Court Opinion

ID: 9738838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:03:59.0651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.731211
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
I would reject all of the serially numbered ballots.
The purpose of requiring secrecy in balloting is not merely to protect the innocent elector from intrusions while he is voting. It is also to prevent the possibility of connivance between a corrupt elector and third persons who require evidence that a vote has been cast in a particular manner.1
While an elector should not be disfranchised because of identifying marks placed on his ballot after he has voted,2 I do not agree that he himself is without fault in using a ballot which is patently susceptible of identification when he receives it.
If we permit numbered ballots to be counted we cannot logically reject those which have been previously identified with the voter’s *457name and address. In either case a corrupt elector has an equal opportunity to prove to a dishonest pollwatcher how he voted.
We instinctively rebel against disfranchising a great number of persons who are unquestionably innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the fact that Minnesota elections have been historically free from fraud is a tribute to our strict application of the rules safeguarding anonymity in voting. If the integrity of our election processes is to continue, it is not enough that we condone loose practices until there is tangible evidence of corruption. There is no better way to avoid a conflagration than “to keep the straw away from the fire.” Goodrich v. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. 161 Minn. 106, 111, 201 N. W. 290, 292.
Mr. Justice Sheran took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Elwell v. Comstock, 99 Minn. 261, 270, 109 N. W. 113, 698, 701, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 621.

Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146, 62 N. W. 116.