Reynolds v. Snow

California Supreme Court Sep 25, 1885 No. No. 9924Published

Before: Foote

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in its interpretation of ballot markings, determining that certain ballots marked for 'Snow' and 'Wm. Snow' clearly indicated voter intent for William Snow, and that another ballot was erroneously counted for Reynolds. Consequently, the appellate court recalculated the vote totals in favor of Snow.

Issues

Whether the trial court correctly excluded ballots that did not conform to the length requirements of section 1191 of the Political Code.
Whether the trial court correctly interpreted the voter's intent regarding ballots where the office name was erased but the candidate's name was written in.
Whether the appellate court may review the trial court's findings when the evidence consists solely of the ballots themselves.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The persons writing “Snow” and “Wm. Snow,” on Exhibits 2 and 3, intended to vote for William Snow for supervisor of District Ho. 1, Stanislaus County, and the board of election were right when they counted those ballots for him”

Synopsis

Election—Contest—Illegal Ballot.—The court below rejected a ballot which did not conform in length and other minor respects to section 1191 of the Political Code. The ballot was only about eight inches and a half in length. Held, that the ballot was properly rejected.

Id.—Ebasube.—In certain ballots the voters had erased with lead pencil marks the name of the contestant and also the name of the office to be voted for, leaving simply the number indicating its order on the ballot, and opposite this number and erasure had written the name of the defendant. Held, that these ballots were properly counted for the defendant.

Id.—Appeal—Conflict of Evidence.—The rule which restrains an appellate court from interfering with a finding of the court below where there is a conflict in the evidence, does not apply when the evidence consists entirely of ballots, photographic copies of which are before the court on appeal.

Foote, C. A contest for the office of supervisor of district Ho. 1 of Stanislaus County.

The bill of exceptions in the transcript should be considered by this court; the objections made to it by the respondent are not well taken. It appears by the official returns of the various election boards of the district as canvassed by the board of supervisors of the county, that the appellant, William Snow, received 324 and the respondent, B. F. Reynolds, 323 votes. To the former the board awarded the certificate of election and the office in dispute. The latter contested his right thereto and prevailed in the contest. From that judgment Snow appealed.

The court upon a recount of the ballots, discovered that the contestant’s Exhibit Ho. 8 was one having the name of Wm. Snow printed on it, and that of the office for which he was a candidate, but the paper on which it was printed was when voted only about eight inches and a half in length, and did not in that and some other minor respects conform to section 1191 of the Political Code, and ought not to be counted for Snow as it had been. This conclusion of the court was correct.

That tribunal substantially found also that an election board had counted for Snow two ballots called plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3; that on them and in the same line were printed the following words and figures, viz.: “23. Supervisor, District No. 1, B. F. Reynolds”; that the words “supervisor, District No. 1, [499]B. F. Reynolds,” had been distinctly and completely erased by several lead pencil marks being drawn completely through said words and each of them, and that upon one of said ballots had been written the words “ Wm. Snowr,” and upon the other the word “Snow,” and that these words were written opposite said figures 23, line and erasure.

That the words erased were still discernible and distinguishable, and that the voter intended by the erasure to strike from the ballots, and each of them, the name of the office of supervisor of said county, in and for said district, and that no such office remained designated upon said ballots, and that neither the board of election nor the court could ascertain that the voters intended to vote for said “Snow,” and “William Snow,” respectively, for said office, and that it was not the intention of said voters to vote for any person for said office.

To this finding upon a thorough inspection of those ballots we cannot agree.

Reynolds v. Snow

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief