Seven Votes Decide the Sheriff: Judge Langley Tosses Out Fraud Charges and Seats Van de Vanter

The election contest cases have ended, and the decision confirms the canvass of the ballots. Van de Vanter and the other respondents, after a judicial investigation extending over many weeks, have been secured in their claims to the offices to which they were declared elected, and so far as the contestants are concerned the searching investigation has been without result. The figures announced by Judge Langley seat Van de Vanter as sheriff with a plurality reduced to seven votes. The corrected vote for sheriff is Van de Vanter, 4,380; Moyer, 4,373. The official count showed Van de Vanter, 4,467; Moyer, 4,335.

The contest involved the question of who should have the certificate of election to the office of sheriff of King County. Contestant William H. Moyer claimed the right to the office by having received a majority of the legal votes, but because of alleged fraudulent conduct of electors and election officers he was counted out and the certificate given to respondent Van de Vanter. Moyer instituted the contest under the statutes for a recount and a purging of the polls of all fraudulent taint.

Judge Langley held that the certificate of election held by Van de Vanter was prima facie evidence of his lawful election and right to the office. The contestant had the burden of proving his superior right. The court gave the largest latitude for inquiry into fraud, but the evidence disclosed only irregularities and ignorance, not a fraudulent conspiracy. Many ballots had been challenged because of markings, and the court found that fully 10 percent of the entire vote was challenged during the recount. The law required a cross before or after a name, or against a party designation, but voters had placed crosses above, below, to the right and to the left. The court counted ballots where the voter's intention could be fairly gathered and rejected those with no cross or attempt at one.

The court also ruled that a voter should not be disfranchised because election officers failed to stamp or initial ballots as required. "It is easy for a voter to disfranchise himself by wrongful acts voluntarily committed, but not so easy for election officers to work that result upon him; and where he is no party to the wrong-doing of the officer the law should and will protect him to the extent of finding his vote if it can be done and cause the vote to speak for him as he intended." The constitution, the judge said, would permit no shift or device of legislation or action of election boards to trick a qualified elector out of his rights.

The recount showed a total of 4,380 legal votes for Van de Vanter and 4,373 for Moyer, giving the election to the respondent by a plurality of seven votes. Judgment confirming respondent's election and allowing costs was entered. A large percentage of the throng in the courtroom were friends of Moyer, and the announcement was received in silence. Attorneys for Moyer and Eames at once took an exception, and an appeal to the supreme court is expected. Mr. Winsor claimed his client was clearly elected. Van de Vanter's bond was afterward approved by the county commissioners and filed with the county clerk.