manner pointed out by the act.[1] The voter may not use a paster containing the names of his candidates unless the statute so provides.[2]
Connected with the question of what constitutes a valid indication of an elector’s intention is the question of what is a distinguishing mark, which is everywhere prohibited by statute. It is impossible to state any rule applicable to all cases. “The intent of the voter must be determined by an inspection of the ballot, and upon whether there is any mark thereon by which it may be identified, irrespective of any conjectures as to the purpose or circumstances under which the mark was made.”[3] What constitutes an identifying mark is a question of fact rather than of law, and the decisions of the courts differ. The following marks have been held to be distinguishing marks and to invalidate the ballot: names or initials on the ballot;[4] a mark resembling an imperfect circle, or a small circle, within the circle at the head of the ticket;[5] ballots marked with a star instead of a cross;[6] a number of ballots folded alike in a striking and unusual manner;[7] a cross in a vacant space not opposite the name of a candidate, or before or after the words “no nomination”;[8] a diagonal black line in one of the spaces for writing in the name of candidates;[9] a stamp in the blank space which contained no names;[10] expressions written on the ballot, as “rats” and “don’t want no king”;[11] mark resembling a figure 4, or any mark other than a cross;[12] writing in the blank column the names of candidates already printed on the ballot;[13] marks made by the voter in attempting to correct his own errors by endeavoring to erase with a rubber or by striking the pencil through the mark;[14] ballots marked with the word
- ↑ Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, XV, 356.
- ↑ People v. Shaw, 64 Hun. 356; De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529; Roberts v. Quest, 173 Ill. 427.
- ↑ People v. Campbell, 138 Cal. 11, at 20.
- ↑ Bloedel v. Cromwell, 104 Minn. 487; Pennington v. Hare, 60 Minn. 146; Tandy v. Lavery, 194 Ill. 372.
- ↑ Grubb v. Turner, 102 N. E. 810; People v. Bourke, 63 N. Y. Suppl. 906.
- ↑ Coulehan v. White, 95 Md. 703; Sweeney v. Hjul, 23 Nev. 409.
- ↑ State v. Walsh, 62 Conn. 260.
- ↑ People ex rel. Feeny v. Board, etc., 156 N. Y. 36; People v. Campbell, 138 Cal. 11.
- ↑ People v. Parkhurst, 53 N. Y. Suppl. 598.
- ↑ Sego v. Stoddard, 136 Ind. 297.
- ↑ State v. Fawcett, 17 Wash. 188.
- ↑ Durgin v. Curran, 77 Atl. 689.
- ↑ People ex rel. Feeny v. Board, 156 N. Y. 36.
- ↑ Ibid.; People v. Campbell, 138 Cal. 11; Vorhees v. Arnold, 108 Iowa 77; State v. Sadler, 25 Nev. 131.
