Court Opinion

ID: 3269884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 16:38:17.502553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:46.590141
License: Public Domain

The practical effect of the majority opinion is that an election may not be contested where the ballots and the returns thereof have been mutilated to an extent sufficient to destroy the presumption of verity which would otherwise be indulged. The cases cited do not sustain that conclusion, and I think no such case can be found.
On the contrary, as we said in the case of Taaffe v. Sanderson, 173 Ark. 970, 294 S.W. 74: "The real object of the courts in all election contest cases is to determine *Page 767 
whether the contestant or the respondent has received the highest number of legal votes. This should be the guiding star, like the star of Bethlehem to the wise men of old." Yet the majority opinion makes it not only possible to defeat this real object, but makes its defeat certain where some election thief destroys or mutilates the ballots by alterations, erasures, etc., so that the court is unable to recount them as originally cast. The majority appear to decide that if this has happened there can be no contest.
This rule might have some justification if it were applied to a contestant who himself, or whose adherents, had mutilated the ballots; but the rule is not thus limited. There was no finding, in fact, no showing, as to who had mutilated the ballots. We do not know whether this was the work of adherents of the contestant or of those of the contestee. The majority treat this as immaterial.
It ought not to be the law that fraudulent elections may not be contested provided the integrity of the ballots has been destroyed by mutilation or alteration. If this be the law, then one who was not the actual nominee may defeat a contest of his nomination by the added wrong of mutilating the ballots or having that additional wrong perpetrated. No previous holding of this court leads to a decision so unfair or so unfortunate.
The majority say the court did not err in refusing to call in all the voters in the county to testify how they had voted for the reason that the law does not require the court to hold an election; and it is also said that if it develops that there is no legal basis on which the court may determine a contest it must fail.
The court cannot be required to hold another election; but the court may, and should, determine who received a majority of the legal votes in the election which had been held and was being contested, and the right of a contestant to have this fact judicially determined ought not to be defeated by an act of desperation. *Page 768 
It appears that the integrity of the ballots in eight townships had not been destroyed; but, if we had the extreme case of an election in which all the ballots had been stolen or their integrity destroyed, yet the right to contest the election would remain. There would, even in this extreme case, be a basis for a contest; that basis being for the court to hear the electors, and all of them, if necessary, or such of them as either party wish to have heard, testify, not how they would now vote, but how they had then voted.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice KIRBY concurs in the views here expressed.