Salcido v. Roberts (1902) · DecisionDepot

Salcido v. Roberts

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 25, 1902 No. Sac. No. 938.Published

Before: Beatty

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that several ballots were improperly counted due to distinguishing marks or illegal placement of votes, and that after correcting these errors, the appellant held a majority of votes. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the respondent was reversed and the cause remanded.

Issues

Whether ballots containing names written in illegal columns constitute distinguishing marks invalidating the ballot.
Whether ballots with illegible erasures or multiple stamps constitute invalid votes.
Whether the trial court erred in its final tally of legal votes for the office of supervisor.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was a legal mark, but in an illegal place, and therefore invalidated the ballot”

“It cannot be said for which party the voter intended to vote, and the ballot should not have been counted for either.”

“The judgment of the superior court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

James A. Louttit, Ira H. Reed, and F. J. Solinsky, for Appellant.

BEATTY, C. J.

This is an election contest. Upon a canvass of the returns the board of supervisors found that the appellant had received 252 and the respondent 250 votes for the office of supervisor of San Andreas Township, Calaveras County, and issued their election certificate accordingly. Upon a recount of the ballots in this proceeding, the court decided •that the appellant had received but 226 legal votes, and that the respondent had received 228. A judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the latter, from which the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

1. The court erred in counting for respondent the eight ballots numbered 17, 21, 30, 48, 53, 56, 72, and 80. They each bear what has been held to be a distinguishing mark. The name of Halley was written, not in the blank column, where the law directs that it shall be written, but under the words “Justice of the Peace” in the Republican, Democratic, or Prohibition column. So written it could not be counted, and served no purpose, unless to identify the hallot. It was a legal mark, but in an illegal place, and therefore invalidated the ballot, under the principle decided in the several cases referred to in the late case of

Patterson

Hanley,

136 Cal. 265, and there followed.

2. The court also erred in counting ballot No. 55 for respondent. It contained a cross stamped opposite the name of respondent in the proper place, but it also contained the name J. J. Halley written in the blank column under the heading “For Supervisor, District No. 1” (San Andreas Township).

[672]

It cannot be said for which party the voter intended to vote, and the ballot should not have been counted for either. (Pol. Code, sec. 1211.)

We discover no other error in the rulings of the court upon the defendant’s objections, but the deduction of the nine votes above specified from the total of 228 legal votes found to have been cast for respondent necessarily involves a reversal of the judgment, unless it should appear that at least eight of respondent’s exceptions are well taken.

Salcido v. Roberts

AI Brief

Synopsis

BEATTY, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief