the name or initials of any of said judges of election upon the back, or upon any other portion of any of the ballots used or voted thereat, and wholly failed and neglected to write any name or initial upon the back, or upon any other portion, of any.of said ballots.”
“And the court further finds the judges of election in said ‘Gray’s Ranch Precinct’ and in said ‘Duck Bar Precinct,’ and each of them, at said election, wholly failed and neglected to print on the back of any of the ballots used or voted thereat any stamp or device designating such ballots as ‘Official Ballots,’ or indicating the name or number of the voting precinct, or in any other respect containing the designating or identifying matter required by law, or any other matter whatsoever, though they did stamp upon the face; at the head- of each of said ballots, such device.”
“And the court further finds that the judges and clerks of election at each of said precincts treated as lawful and valid all of the ballots voted thereat, and did canvass and return as valid all of said ballots, thereby apparently giving to the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, the .number of votes hereinbefore named, and that if said ballots and votes had not been counted, the plaintiff would have received four hundred and sixty-three (463) votes in said county at said election, for the office of clerk of the district court therein) and the defendant would have received only four hundred and forty-two (443) votes at said election, for said office; and by reason thereof the plaintiff would have received the highest number of votes for said office, and would have been elected thereto.” The reserved questions are stated in the opinion.
Lacey & Van Levanter, for plaintiff.
Any ballot which is not endorsed by the official stamp is void and should not be counted. It is also void and should not be counted if it has not the name or initials of a judge of election. (Laws 1890, pp. 174, 175, secs. 130, 119, 122, and 128.) The absence of either one invalidates the ballot. The language is positive, and the statute is mandatory. (McCrary on Elect., sec. 190; State v. Chandless (N. J.), 29 Atl., 322; Ellis v. May, 99 Mich., 538; Aego v. Stoddard, 136 Ind., 700; State v. Connor, 86 Tex., 133; Atty. Gen. v. McQuade, 94 Mich., 439; People v. B’d, 129 N. Y., 395; People v. B’d, 135 N. Y., 522; State v. Walsh, 62 Conn., 260; Baxter v. Ellis, 111 N. C., 124; Spurgin v. Thompson, 37 Neb., 39; Bechtel v. Albin, 134 Ind., 193; In re Ballot marks, 18 R. I., 822; Par-vin v. Wimberg, 130 Ind., 561; Curran v. Clayton, 86 Me., 42; Whittam v. Zahoric (la.), 59 N. W., 57; Kearns v. Edwards (N. J.), 28 Atl., 723; In re Vote marks, 17 R. I., 812; State v. Hilmantel, 21 Wis., 566; State v. Stumpf, 23 id., 630; In re Elect, of McD., 105 Pa. St., 488.)
Robert W. Breckons, for defendant.
Without denying the. claim that the statute is mandatory, counsel for defendant contended and argued that section 130 of the election laws does not require or authorize the rejection of all ballots which have not on them both the official stamp and the initials of the judge; but that if when a ballot is handed to the judges to be deposited, it can be identified in any.manner as the ballot previously handed to the voter by the election officers, the purpose of the act is accomplished; and cited (Const., Art. VI, Sec. 11; par. 18, sec. 174, chap. 80, L. 1890). The provisions relating to the preparation of ballots were enacted to secure to a voter the right to exercise his franchise freely and without the interference of any other person. The section (130) should be construed in the light of the objects and purposes to be accomplished. It does not require both the stamp and initials to permit a ballot to be counted. The section can be construed to mean that if either the stamp or initials be found on a ballot, it may be counted. The policy of the law is that no voter shall be deprived of his right of suffrage by reason of any neglect or breach of duty on the part of an election officer. (McCrary, see. 192; Jones Y. State, 1 Kan., 273; Gilliland v. Schuyler, 9 id., 569; Paine on Elect., sec. 373; People v. Sehermerhorn, 19 Barb., 540; People y. Cook, 8 N. Y., 67; Thompson v. Ewing (Pa), 1 Brewst., 107.) The words “or” and “and” may be used by courts interchangeably. (46 la., 670; 65 N. C., 342; 77 id., 35.)

Opinion:
CoNaway, JustiCe.
This is an election contest. Plaintiff and defendant were candidates for the office of clerk of the district court for Converse County, and defendant had a majority of the votes cast, counted and returned for the office. Plaintiff contests, however, that the ballots cast at the three voting precincts in the county were illegal and void, and should not have been counted, and were counted contrary to express provisions of our statute. If the votes of these precincts were rejected, plaintiff would be elected.
The alleged illegality in the ballots cast at these three precincts consisted in their not having the name or initials of either of the judges of election, upon the back or upon any part of any of the ballots, and in two of the precincts none of the ballots were endorsed with the official stamp, though the stamp was placed upon the face of the ballots at the head of the ballots.
Upon these facts the district court reserves for our decision the following important and difficult questions:
"1. Are the provisions of the election laws of Wyoming which require that the judge of election, before delivering any ballot to an elector, shall print on the back of the ballot the designation 'Official Ballot/ and the other words provided by said laws, and that one of said judges shall write his name or initials upon the back of each ballot, directory only, or are they mandatory?
"2. Should any of the ballots cast at said election at either of the above named precincts be rejected, and, if so, which of said ballots should be so rejected?
"3. Upon the facts aforesaid, should judgment be entered for the plaintiff or for the defendant?"
Section 110 of- Chapter 80, of the session laws of 1890, provides that the county clerk or clerk of the municipality, in case of a municipal election, shall furnish to the judges of election the proper number of ballots; and provides fur- ther that "he shall also deliver to the said judges a rubber_or other stamp with ink pad for the purpose of stamping or designating the official tickets as hereinafter provided. Said stamp shall contain the words 'Official Ballot/ the name and number of the polling precinct, the name of the county or municipality as the case may be, and the name and official designation of the clerk who furnishes the tickets."
Section 119 of the same act provides as follows:
"At each election the judges of election shall designate two of said judges who shall deliver the ballots to the qualified electors. Before delivering any ballot to an elector the said judge shall print on the back and near the top of the ballot with a rubber or other stamp provided for that purpose the words 'Official Ballot/ and the other words on the said stamp as hereinafter provided, and one of the said judges shall write his name or initials upon the back of each ballot and directly under the official stamp."
Section 130, in so far as it affects the questions before us, provides as follows:
"In the canvass of the votes any ballot which is not endorsed by the official stamp or has not the name or initials of the judge of election, as provided in this act, shall be void and shall not be counted."
There can be no question that this last provision is mandatory. The language that the ballots specified "shall not be counted" requires no construction and admits of none. It seems to be as plain as any words that could be selected. But counsel contend tbat the provision may be construed to require the absence of both the stamp and the name or initials of one of the judges in order to make the ballot void. Some room for this idea is furnished by the language of the statute in specifying negatively and disjunctively what -defects shalLcause the rejection of the ballot, and not putting the provision in the affirmative form of declaring what shall be requisite in the endorsement of a ballot otherwise legal, to authorize it to be counted. If the statute said that a ballot, otherwise legal, should be counted only when it -is endorsed by the official stamp or has the name or initials of the judge of election as provided in this act, it would be clear that the presence of-either one or the other would authorize the counting of the ballot. But- as the -provision reads, it is equally clear that the meaning is that the absence of either one or the other shall cause the rejection' of the ballot. The name and- initials are interchangeable, of course, and both of these are not required. This all seems obvious from a mere inspection of the language, and this disposes of all the points made by counsel for defendant in brief or oral argument.
• But one member of this court insists that this is an unreasonable and' unconstitutional restriction of-the right of suffrage. The majority of the court think differently.
The -duty of courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislature is, perhaps, the most delicate duty -they have to perform. Courts may. well hesitate long before declaring an act of -the legislature invalid, or unreasonable to the extent of being unconstitutional, -and then should not do so unless-such conclusion -is necessary mnd unavoidable. The question whether a provision is -reasonable or unreasonable is a question primarily for- the. legislature to' decide in enacting the law. And it has been held that'it is the duty of the.courts.to enforce-statutory provisions, however unreasonable they may appear.. Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga., 194. In case of- apparent conflict between statutory and constitutional provisions-they should be. harmonized if possible.- But we find no conflict between the statutory provisions under.consideration-and the.constitution in any of its provisions. The constitution imposes upon the legislature the duty to pass laws to secure the purity of elections and to guard against abuses of the elective franchise. (Art. 6, Sec. 13.)
Section 11 of the constitution imposes further legislative duties in these words: .
"All elections shall he by ballot. The legislature shall provide by law that the names of all candidates for the same office to be voted for at any election, shall be printed on the same ballot, at public expense, and on election day to be delivered to the voters within the polling place by sworn public officials, and only such ballots so delivered shall be received and counted. All voters shall be guaranteed absolute privacy in the preparation of their ballots, and the security of the ballot shall be made compulsory."
Our election law was enacted before the constitution went into effect by the admission of Wyoming as a State, but after the constitution had been adopted by the constitutional convention and ratified by the vote of the people. It was thus as complete an expression of the will of the people as to the character of election law as they desired, and as efficient information to the legislature upon that subject as it was afterwards when it went into effect as the constitution of the State of Wyoming. And the act in question has been left in force ever since without important change, and no change affecting .the questions submitted for our decision, as providing the means for carrying these constitutional provisions into effect. This is an emphatic legislative endorsement of these provisions as they stand to-day; and they follow the constitutional provisions very closely.
