RAGLAN ELECTION PETITION

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22314, 26 April 1947, Page 6

RAGLAN ELECTION PETITION

IDENTITY OF VOTER WORDS ON PAPER SECRECY OF BALLOT SUBMISSIONS TO COURT (PA) HAMILTON. April 24. In a small community such as Ngaruawahia it was quite possible for a voter's identity to be revealed from the writing of the words “had it" against Halleyburton Johnstone's name said Mr A L. Tompkins, for the petitioner, discussing a vote which the magistrate Mr Patterson, had allowed as valid for A.C. Baxter but which petitioner asked the court to reject as informal. During yesterday's sitting of the Electoral Court Mr Tompkins said it was quite possible, with the number of persons assisting in the conduct of the noil that one of them might identify the voter and thus violate the secrecy of the ballot. Words on Document Sit Archibald Blair (examining the ballot paper): I cannot make “had it” out of this writing at all. I can read the word “pact.” Sir Humphrey O'Leary, the Chief Justice: It is possible to make “had it” Cut of it. but it is possible to make other things as well. , Mr T. P. Cleary, for respondent, arguing that the writer could not be identified, recalled that in the previ ous electoral case of Seddon versus O’Brien the words “too Irish” against a candidate’s name was held not to invalidate the vote. Mr Tompkins, discussing the paper on which a person had attempted to rub out a pencil mark through Johnstone’s name, said this vote should not have been allowed to respondent, as the voter may have decided to make his vote informal. ‘sThis case was not discussed by the magistrate who- had no note of it be ing questioned on the recount." When Mr Tompkins rose to make submissions on the case of a voter to whom two ballot papers were issued Mr Cleary interrupted to say that it had come to his notice that the voter concerned had been very perturbed by a report that counsel for petitioner, in opening his case, had said the case was one of a deliberate attempt at dual voting. Mr Clearv said he believed the published report was the correct one and the voter was present in the court and desired to give evidence as to just what happened. Mr Tompkins said that whatever the voter might say could not affect the Opportunity to Explain The Chief Justice said he was reluctant to deny a person the oppor tunity of offering an explanation. Mr W. J. Sim. K.C., said he had merely said that the case appeared to be one of dual voting * Mr Cleary: The word “deliberate” was used and . published. Mr Sim said he might have said that it appeared to be a deliberate attempt. Sir Archibald Blair said h e was corv cerned lest the impression be gained that if one person were allowed to volunteer an explanation any other person might think he had the right to a similar privilege. Mr Tomkins said the voter was entirely anonymous as far as the public were concerned. The Chief Justice: The man himself appears to know that he used two paP ers - ... Mr Tompkins: I imagine he is the only person who does x The bench decided to hear submissions before deciding whether the voter t.sed be called. Secrecy of Ballot Mr Tompkins saitl it was agreed that a mistake was made by the official, but tile voter had no right to till in both papers even if he did fold them to getner. The secrecy of the ballot 'Plight have been violated by a subse quent scrutiny of the counterfoils. No doubt the voter went to the booth intending to record only one vote, but when he found he had two papers he decided to vote on both ol them. .The Chief Justice: Might he not have said to himself. “My word, they have a new system now. You have to vote in duplicate?” When Mr Tompkins argued that both votes were invalidated by the motion taken the Chief Justice said any voter could cast one valid vote even if he later cast 50 inadmissible ones. Mr Cleary, for the respondent, said people did vote in unorthordox ways for a variety of peculiar and irrational reasons. “We have heard,” he said, ‘‘of a woman-who was accustomed to voting at a booth where there was only one table, but at the last election she came to a booth in Hamilton where there were two tables and she thought that it was necessary to vote at both tables, which she in fact did.” Sir Humphrey O’Leary, before the (court adjourned, said that if should be sufficient tor a voter to know that the magistrate at the recount had been satisfied that there had been no in tention to cast two ''otes deliberately. ‘We concur absolutely with what the magistrate found.” said the Chief Justice.