Wyman v. Lemon
Synopsis
Mabk on Ballot Cast at Election.—If the elector uses ink to scratch names from his ballot and by that means the ballot becomes discolored, such discoloration is not a mark upon the ballot which will authorize the judges of election to refuse to count the vote.
Idem.—Such mark is not a mark on the ballot designed to distinguish it from other ballots, or to impart knowledge of the person who voted it.
By the Court: The “impression, device, color or thing,” which, if borne on the outside of the ballot, must, under the provisions of [275]the Political Code, cause its rejection, must be “designed to distinguish such ballot from other legal ballotsThe discoloration appearing upon the ballots counted for the respondent here is not shown, nor does it appear to have been “designed,” but resulted from the use of ink by the elector in scratching his ballot. The use of ink for that purpose is expressly permitted to the elector by the Code, and the discoloration of the ballot, which naturally ensued from its use, cannot be held to have deprived him of his vote.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)