It will be observed that not a single one of these constitutional provisions is self executing. There could not be an election by ballot without a law providing means for the polling of the vote by ballot. So as to the other provisions. It was and is necessary, and the constitution expressly requires that the legislature shall provide by law for the privacy of voters in preparing their ballots, for the compulsory secrecy of the ballot, that' the names of candidates shall be printed on tbe same ballot at public expense, and delivered on election day to the voters within the polling place by sworn public officials, and that only such ballots so delivered shall be received and counted. Legislation was and is necessary to provide the public official to deliver the ballots, and to provide the means of identification requisite to carry out the provision that only such ballots so delivered should be received and counted, and to exclude all others.
If we could entertain a doubt as to the correctness of our conclusion, that section 130 of the act of 1890 requires both the official stamp and the name or initials of a judge of the election to make a valid ballot, and that the legislature has not exceeded its authority in enacting the provisions quoted from the act, and that they are not in conflict with the eon-' stitution, there are some further considerations which would suffice to remove all doubt. We have examined a considerable number of cases industriously collated by the Chief Justice, and fairly collated without regard to the question of whether they sustain his dissent or not. We have also examined the authorities at hand upon the general question of the authority of legislatures, under constitutions more or less similar to our own, to enact laws resulting in the rejection of illegal ballots, even when involving large numbers of votes, the votes of entire precincts, or districts consisting of a number of precincts, or the validity of an entire election. After such examination we feel safe in announcing the following proposition:
No respectable authority can be found denying the power of the legislature to define and prescribe what shall constitute a lawful ballot; and the further proposition that no respectable authority can be found denying the power of the legislature to enact that none but lawful ballots shall be received or counted. Such provisions our legislature has enacted. The first subdivision of section 164 of the act of 1890 reads:
"No officer shall deposit in the ballot box any ballot except a lawful one. A lawful ballot is an official ballot officially stamped and marked with the initials or name of a judge of the election, and offered by a qualified elector during the time of election." And the authorities are unanimous to the effect that an illegal ballot will not be counted. If it be considered doubtful whether section 130 requires both the official stamp and the name or initials of a judge of the election upon the ballot, it can not be considered doubtful under section 164. And section 128 of the act provides also that "No judge of election shall deposit in any ballot box any ballot upon which the official endorsement hereinbefore provided for does not appear." The official endorsement is the official stamp .with the name or initials of a judge of election written directly under it by himself. The meaning of these three sections taken- together is 'clear. A legal ballot is one with both the official' stamp and the name or initials of a judge of the election upon it, no judge of election shall deposit any other ballot in any ballot box, and no other ballot shall be counted. And if any judge of election deposit any other ballot in any ballot box the act is highly penal. The eleventh subdivision of section 164 provides:
"Any officer violating any of the provisions of this section shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years and not less than one year, or be fined not more than two thousand dollars and not less than one hundred dollars, or may be both imprisoned and fined as aforesaid, and shall forever thereafter be incapacitated from holding any civil office or of exercising the elective franchise in Wyoming."
The legislature evidently regarded- the observance of these provisions as of great importance and made the penalty thus severe.
But- the voter has duties to .perform supplementary to that of the officers, and the performance of these duties by the voter constitutes an important part of the scheme of the constitution and the-statute to secure the purity of elections, to guard against abuses of the elective franchise, and to secure the secrecy of the ballot. And section 165 of the act imposes a severe penalty upon any person upon whom any duty is imposed by the act, "who shall wilfully do or perform any act by this act prohibited, or who shall neglect or omit to perform any duty imposed by this act."
And the act specifies some things which the elector himself shall do, and some things which he shall not do'.
"On receipt of his .ballot the-elector shall forthwith, and without leaving the polling-place, retire alone to one of the places, booths or compartments provided' to prepare his ballot. He shall prepare his ballot-by marking a cross before or after the name of the person or' persons for- whom he intends to vote." (Sec. 120.)
"Ho elector' other than-one who may, because of his disability to read or physical-disability, be unable to mark his ballot shall divulge to any one within the. polling place-the name of any candidate' for whom he' intends to vote or (to) ask or receive the assistance of any person.within the, polling place in the preparation of his ballot." (See..'127.)
'. "After preparing his -ballot the elector-shall fold it so- that the face of the ballot will be concealed, and so that the endorsement therein may be'seen. He shall then vote-forthwith and before leaving -the-polling place."' (Sec. 122.)
