Court Opinion

ID: 9753117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:58:00.082872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:30.110003
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
Validity of the questioned ballots is determined by §1228(a)1 of the Election Code which provides: “Any ballot marked by any other mark than an (X) or a (V) in the spaces provided for that purpose shall be void and not counted.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In language that is exact and clear, the applicable statute provides that a ballot to be valid must be marked only with an (X) or a (V) — nothing more or less may be marked or substituted. No deviation or exception is expressed or implied, and none, therefore, is permitted. The method for legally voting a ballot is strictly prescribed by the Legislature in whose province rests exclusive control of the electoral process.
The legislative mandate is positive and conclusive that any ballot which fails to conform to the explicit statutory requirement “shall be void and not counted”. The lower court, in voiding ballots which contained more than an (X) or a (V), such as additions of “Yes” or “No” and the like, did precisely what the controlling section of the Election Code commanded.
Ballots not marked in the required manner, and form may no more be construed to be valid than those recorded on homemade or unofficial ballots, or marked after the lawful closing hour of the polls or on the day after the election. The defect in each instance is sub*70stantially the same — failure to comply with the provisions of the Election Code. The result likewise should be the same — the ballot is void and the attempted exercise of franchise is legally ineffective. No hardship is imposed on the voter. If the voter undertakes to deviate from the requirements prescribed for all, he takes the risk of his failure to comply. The concern is not the possible disenfranchisement of a voter who casts his ballot in a manner not permitted by the Election Code, but rather the preservation of the sanctity of the whole election process by giving effect to only those ballots marked in accordance with the election laws (27,935 ballots out of 28,235 were so marked).
The cases relied upon by the majority lend little support to the result reached in their opinion. The Norwood Election Contest Case, 382 Pa. 547, 116 A. 2d 552 (1955), involved a ballot marked with a heavy (X) over a light check-mark, and held that such marking did not violate the prohibition against identifying marks. The Court did not consider or pass upon the consequences of use of a mark other than (X). In James Appeal, 377 Pa. 405, 105 A. 2d 64 (1954), at issue was the propriety of write-in votes under §10032 of the Election Code. Section 1223(a), as here involved, was there neither pertinent nor discussed.
In Bauman Election Contest Case, 351 Pa. 451, 41 A. 2d 630 (1945), heavily relied upon in Norwood and James, the decision rested on the portions of §1223 (a) which prohibit identifying marks and which further provide that a ballot marked by an (X) irregular in form shall not be invalid. This Court there said with reference to the language of §1223(a) drawn in issue here: “This provision [which then provided solely for a mark of (X)] obviously means that if a voter uses any other mark than an X to indicate his choice, that ‘vote’ shall not be counted.” Id. at 455-56, A. 2d at 632.
*71In one class of ballots here held valid by the majority, the choice was indicated by an (X) or (V) plus the word “Yes” or “No”. However, it seems clear that even under Bauman, X plus “Yes” equals something other than (X), and ballots similarly marked must be invalidated.
In any event, it is obvious in this class of litigation that no voter casts his ballot in a manner contrary to the specific requirements of the Election Code in reliance on decisions of this Court which construed as valid ballots on which appeared various markings other than, or in addition to, the prescribed marks. Rather, they rely on the instructions given. In this case, the instructions on the ballots were sufficiently clear so that 27,935 of the voters properly marked their ballots.
I would affirm the decision of the court below and must, therefore, dissent from any determination which is contrary to that holding.

 Act of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, §1223(a), as amended, January 8, 1960, P. L. (1959) 2142, §4, 25 P.S. §3063(a).
Prior to the 1960 amendment, the' Code provided only for an (X).

 25 P.S. §2963.