Appeal of James
| Decision Date | 25 May 1954 |
| Citation | 105 A.2d 64,377 Pa. 405 |
| Parties | Appeal of JAMES. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Harry S. Kalson and L. Kenneth Harkins, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Harry E. Richter and Craig T. Stockdale, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Subsection 1003(e) of the Election Code, 1937, June 3, P.L. 1333 Art. X, 25 P.S. § 2963, provides for write-in or sticker votes as follows:
'* * * There shall also be left at the end of each group of candidates for each other office * * * as many blank spaces as there are persons to be voted for for such office, in which space the elector may insert the name of any person or persons whose name is not printed on the ballot as a candidate for such office.'
Samuel A. James, Democratic candidate for Council, received 26 sticker votes in the 2nd District and 125 sticker votes in the 3rd District of the Borough of Whitaker. These votes, together with the votes cast and counted in the conventional manner, were sufficient to elect him to the office for which he was nominated. Theodore Rushe, a Republican nominee, who trailed James by some 100 votes, challenged James' election, asserting that his 151 sticker votes were void because James' name already appeared in printed form on the ballot and that therefore, he could not be a beneficiary of the provision permitting sticker votes.
It appears that, in anticipation of the general November election, Samuel A. James and John W. Race, Jr., both successful in the Democratic primary, joined with two other independent candidates, Jacob W. Fox and Joseph A. Adams, and prepared stickers bearing these four names, with an X already printed against each name. The affixing of the sticker to the ballot thus automatically gave each of the four men a vote, provided no other X appeared on the ballot.
The losing candidate Rushe argues that since James' name already had a place on the ballot, there was no need to supply it with a sticker. This is true. However, if James chose to run with a group of three other candidates, no extant law prevented him from doing so.
One of the contested ballots (introduced in the Court below as an exhibit) has the following appearance:
-----------------------------------
Exhibit A 10a
MEMBER OF COUNCIL
Vote for Four
-----------------------------------
Theodore Rushe Republican [ ]
-----------------------------------
Francis A. Orris Republican [ ]
-----------------------------------
Sylvester Ackerman Republican [ ]
-----------------------------------
John Simko Republican [ ]
-----------------------------------
John W. Race, Jr. Democratic [ ]
-----------------------------------
Bernard F. Antol Democratic [ ]
-----------------------------------
Edward J. Gretz Democratic [ ]
-----------------------------------
Samuel A. James Democratic [ ]
-----------------------------------
John W. Race, Jr. (X)
-----------------------------------
Samuel A. James (X)
-----------------------------------
Jacob W. Fox (X)
-----------------------------------
Joseph A. Adams (X)
-----------------------------------
It will be observed that although James' name is reproduced twice on the ballot, he received only one vote. On what possible theory can he be denied that one X, which was the honest expression of the citizen desiring to vote for him?
Justice Maxey, speaking for this Court in the Case of Bauman Election Contest, 351 Pa. 451, 456, 41 A.2d 630, 632, said:
'Marking a ballot in voting is a matter not of precision engineering but of an unmistakable registration of the voter's will in substantial conformity to statutory requirements.'
In all the troubles and controversies which entangle citizens in legal complications, there is one golden thread running through the entire intricate skein, no matter how knotted, meshed and intertwisted the strands may be--and that is intent. Whether it be in criminal law, contractual law and occasionally even in torts, the intent of the actor is the touchstone of evaluation of his act. And in the sphere of popular elections which, after all, constitute the very warp and woof of democracy, nothing can be more vital in the accomplishment of an honest and just election than the ascertainment of the intention of the voter.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones, In re
...(1980); In re Recount of Ballots, 457 Pa. 279, 325 A.2d 303 (1974); Wieskerger Appeal, 447 Pa. 418, 290 A.2d 108 (1972); James Appeal, 377 Pa. 405, 105 A.2d 64 (1954).15 We note that the dissent of Mr. Justice Hutchinson begrudgingly concedes that a question as to whether or not the constit......
-
Primary Election April 28, 1964, In re
...the accomplishment of an honest and just selection than the ascertainment of the intention of the voter.' See also: James Appeal, 377 Pa. 405, 408, 105 A.2d 64; Reading Election Recount Case, 410 Pa. 62, 66, 188 A.2d 254. If, from the ballot cast, the intent of the voter in his choice of a ......
-
Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar
...in favor of voters, and that "[t]echnicalities should not be used to make the right of the voter insecure." Appeal of James , 377 Pa. 405, 105 A.2d 64, 65-66 (1954). Petitioner also asserts that ballots with minor irregularities should not be rejected, except for compelling reasons and in r......
-
Shambach v. Bickhart
...required that result. See id. In deciding this question, the Commonwealth Court looked to this Court's decision in Appeal of James, 377 Pa. 405, 105 A.2d 64 (1954), where we found that a section of the Election Code containing language very similar to that at issue in Section 1112-A(b)(3) m......