Opinion ID: 1436318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Erasures and Smudges

Text: There are seven ballots that fall within this category that the court below refused to count. Four of these ballots represent attempts by voters to cast votes for candidate Reed and three of these ballots were intended to be votes for candidate Walko. [7] In several of these instances it is not clear whether, in fact, there was an erasure or whether there was a smudge inadvertently caused in a manner unrelated to an attempt to erase. In Passante Appeal, 447 Pa. 304, 309 (1972), we pointed out that we cannot necessarily assume that every smudge was caused by an erasure. Further, none of these questioned marks was sufficiently significant to have set the ballot apart from all others cast in that district and make it capable of later identification. Additionally, there is no question as to the intention of the voter in each of these instances. To deny the vote under these circumstances particularly where the inadequacies of the instructions appearing on the face of the ballot coincide with the reasons for the challenged votes [8] would be without justification. The lower court's rulings as to these ballots are reversed and candidate Reed is to be credited with an additional four votes and candidate Walko an additional three votes.