FATHER CLAUSE.
As to woman suffrage, see that title.
See CITIZEN; RESIDENCE; NATURALIZATION; DOMICIL.
Elections must be held at the time and .place required by law. Legislative or con stitutional provisions on this questior are mandatory ; Chase v. Miller, 41 Pa. 403; Opinion of the Judges, 30 Conn. 591; and votes cast by soldiers in the field, outside of the state, under a statute permitting it,' are not valid, when the constitution requires a citizen to vote at his place of residence. In the absence of any constitutional provision a statute providing that soldiers in service may vote is valid ; Morrison v. Springer, 15 Ia. 304.
A soldier making his permanent residence at a soldiers' home does not thereby acquire a right to vote in the precinct where the in stitution is situated ; Powell v. Spackman, 7 Idaho 692, 65 Pac. 503, 54 L. R. A. 378.
If polls are moved to a place not author ized, the election becomes void ; Melvin's Case, 68 Pa. 333; if the polls are not kept open as required by law, the election will be Set aside, if enough votes were thereby ex cluded to change or render doubtful the re sult ; Knowles v. Yates, 31 Cal. 82 ; Melvin's Case, 68 Pa. 333; but see State v. Smith, 4 Wash. 661, 30 Pac. 1064 ; but it is doubtful whether a few minutes' delay in opening the polls will avoid an election ; 5 Eng. El. Cas. 387; 4 id. 378. Closing polls too soon; Cle land v. Porter, 74 III. 76, 24 Am. Rep. 273: or during the dinner hour will not vitiate the election ; Fry v. Booth, 19 Ohio St. 25. But the casting of enough votes after the proper hour for closing to change the result %vill; Contested Election of Locust Ward, 4 Pa. L. J. 341. See 3 Cong. El. Cas. 564.
Generally speaking, notice is essential to . the validity of an election; McCrary, Elect. 87; and all qualified voters who absent themselves from an election duly called are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting, even though only a minority of those entitled to vote really do vote ; Walker v. Oswald, 68 Md. 146, 11 Atl. 711; but formalities or even the absence of notice may be dispensed with, where there has been an actual election by the people ; Dishon v. Smith, 10 Ia. 212. See Seymour v. Tacoma, 6 Wash. 427, 33 Pac. 1059; Woodward v. Sanitary Dist., 99 Cal. 554, 34 Pac. 239; but it would seem that, if by a default of notice, enough voters were deprived of a chance to vote, to change the result, the election would be void; McCrary, Elect. 88. The fact that an order providing for an election of the hoard of education was passed by less than a quorum of the board, does not affect the validity of the election, where it is held at the time provid ed by statute and there is no statute provi sion requiring the order to be made ; Acker man v. Haenck, 147 III. 514, 35 N. E. 381. In California, in a much considered case, it was held that voters must take notice of general electioni prescribed by law, and in such cases provisions of the laws as to no tice are merely directory ; but that in elec tions to fill vacancies, the requirements as to notice must be fully complied with; People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 49, 70 Am. Dec. 754. In
this Case it wa's further held that, without statutory regulations, no election can be held. See also People v. Martin, 12 Cal. 409 ; Com. v. Smith, 132 Mass. 289 ; City of Lafa Tette v. State, 69 Ind. 218 ; Jones v. Gridley, 20 Kan. 584; Bolton v. Good, 41 N. J. L. 296; People v. Crissey, 91 N. Y. 616. An election to fill a vacancy cannot be held where such vacancy did not occur long enough before the election to enable due notice to be given; Beal v. Ray, 17 Ind. 554; People v. Martin, 12 Cal. 409. A failure to give more than three days' notice may not be fatal to the election, if there was full knowledge thereof and a full vote ; State v. Carroll, 17 R. I. 591, 24 Atl. 835.
Slight irregularities in the manner of con ducting elections, if not fraudulent, will not avoid an election; Paine, Elect. 502. For in stance, the presence of one of the candidates in the room where the election was held, and the fact that he intermeddled with the bal lots, was held not to vitiate the poll, there not appearing to have been any actual fraud; Bright. Elect. Cas. 268. Irregularities which do not tend to affect results, will not defeat the will of the majority ; Juker v. Corn., 20 Pa. 493. Where a special election was not called by legal authority, the fact that the people voted for the several candidates, will not render the election valid ; People v. Palmer, 91 Mich. 283, 51 N. W. 999.
A majority of voters is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment, by a popular vote, but it will be presumed that the num ber of those who voted is the number of the qualified voters ; 22 Albs L. J. 147 ; see as to the latter point, St. Joseph Township v. Rog ers, 16 Wall. (II. S.) 644, 21 L. Ed. 328. But there may be a constitutional or statutory method prescribed for ascertaining a ma jority, in which case the presumption stated does not apply. Thus, in Delaware, a major ity to determine whether a constitutional convention shall be called is to be ascertain ed by the highest vote cast at any one of the last three preceding elections ; Const. 1831.
As to whether, when the person receiving the highest number of votes is ineligible, the person receiving the next highest num ber of votes is thereby elected : In England it is held that the second highest is elected only when it is affirmatively shown that the voters for the candidate highest in votes had such actual knowledge of his ineligibility that they must be taken to have thrown away their votes wilfully ; L. R. 3 Q. B. 629 ; so In People v. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451, 10 Am. Rep. 508. But in other cases this distinction has not been regarded, and it has been held that the election is void; Saunders v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 145 ; Sublett v. Bedwell, 47 Miss. 266,' 12 Am. Rep. 338 ; People v. Molitor, 23 Mich. 341; State v. Bell, 169 Ind. 61, 82 N. E. 69,