McKinnon v. People ex rel. Malzacher

Citations

• 110 Ill. 305

Syllabus

<p>1. Contested election—how far governed by chancery principles and rules. A proceeding to contest an election is to be tried in like manner, and like evidence is admissible and like principles must control, as in the trial of causes in chancery.</p> <p>2. Same—intention of the voter—how ascertained. Where the question is for what or for whom a ballot should be counted, the intention of the voter should, if possible, be ascertained, and when ascertained it must control.</p> <p>3. AVhere there is a mistake or imperfection in the ballots cast at an election, extraneous evidence is admissible in a contest to show what was intended. So where ballots were cast at an election for Henry M., and also some for Joseph M., it was proved in a contest of the election that Henry M. was the democratic nominee, and another the republican nominee, to be voted for at that election for the office of town clerk, and that there were no other candidates for that office at that election, and that no person by the name of Joseph M. resided in the town or was known to the witnesses, residents of such town, and also that the name of Joseph M. was printed on a number of democratic ballots, and voted by mistake: Held, that the evidence was properly received, and the ballots cast for Joseph M. counted for Henry H.</p> <p>4. Where a patent ambiguity is raised in respect to the name of a candidate upon a ballot, the voter casting the same may, if he so elects, be allowed to testify for whom he intended to vote, or what he intended by the ballot.</p>