Erasures, cancellations, etc., invalidate ballots. - Marks apparently made by voter in attempting to correct his errors, such as after making the cross mark in the circle or in the voting space endeavoring to erase them with a rubber or some sharp instrument or in other cases by striking the pencil through the marks so as to erase them, render the ballot invalid and no vote therein can be lawfully counted. People ex rel. Feeney v. Bd. Canvassers, (1898) 156 N. Y. 39, 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehear ing denied 156 N. Y. 686.

Mutilated ballot. Where two ballots were discovered to be mutilated by having torn from the bottom thereof stubs containing the names of certain of the candidates, and the stubs so torn off were found deposited among the stubs in the box for detached stubs, the court, assuming that the mutilation was due to the inadvertent act of the inspectors, held that the mutilated bal lots should be counted. Thacher v. Lent, (1902) 71 App. Div. 483, 75 N. Y. Supp. 732.

A ballot furnished by the State is not a marked ballot within the law, because of any irregularity in making it up or printing it. People es rel. Hirsh v. Wood, (1895) 148 N. Y. 142, 14 Misc. 377.

Marks in voting place made as if by some sharp instrument, other than a pencil, render ballot void and should not be counted. People ex rel. Feeney v. Bd. Canvassers, (1898) 156 N. Y. 39, mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearing denied 156 N. Y. 686.

Cross marks in voting space before words "no nomination" are marks other than to be used by elector for voting and render ballot containing such marks void. People ex rel. Feeney r. Bd. Canvassers, (1898) 156 N. Y. 39, mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearin," denied 156 N. Y. 686.

Writing the name of candidate for office already printed in t blank column for the same office vitiates the ballot under the plain langu of the statute. People ex rel. Feeney r. Bd. Canvassers, (1898) 156 N. Y mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearing d 156 N. Y. 686.

Where a cross with no name after it is put in the blank colu tended for persons not formally nominated, it cannot be accreditperson whose name is in the next column on the left. People er 1

. Morgan, (1897) 20 App. Div. 48, 46 N. Y. Supp. 898.
Cross marks in circle.- An elector made a cross mark in ea
the head of the Democratic, Republican and Socialist-Labor par:
made a cross mark in the voting spaces before the names of
both the Democratic and Republican tickets, but not on the S
ticket; it was held that the cross mark in the circle at th
Socialist-Labor ticket made the ballot void. Matter of Hol
Mise. 127, 61 N. Y. Supr

Where there are town election, and containing cross m Socialist-Labor ( name of the D Matter of Hol

Republican and Socialist-I rty has no candidate for ircle at the head of both t imilar mark in the votir -visor mus?

ffice in different lot. The elector which one of the

r. People ex rel. 23 App. Div. 201,

5.

ime office is inef

of Suprs., Nassauned 216 N. Y. 732; 170 App. Div. 364, r of Brown v. Bd. of Supp. 979; modified

ication," has a mark void, should not be u Co. (1915), 170 App.

written return of elecsistent with the indorseof Canvassers, Queens Co., dorsements should prevail 16 N. Y. 732.

it is not clear or apparent

t be considered on a recount.

Where the. (1915), 170 App. Div. 358,

andamus, cannot be deducted,

do, that inspectors could subse

or indorsements made on elec

n v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. ; modified 216 N. Y. 732. ginal indorsements cannot be debeen indorsed under an auxiliary and counted for all other offices. ffolk Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 364, 732.

poiled" at the original canvass, the it of mandamus to indorse it "wholly ded to the vote of a candidate, although in v. Bd. of Suprs., Nassau Co. (1915), : modified 216 N. Y. 732.

turn shows twenty-four void ballots and were eighteen ballots unaccounted for, and ballots by the inspectors contains twentyk, and it cannot be determined which of the ing eighteen void ballots, none of the ballots 1, Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. (1915), pp. 205; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

for another candidate which are void because space. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Div. 364, 156 N. Y. Supp. 205; modified 216 N. Y.

hree candidates for same office by placing voting when only two candidates are to be elected does llot or require the inspector to throw it out, but as to the particular office affected, it being impossible choice for the office. People ex rel. Feeny v. Board 56 N. Y. 39. mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. ng denied 156 N. Y. 686.

ing a split ticket does not place his mark in the voting the name of the candidate voted for. according to the lection code, his ballot cannot be counted. People ex rel. 07), 19 App. Div. 457, 46 N. Y. Supp. 701, aff'd 154 N. Y.

Where the name of a candidate appears in two or more columns a vote should be counted for him, although the voter placed a cross in the circle at the head of each of the columns. Matter of Fallon (1909), 135 App. Div. 195, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1061.

So, too, a vote should be counted for a candidate although crosses are placed in circles at the head of more than one column if the name of the candidate appeared in the columns marked with the exception of one column where no candidate for that office was named. Matter of Fallon (1909), 135 App. Div. 195, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1061.

Quaere, as to whether the court is empowered to declare a ballot void on the ground that, although legally marked in the voting spaces, the marks were given unnecessary peculiarities for the purpose of identification. Matter of Fallon (1909), 135 App. Div. 195, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1061.

Although a literal reading of the Election Law would seem to confine the court to a determination as to whether protested ballots were marked for identification, the court is not confined to a determination as to whether the protest was well taken upon the ground that the ballot was marked for identification, but may and should determine whether the ballot is valid. Matter of Fallon (1909), 135 App. Div. 195, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1061.

In determining whether crosses made by a voter in the voting spaces of a ballot were given certain peculiarities for the purpose of identification, the statute should not be strictly construed. Matter of Fallon (1909), 135 App. Div. 195, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1061.

Thus, where there is no extraneous evidence showing that such peculiarities were made for the purpose of identification, a ballot should be counted, although the lines of the cross were wavering and irregular or the pencil was used back and forth several times so that the lines of the cross were double, etc. Matter of Fallon (1909), 135 App. Div. 195, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1061, mod'f'd 197 N. Y. 336.

In writing a name in the blank column on a ballot a cross mark should not be used before that name. Rept. of Atty.-Genl. (1907), 555.

If a voter makes a voting mark in the circle at the head of a ticket and also before the names of two or more candidates on the same line on other tickets of such group of candidates, he must also indicate by voting marks in the voting spaces the individual candidates of the ticket voted by him in the circle if he wishes to vote for a candidate of such party or such group. Rept. of Atty.-Genl., Oct. 26, 1909.

Cross marks before the name of the same candidate for the same office in two different columns are to be regarded as surplusage merely and do not render the ballot invalid as a ballot marked for identification. People ex rel. Feeny v. Board of Canvassers (1898), 156 N. Y. 39, mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearing denied 156 N. Y. 686.

Ballots which show a cross mark before the names of opposing candidates for the same single office are not thereby wholly invalidated but cannot be counted for the office particularly affected by the voting marks. People ex rel. Feeny v. Board of Canvassers (1898), 156 N. Y. 39, mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearing denied 156 N. Y. 686.

Cross marks opposite names of two candidates for same office in different columns but not on same horizontal line do not vitiate ballot. The elector should be regarded as having exercised his right to select which one of the two candidates in the different columns he cast his vote for. People ex rel. Feeny v. Board of Canvassers (1898), 156 N. Y. 39, mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearing denied 156 N. Y. 686.

A ballot with crosses opposite two candidates for the same office is ineffective only as to that office. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of. Suprs., NassauCo. (1915), 170 App. Div. 358, 156 N. Y. Supp. 214; modified 216 N. Y. 732; People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 364, 156 N. Y. Supp. 205; modified 216 N. Y. Supp. 732; Matter of Brown v. Bd. of Canvassers, Queens Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 476, 155 N. Y. Supp. 979; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

A ballot which though indorsed "marked for identification," has a mark opposite the name of the candidate so as to make it void, should not be counted. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Nassau Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 358, 156 Ñ. Y. Supp. 214; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Return inconsistent with indorsements. Where the written return of election officers giving the number of void ballots is inconsistent with the indorsements upon the ballots themselves, the particular indorsements should prevail over the written return. Matter of Brown v. Bd. of Canvassers, Queens Co., 170 App. Div. 476, 155 N. Y. Supp. 979; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Where there is no indorsement on a ballot and it is not clear or apparent whether or not it was originally counted, it cannot be considered on a recount. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Nassau Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 358, 156 N. Y. Supp. 214; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Ballots indorsed under an auxiliary writ of mandamus, cannot be deducted, where it does not appear that there were marks or indorsements made on election night that would serve to identify them so, that inspectors could subsequently indorse them. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 364, 156 N. Y. Supp. 205; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Ballots on which there are no certain original indorsements cannot be deducted from the count, although they have been indorsed under an auxiliary writ of mandamus as void for one office and counted for all other offices. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 364, 156 N. Y. Supp. 205; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Where a ballot has been indorsed "spoiled" at the original canvass, the inspectors cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus to indorse it "wholly void." Such a ballot should not be added to the vote of a candidate, although valid as to him. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Nassau Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 358, 156 N. Y. Supp. 214; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Unidentified ballots. Where a return shows twenty-four void ballots and the envelope six ballots, and there were eighteen ballots unaccounted for, and the package taken from the box of ballots by the inspectors contains twentynine ballots, of which nine are blank, and it cannot be determined which of the other twenty ballots are the missing eighteen void ballots, none of the ballots should be counted. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 364, 156 N. Y. Supp. 205; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Ballots should not be counted for another candidate which are void because of improper marks in voting space. People ex rel. Brown v. Bd. of Suprs., Suffolk Co. (1915), 170 App. Div. 364, 156 N. Y. Supp. 205; modified 216 N. Y. 732.

