VOTERS’ INTENTION

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22313, 24 April 1947, Page 6

VOTERS’ INTENTION

ABSENTEE^ PAPERS VALIDITY DISPUTED COUNSEL TO SCRUTINISE (p"A.) HAMILTON, April 23. Authority for parcels of votes to be opened to enable certain ballot papers to be abstracted for inspection by the Bench was given by Their Honours before counsel proceeded to their submissions in the Electoral Court as to the eligibility of the disputed votes dealt with in Mr. Paterson's statement Mr. A. L. Tomkins, for the petitioner, argued in support of the magistrates decision that four absentee voting papers must be disallowed because only one name had been filled in on each. Mr Tompkins said that, as the regulations had not been complied with in that the deputy returning officer had not filled in both candidates’ names before giving the paper to the voter, the four votes" must be rejected unequivoC3 Mr’ T P Cleary, for the respondent, claimed"that in these cases the voters intention had been clear and there was power within the Act to admit such votes. The vital fact was that there had been no such improper action by any deputy returning officer as the writing out of the name ’of only one candidate and the handing of the paper to the voter. Evidence could be called from the deputy retu~ning officers in whose booths these four votes were cast—one at Cambridge, one in the Rodney electorate and two at Timaru—that the voter in each case had received a blank ballot paper and had filled one name after receiving the paper. 65,000 Postal or Absentee Votes This was in accordance with the practice lor postal but not lor absentee voting ana tvir. Cleary claimed that, as there obviously had been no intentional impropnetary on tne part of the voter but merely some "departure irom the reguiations on tne part i an official, tne voles snouid be allowed as valid. Mr. Cleary saia some uo.UUu persons hau east posial or absentee voles at the last election, including 500 tor Raglan, and tne ngnt or voting by tnese mechoas should be preservea to the jvir. Tompkins replied that, if any departure irom uie strict regulations were permit ted witn tins class of vole, it nugnt lead in ruture eiecuons to extensive irregularities and ultimately to great eomusion. 'ine issue coma not be ariected Dy the iact mat the regulations were iiuriuged not by a voter but by an official. 'mere were many otner cases affecting tne present petition in wmeh me electoral officers, rather than the voleis, hau not complied with the regulations, but that did not remove the obligation to see tne electoral law faithfully carricO out. 'i ne tour papers concerned were passed to counsel to scrutinise. Petitioner, while denying the validity of tnese four votes, aaxs mat, in event of their acceptance, one similar ballot paper in Ins favour snoulo also be included in tne count.

(Jse oi a 'lick Insufficient The use of a tick against a name was insufficient, to indicate tne voter's intuition, saia Mr. Tompkins, Oiscussmg a vote aiiowea by the magistrate tor Baxter. counsel claimed that such a marking on tne paper indicatea the inchoate suite of tne elector s mind, who apparently pieierreu Baxtei but may not have intenued actually to record a vote iu- aim. This paper differed from two others examined in the recount in v. men a uck was placed against one name, but in auaition the other name v.as struck out. iur. Tompkins mentioned that the recount hau levealed that there were four papers in which the candidate’s name was marked with a cross, but, as theie had been two such papers marked for each candidate, the result could not be affected.