Court Opinion

ID: 9752180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:42:31.488884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:09.041257
License: Public Domain

Condon, C. J.,
dissenting. This is a hard case. Through-no fault of either candidate a grave defect in the paper ballots mailed to those eligible to vote by such means existed and was not -discovered in time to- be corrected. This defect consisted in the omission of petitioner’s name on all of those ballots. As a result of such omission petitioner received no paper ballot votes whereas his opponent whose name properly appeared thereon received a number of votes which if *79valid were sufficient to overcome petitioner’s majority on the voting machines.
As in Roberts v. Board of Elections, 85 R. I. 203, such a situation arouses our sympathy for the apparent victor and we naturally seek for some way Iby which to- do justice and affirm the legality of the electoral victory. In Roberts it was clearly not possible to do so and comply with the requirements of the constitution. As a 'consequence it was necessary to reject several thousand paper ballots which were invalidly cast through no fault of the electors with the result that the apparent victor at the polls became the loser.
Here we have a similar situation. There can be no question in my opinion that all the paper ballots as far as the office of town clerk is concerned are invalid. They are invalid because they do not comply with the statute in that the name of candidate Joseph E. Pellegrino is missing on all the paper ballots cast. G. L. 1956, §§17-20-12, 17-21-14 and 17-21-19. In these circumstances in seeking to do justice we must remember that it is not personal or sentimental justice we are empowered and authorized to' dispense here but equal justice according to law. In our decision, therefore. we must give due regard to the election law and give it full force and effect rather than strain for a construction that nullifies it in order that we may be able to do what we personally deem to be justice in the appealing circumstances here.
In my opinion the court’s decision does not adhere strictly to this principle. In the first place it appears to approach the problem from the viewpoint of the elector’s right to have his vote counted. But this is not the fundamental question here. Rather' it is the right of each candidate for the office of town clerk to be accorded equal treatment in accordance with the mandates of the election law so that no one may rightfully complain that he has been denied equal justice thereunder.
*80Aram A. Arabian, Santo J. Turano, Jr., for petitioner.
Stephen F. Achilla, for respondent.
Edwards & Angelí, Edward F. Hindle, John Fenm, Brill, Harold B. Soloveitzik, for intervenor.
The petitioner here may rightfully claim that if these paper ballots on which his name does not appear are received as valid and counted, he will be deprived of the full protection of the law and will thereby not be accorded equal justice under the law which is his due. Certainly it is not equal treatment of his candidacy for ballots on which his name does not appear to be counted against him. There is a grave defect in these paper ballots which cannot be rationalized into an immaterial irregularity or mere technical omission.
Because these paper ballots do not conform to the mandates of the election law and are therefore clearly invalid, they should not be counted. In my opinion if we are to be consistent with the underlying principle of Roberts v. Board of Elections, supra, we should quash the board’s, decision and declare petitioner elected in accordance with the voting machine totals which represent the only legal votes cast. Not to do- so verges on a rejection of the ratio decidendi of the Roberts case. For these reasons I dissent.