Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State Ex Rel. American Federation, Etc. v. Hanson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 12, 1949No. 34,797Published

1ConcurrencePeterson, Justice

(specially concurring).

Because I agree with the majority, it is with some hesitation that I add anything.

1. A voter is required to mark his ballot with a cross mark opposite the name of the candidate or proposition voted for or with some other uniform mark so placed. M. S. A. 206.16, 206.50(7). A voter is prohibited from placing “any mark as a means of identification” upon any ballot cast by him. § 206.17. It follows that a voter is permitted to mark a ballot for the sole purpose of indicating his choice of candidates or his will with respect to a proposition. “The intent of the voter must be…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Ranum v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
  2. Hiber v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  3. Elwell v. ComstockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  4. State v. SederstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  5. Hunt v. CampbellArizona Supreme Court · 1917

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API