Two Offices Hang on a Pile of Double-Marked Ballots
Lawyers spend a full day before Judge Langley fighting over the sheriff's and coroner's seats, as Moyer and Van de Vanter trade technicalities over initials, stamps and hundreds of spoiled ballots.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The argument in the election contest cases of Moyer vs. Van de Vanter and Eames vs. Askom, involving the offices of sheriff and coroner, was argued before Judge Langley yesterday. Today the cases will be under consideration, and neither probate nor bail business will be transacted in Judge Langley's department, as the new officers take their seats on Monday next and the judge wishes to render his decision tomorrow.
John B. Hart opened in behalf of Mr. Moyer, arguing that election officers must comply with certain mandatory provisions of law, and that if these provisions were not complied with the ballots should be void, and should not be counted either by the election officers or upon the inspection of the ballots. Among these provisions is one that all votes which have not the election stamp and the initials of at least one of the election judges on the back shall be void. On this ground he urged that all votes cast in the precincts of Franklin and Houghton should be thrown out, and that fifty votes cast for Moyer and forty-six for Van de Vanter in other precincts should be voided. If the law were so construed, he claimed Moyer would receive 4,304 votes and Van de Vanter 4,123, giving Moyer a plurality of 181.
W. R. Gay, representing Mr. Van de Vanter, argued that the contest rested on hair-splitting technicalities. By the recount, he said, only some 500 ballots had been rejected for double marking rather than the 5,000 claimed. He contended that throwing out whole precincts because an inspector wrote his full name instead of initials would let a handful of careless officers defeat the will of the people, and that on a fair count Van de Vanter held a plurality. Richard Winsor, leading counsel for Moyer, closed with a painstaking analysis of the recount, insisting that the letter of the law protecting ballot purity should be held sacred. Judge Langley took the cases under advisement and will probably announce the result Saturday morning.
“If the will of the people is to prevail, Van de Vanter is elected.”
A century before hanging chads and 'stop the count,' Seattle was already litigating whether a stray initial on a ballot should void a vote — and whether protecting ballot integrity or honoring 'the will of the people' mattered more. The fight over King County's sheriff and coroner turned on exactly the questions that still decide close elections today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.