left of, and opposite to, the name of a candidate, it may indicate the choice of the elector. In a straight party ticket, if the cross is within the space containing the circle, although not touching the latter, it is sufficient to indicate the choice of the voter. The same view has been followed in Colorado[1] and Washington.[2]
The question of what constitutes a valid cross has been the occasion of much litigation. Almost every mark which a voter could make or neglect to make has been discussed in the state courts. Although the statutes regulating the manner in which a voter shall indicate his choice are held mandatory, yet through all the decisions is the theory that a voter should not be disfranchised if he has made an honest effort to comply with the requisites of the law.[3] It is fully realized that many electors through carelessness, nervousness, or physical disability do not make the conventional cross mark (X) in anything like perfect form. So it has been held that any mark which apparently was honestly intended for a cross mark and nothing else must be given effect as such.[4] Thus cross marks in the form T or >< were held to be valid in Illinois.[5] In Rhode Island a hook and a Y-shaped mark were held legal within the statute. Marks consisting of two downward strokes and one horizontal have been allowed.[6] But it is not a valid cross where two lines do not cross one another;[7] nor where there is a straight line at the left of a candidate’s name; nor where there are one or more circles within the circle at the head of the ticket.[8] Wisconsin has gone farther than any of the other states in defining what constitutes a valid cross mark. The law declares that the voter may indicate his intention by an X or any other mark as ʃ, \, V, O, –, |, +.[9] Apparently any mark would be valid in Wisconsin.
While the statutes provide that certain instruments shall be used in marking the ballot, these provisions are held to be merely directory. But the law can be worded in such a way that the courts must regard it as mandatory, in which case the elector must mark his ballot in the
- ↑ Young v. Simspon, 42 Pac. 666.
- ↑ State ex rel. Orr v. Fawcett, 17 Wash. 188.
- ↑ See Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, XV, 353.
- ↑ Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146; In re Middendorf, 4. Pa. Dist. R. 78; Parker v. Orr, 158 Ill. 609; Ogg v. Glover, 83 Pac. 1039.
- ↑ Parker v. Orr, 158 Ill. 609.
- ↑ Houston v. Steele, 98 Ky. 596.
- ↑ Apple v. Barcroft, 158 Ill. 649.
- ↑ Valier v. Brakke, 7 S. D. 343.
- ↑ Wisconsin Laws, 1891, ch. 379, as amended by the laws of 1899, ch. 349.
