Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 65, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 November 1916 — PLURALITY OF 4 GIVEN NICHOLS [ARTICLE]

PLURALITY OF 4 GIVEN NICHOLS

On Face of Corrected Returns In County. . MR. HERSHMAN WILL CONTEST To Satisfy the Public, and a Recount of AH the Ballots Will Be Made—Errors of Polling Clerks.

An error in carrying out the totals on the tally sheets in the East Barkley and Gillam precincts has caused an apparent plurality of six for Alva D. Hershman for clerk being changed into a plurality of four for his opponent, Jesse Nichols, on the face of the returns and as certified by the board of canvassers, who have no authority to ,go back of these returns. Mr. Nichols had expected to contest when it was apparent he had lost by six votes, and, as the scratching was practically all in favor of Mr. Hershman, his friends think he should contest Nichols’ election when the margin is so small against him and there are so many scratched ballots that were not counted in most of the precincts, and he will do so.

Of course this recount of all the ballots and _the* contested ballots might increase Nichols’ lead, but the chances are much the other way., as the scratching was to Hershman and not against him,,and wherever the intent of the voter can be clearly determined such ballot must be counted. The recount will make everybody better satisfied and whatever the result is it will have to be accepted. The errors which changed the result on clerk were caused by the tally clerks in Gillam both carrying out the totals for Mr. Hershman to eighty-seven, when it should have been eighty-two, as shown by the tallies. This error left Mr. Hershman a plurality of but one, and it was discovered that the clerks in East Barkley had made the same error, crediting him in their totals with seventy-four votes when it should have been sixty-nine. This correction gave Nichols a plurality of four.

Some other slight errors of a similar character were found in other precincts making a change of a few votes in the totals of other candidates, hut as the margins were not close in those cases it did not affect the final results. The board, before closing up jffieir work, telephoned to the inspectors in the two precincts where the Hershman vote was shown to be wrongly totaled, also to Mr. Hershman, and they came in Thursday afternoon and in the presence of both Mr. Nichols and Mr. Hershman, the two county chairmen, the editors of the two papers and E. P. Honan, the inspectors opened the sealed packages containing the duplicate poll books and tally sheets and found that the same errors were made thereon. It was shown that 141 votes were cast in Gillam, and that on the totals for clerk as carried out by the clerks 144 votes had been credited to them. The error was apparent and one that might easily occur. There was no intent to make a wrong entry in either case, simply a mistake in carrying out the totals. The packages were sealed up again after being examined and the only thing to do

now is to await the result of the recount. It is the duty of the polling clerks to make a note of the uncounted or contested ballots on the back of their returns, but in some cases this was evidently not done. According to the returns there were fifty-four local or county ballots that were not counted, and these are preserved and aj:e only opened and examined in case of a contest. Of this number eleven were in precinct No. 2, Marion township. It is believed that 100 or more county ballots were not counted for the reason of defective marking or not marking them at all, but in some of the precincts the number is not noted on the return sheets, although such ballets were all preserved and sealed up in sacks especially for this purpose. In a contest and recount these are gone into as well as the regular ballots of all the precincts. Th& final and corrected figures on the vote in Jasper county appear on another page. -