Attempting to vote for three candidates for same office by placing voting marks opposite their names when only two candidates are to be elected does not wholly destroy the ballot or require the inspector to throw it out, but only to exclude the vote as to the particular office affected, it being impossible to determine the elector's choice for the office. People ex rel. Feeny v. Board of Canvassers (1898), 156 N. Y. 39, mod'f'g 23 App. Div. 201, 48 N. Y. Supp. 866, motion for rehearing denied 156 N. Y. 686.

If an elector in voting a split ticket does not place his mark in the voting space and opposite the name of the candidate voted for, according to the strict letter of the election code, his ballot cannot be counted. People ex rel. Wells v. Collin (1897), 19 App. Div. 457, 46 N. Y. Supp. 701, aff'd 154 N. Y.

750; People ex rel. Nichols v. County Canvassers of Onondaga (1892), 129 N. Y. 395; People ex rel. Onondaga Savings Bk. v. Butler (1895), 147 N. Y. 164.

A voter of a split ticket must place his "cross (X) mark" in the "voting space" before the name of his candidate. If he places the mark before the name but without the "voting space "the ballot is void. People ex rel. Wells v. Collin (1897), 19 App. Div. 457, 46 N. Y. Supp. 701, aff'g 154 N. Y. 750.

A blur upon a ballot, apparently caused by a wet or dirty finger, is not to be regarded as an erasure made or attempted. Matter of Holmes (1899), 30 Misc. 127, 61 N. Y. Supp. 775.

A ballot is void if there is any mark upon it other than a cross mark made for the purpose of voting. Matter of Holmes (1899), 30 Misc. 127, 61 N. Y. Supp. 775.

Marking ballot for identification. Where it appears that a voter after making his cross mark in the circle at the head of the Republican column, and wishes to vote for a Democratic candidate for assessor, made a single diagonal mark in the square opposite the name of the Republican candidate for assessor but discovering his error made a cross mark in the square opposite the name of the candidate for assessor in the Democratic column and the court finds as a fact that the ballot was not marked for identification, it should not be rejected for that reason. Matter of Baldwin (1913), 80 Misc. 263. § 369. Objections to the counting; disposal of ballots.

If objection is taken to the counting of any ballot or section, the board of inspectors shall forthwith and before canvassing any other ballot or section rule upon the objection. If the objection is continued after this ruling, the chairman, or if he refuse, one of the other inspectors, shall write in ink upon the back of the ballot a memorandum of the ruling and objection. The memorandum of the ruling shall be in the words "Counted void," or "Counted blank," or "Counted for (naming the candidate or candidates or the presidential ticket)," or, in the case of a question submitted "Counted for Question No. or Counted against Question No. -" as the case may be. The memorandum of the objection shall be in the words "Objected to," followed by a brief statement of the nature of the objection and the signature of the chairman or other inspector.

Any ballot as to the counting of which objection is not taken but which is wholly blank or wholly void shall be indorsed in ink by the chairman of the board of inspectors, or if he refuse, by one of the other inspectors, with the words, "Wholly blank" or "Wholly void," as the case may be, and this memorandum of indorsement shall be followed by the signature of the chairman or other inspector.

In each case in which objection is taken or in which any ballot is canvassed as wholly blank or wholly void, each poll clerk shall tally once in the place provided at the foot of the tally sheet.

When all the ballots of any one kind shall have been canvassed, the chairman of the board of inspectors or, if he refuse, one of the other. inspectors, shall carefully and securely place all the ballots of that kind as to the counting of which any objection was taken, all ballots which are wholly void, and ballots which are wholly blank, in a separate sealed package, which shall be indorsed on the outside thereof with the names of the inspectors, the designation of the election district, and the number and kind of ballots contained therein. The package so sealed shall be known as the package of protested, void and wholly blank ballots and shall be disposed of as hereinafter provided in sections three hundred and seventy-six, three hundred and seventy