Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 June 1916 — COURT DECISION ON CONTESTED BALLOTS [ARTICLE]

COURT DECISION ON CONTESTED BALLOTS

The supreme court rendered a decision in a contested ballot case from Tipton county last week that u of interest to the public in general and will be of especial interest to candidates and election boards in the coming election this fall. The decision was on the question of the validity of ballots that had been legal by the lower court, and the decision was affirmed. The syllabus of the decision follows.: On the uncontested ballots appellant was elected and on the ballots allowed the appellee was elected. There were a great number of ballots in favor of appellee where the voters had voted for some of the opposing party and then in marking the ballot had put a cross in a square in front of an office having no candidate by appellee’s party. The court reviews the question of distinguishing marks at length and holds that such a mark is not a distinguishing mark, but an error very liable to happen by an honest voter and overrules the .opinion of Sego vs. Stoddard, 136 Ind., 2P7, upon that question. “A strict and literal construction of this section of the act would necessarily result in the nullification of practically all the votes cast, for the reason that it would he almost impossible for a voter to make lines absolutely straight, make them of exactly the same length,” etc. (2) An additional dot or mark upon a ticket which appears to he the result of accident and not design, will not invalidate the ticket. A distinguish-

ing mark that will invalidate a ballot is such a one as fairly imputes upon its face design and dishonest purpose, and a slight soiling of a ballot which reasonably appears to have been the result of accident or want of due care by the voter U not sufficient to condemn it if otherwise fair.