• What acts' of omission- or - commission will subject- the elector to the'penalties of section 165 we-will not now-consider. But we cannot regard-' the -elector who neglects to comply with any of these positive provisions of the statute as blameless, and we think he has no cause of complaint if, in •consequence of such neglect, he loses hiswote. -The positive command of-the statute that the-elector shall fold his-ballot 'so that the endorsement may be seen- implies that he- shall -look for such-endorsement. It cannot be said that it is impossible for him to comply with this requirement when the ballot furnished bears no. endorsement.'-' The judges are there with the official stamp. It is little trouble'to ask them to endorse'the ballot próperly. '• We have-no patience to consider the idea that the-voters generally have not the intelligence to do this.
We will-'not' .'speculate -as 'to. what -presumptions may arise from this neglect of dirty by the officers of the three precincts named with the acquiescence of'all the voters. "But we must say that the effect of such, proceeding is to open the door to fraud and abuses of the elective franchise which the legislature has properly sought to close; and to put it in the power of unscrupulous election officers and their confederates to perpetrate the very frauds and abuses which it is the object of the constitution and the statute to suppress. Such irregularities may occur through negligence in case of a fair election, but we are of opinion they are not likely to.
But these are minor considerations in the discussion of the questions before us. The description of a lawful ballot is plain. The command to the judges to place no other ballot in the ballot box and the provision that any. ballot not answering to the description shall not be counted, are plain, imperative and mandatory. The doctrine of all the authorities as to such language in election laws is well summed up in McCrary'on Elections at se'ction 190. He says: "The language of the statute to be construed must be consulted and followed. If the statute expressly declares any particular act to be essential to the validity of the election, or that its omission shall render the election void, all courts whose duty it is to enforce such statute, must so hold, whether, the particular act in question goes to the merits or affects the result of the election or not. Such a statute is imperative, and all considerations of its policy or impolicy must be addressed to the législature".
We are willing to go to the extreme limit of liberal construction in order to save an honest election, or to avoid the loss of votes cast in good faith; but we cannot conceive that it is permissible for this court or any court to set aside positive legislative enactments. The statutes under consideration aTe too clear in their meaning to require construction. The question is simply whether we will enforce them or not. We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court of Kansas has well stated the correct principles applicable to such cases in Boyd v. Mills, 25 L. R. A., 486, as follows:
"The departure .from the law in matters which the legislature has not declared to be of vital importance must be substantial in order to vitiate the ballots."
And tbe following rule from tbe same case commands our approval:
"Where tbe law is explicit in prohibiting tbe counting of any ballot which does not conform to tbe requirement of tbe statute that the courts will enforce tbe law as it stands without interposing their own judgment as to tbe reasonableness or unreasonableness of the requirements."
We are of tbe opinion that the statutory provisions under consideration are reasonable, constitutional and efficient means of the discharge by the legislature of the duty imposed by the constitution to pass laws to secure the purity of elections, to guard against abuses of the elective franchise, and to make the secrecy of the ballot compulsory.
But we are not prepared to give the categorical answer of yes or no to the first question reserved for our decision; neither do the facts of the case call for it. We should be loath to say that a defective stamp not containing all the words required by the statute, used upon all the ballots of a voting precinct, would require the rejection of the vote of the precinct east at an election fairly and honestly conducted.' And the facts of this case do not raise this question. Neither do we decide whether the stamp and the name or initials of a judge of the election must be upon the back of the ballot to authorize its counting. If the stamp and the name or initials of the judge were upon some other portion of the ballot, and the ballot were folded so that this could be seen, but the tickets printed upon the face of the ballot concealed,, it might be that this would be a sufficient compliance with the spirit, if not with the letter, of the law, to save the ballot from rejection. This, of course, in the absence of fraud, and when the place of the stamping and the writing of the initials would not be a mark or means of distinguishing the ballot from ballots cast by other persons. But we are of the opinion that the official stamp and the name or initials of a judge of the election must appear upon the exterior of the ballot when it is so folded as to conceal the tickets which it bears upon its face; and if this is not the case, the law must be enforced which prohibits the counting of such ballot. We are inclined to regard the name or initials of a judge of the election written by himself directly under the official stamp as the statute requires, as the signature of the judge to the words impressed by the stamp; and as the legal means and the best means of certifying to the voter that the ballot is the'official ballot of the-precinct, and. as the legal means and the best means of identification by the judges of the ballot offered and voted by the elector as the identical official ballot furnished to. him by the judges of the election.
To' the second question we- answer that all of the ballots cast, at the three precincts.named should be rejected.
As to. the third' question, we are not in position to say whether further .proceedings may not lawfully be had prior to'judgment. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings in accordance.with this opinion.
Pottle, J., concurs; Groesbeck, C. J., dissents.