Citation Numbers: 92 A. 567, 37 R.I. 266
Judges: SWEETLAND, J.
Filed Date: 12/18/1914
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to correct certain alleged errors in the record of the Board of Canvassers of the city of Central Falls in relation to the election of alderman from the fifth ward of said city for the term of two years, beginning January 4th, 1915. The respondents have appeared to show cause why said writ should not be issued.
The essential allegations of the petition in substance are that at the election for the office of alderman from the fifth ward of said city, for said term, held on November 3, 1914, the petitioner was the candidate for said office of both the Democratic party and the Progressive party and as such candidate his name appeared on the official ballot in the Democratic column and also in the Progressive column; that at said election one John J. Standring was the candidate of the Republican party for said office and as such candidate his name appeared on the official ballot in the Republican column; that on the day following said election the respondent Board of Canvassers counted the ballots given in at said election and erroneously declared and entered upon its record that said Standring had received at said election one hundred and twenty-one votes for said office, and that the petitioner had received at said election one hundred and eighteen votes for said office and that said Standring had been elected as such alderman for said term. The petitioner further alleges in substance that said Board in counting said votes and in making its decision, declared and recorded as aforesaid, erroneously counted a vote for said Standring appearing upon a ballot which was defective because it bore a distinguishing mark, and that said Board erroneously rejected as defective four ballots upon each of which appeared a vote in favor of the petitioner for said office.
The ballots cast at said election have been introduced in evidence and we have examined them. In Rice v. Town Council ofWesterly,
We will consider first the ballot which contained on its face a vote for said Standring for said office, which vote the petitioner claims was erroneously counted in favor of said Standring by the respondents. The petitioner claims that said ballot was defective and should have been rejected because it bore a distinguishing mark. This ballot was marked with crosses each placed respectively in the squares to the right of the names of all but one of the candidates in the Republican column. These crosses appear to have been made with a lead pencil and are uniform in color with the crosses placed upon the other ballots cast at said election and presented in evidence before us. There also appears upon this ballot in the circle under the eagle at the top of the Republican column a blotch of purple color nearly filling said circle in which blotch of color are two crosses apparently made with purple ink or with a pencil of soft purple lead. Section 41 of Chapter 11, Gen. Laws, 1909, provides: "each voting shelf or compartment shall be kept provided, by the city, town, ward and district clerks, with proper pencils for marking the ballots, which pencils shall be by the supervisors kept in condition for use; but all pencils furnished for said purpose in any election shall, in each voting-district, be such as will mark a uniform color, and in marking his ballot no voter shall use pencil marking a different color." In Rice v. TownCouncil of Westerly,
We will now consider the four other ballots which were rejected by the respondents as defective, and in regard to the rejection of which the petitioner here complains. Neither of these ballots was marked in either of the circles appearing under the party emblems thereon; but each was marked with a cross in the square at the right of the petitioner's name as a candidate for alderman in the Democratic column and also with a cross in the square at the right of the petitioner's name as a candidate for alderman in the Progressive column. In support of their action the respondents urge that such marking of the ballot is illegal, not being authorized by the statute, and further that such a method of marking the ballot constitutes a distinguishing mark. The respondents rely somewhat upon the authority ofThorpe v. Fales,
This court has approved of the doctrine urged upon our attention by the respondents: that "as the legislature has required the elector to express his intention by certain well defined markings upon his ballot, his intention must be determined by these markings, and not by the uncertain and undefined ideas of the judges of election, or by the courts, as to his intention. The legislature has clearly and precisely defined the manner in which the elector may designate the candidates for whom he desires to vote, and has prescribed definite and fixed rules to govern the voter in designating such candidates. As before stated, the system is simple, and there is no difficulty in the electors complying with the rules. In our view, it is neither the duty of the judges of election nor the courts to fritter away the benefits of the system by strained efforts to get at the intention of the voter in any manner other than by following the rules prescribed by the legislature."Gainer v. Dunn,
In case the meaning of any of the provisions of our system of elections by secret ballot is not plain this court inclines to a reasonable and liberal construction of the doubtful provision in favor of the voter, when such manner of construction will give effect to the intention of the voter and is not in conflict with the fundamental design of the system, to provide for a secret ballot and to prevent corrupt practices in elections. InAttorney General v. Glaser (supra), after rehearing, the court said,
We are of the opinion that under a fair construction of our statute the four ballots now being considered should not be held to have been marked contrary to the provisions of the statute. We find them to be legal ballots; and the votes thereon in favor of the petitioner should have been counted for him. As we have reached the conclusion that the method of marking the four ballots now being considered is permissible under the statute, the question does not arise as to whether such marks amount to distinguishing marks placed upon his ballot by the voter whereby it afterwards *Page 273 may be identified as the one voted by him. Voting marks placed on a ballot in a manner permitted by the statute, without proof of a corrupt intention in so doing, can not be regarded as improper identifying marks.
The writ of certiorari may issue in accordance with the prayer of the petition, returnable December 21st, 1914, at ten o'clock A.M.